Happy World Population Day!

It's today!  Whoopeee!

To celebrate, let's make sure there is far less "population" to celebrate next year.  Just keep people in the third world nations from reproducing, and it's gonna happen! We need to educate these chicks and give them "family planning services."

And it's working!  In fact, maternal deaths have decreased because fewer people are becoming mothers!  (Can't have a maternal death without... you know... being maternal and all.)  "From these latest estimates," writes Babatunde Osotimehin, "we can see that investments in improving access to reproductive health are bearing fruit."

"Bearing fruit."  Oh ba ha ha!

This dude is appointed by the UN to sit in judgment of who is getting married "too young" or having babies "too early."  Notice nobody ever messes with the reproduction abilities of a man, folks.  Men would not put up with that crap.  Women shouldn't, either.

Bah.  Now I'm not in the mood to eat the cake I prepared for this special occasion.  It had sprinkles, too.

Value-Added Teachers

I want to say first off that I object to mandatory testing. And I CERTAINLY object to people being classified by their race and free-lunch status. Shame on George Bush for allowing that pidgeonholing crap to get into the federal NCLB standards... and shame on a lot of other people. People ought not "represent" their race or income status when they pull out a number 2 pencil. They are themselves, and who cares what the "trends" show? Soft bigotry of low expectations notwithstanding, teachers and parents (um, not the government) should track the individual student's progress.  Can we quit the constant race and class comparison thing?

But I do think the LA Times is to be commended for trying to tackle the issue of teacher effectiveness with some hard numbers and some fair dealing.  It's accessed public information on students' test scores and used "value-added" scoring to assess the teachers themselves.  I'd highly recommend you read the whole article, because for once it escapes my ability to offer a snarky synopsis.  It has some real meat to it.

The writers openly declare the standardized tests certainly aren't everything, but they're the only reasonably objective measure of a student's performance across time.  They've tracked *individual* students across time, so there are no excuses for minority group and class-bashing we've seen in the past.  (Should I add here that I object to that data being available to anyone but the school and the parents?? I just did anyway.)   The article compares how children as a *group* (but based on individual scores) do on the test from one classroom to the next over the period of seven years.  It's at least a START that gives parents some information when they're comparing one teacher with another.

And yes, we know the tests are really not that objective in and of themselves if the tests keep getting tweaked.  And that a teacher or student can have an "off" year.  But it's more objective than saying someone is a "good" or "bad" teacher based on a couple class observations, as administrators are sometimes wont to do in the tenuring process. 

And yes, we know the tests are NOT everything.  But we also know that the teachers are pretty well roped into teaching as though it WERE everything.  So if a group of children in a given classwere to do more crap-tacularly on the test this year than last, what does that say to you about the quality of the instruction in that class? Here's more of what we SHOULD be seeing... more people who are at least willing to admit that their job performance needs improvement, like John Smith:

"On average, Smith's students slide under his instruction, losing 14 percentile points in math during the school year relative to their peers districtwide, The Times found. Overall, he ranked among the least effective of the district's elementary school teachers.

"Told of The Times' findings, Smith expressed mild surprise. (Not shock?  Dismay?  Ho-hum... I'm 63 and retire in a couple years?  Siiigh)

"'Obviously what I need to do is to look at what I'm doing and take some steps to make sure something changes,' he said."

If he means it, he's well on his way to being the best teacher he can be.  I think that's the mark of a true professional.  Not doing a good job at your workplace?  Make sure something changes.  Change what you are doing or find a new job.  But is Smith LIKELY to be given extra helps and supports, or other reinforcement to make sure good habits and mentoring would stick?  And did the school district care enough about the students to help "ineffective" teachers improve before the story?  Did they know which teachers were consistent underperformers and did nothing?

Hey.  We can't all be the BEST teacher or the BEST housewife or the BEST babysitter or whatever.  But I think it's reasonable for schools and parents to define what a good standard of *competence* would be.  Right now, the union has a stranglehold on this puppy.  They're even boycotting the Times for daring to publish the article! OH, and calling on ALL other unions to do the same.

Actually, I'd like to see some real articles... REAL ARTICLES... with more data on bullying, violence, school climate, college graduation rates and parent/student satisfaction with schools.  I don't just want to read about the testing because hellooo, that's only one measureable assurance of quality.  Um, did you know homeschoolers in some states either have to show measureable improvement or score in the top 40% or they are forced into public school?  What's the recourse for the lowest 60% of public school scorers on a given state test?  Because these are the kids who ARE taught to the test, who aren't exploring, say, medieval infantry for a whole year and waiting to do more intensive science NEXT year.

Oh.  That's right.  There isn't a recourse for the kids in public school.  But there are plenty of avenues that a teacher can use to keep her job over several years, even after it's been proven that she's remained ineffective. 

I'm not a "fire all the teachers because of a bad test score" kind of person.  But what has all this testing gotten us?  We have plenty of weird data (tests change) and really?  I'm sure a good plenty of districts shuffle kids around annually like ours does so that they can even out their test scores and mess up that whole "go to the school closest to your house" mentality cretins like me ascribe to when it comes to public education.  :)

No Facebook for Tweenies?

I don't doubt that social network sites can help mean comments spread and that they can cause drama at school that no principal or counsellor wants to deal with. But I don't agree that problems are "caused" by the sites any more than I think that I'm fat because I purchase large clothes.

There is (as if you didn't know) a lack of self-control on some teens' part, and there's also the fact that Mom probably isn't reading all their posts. I don't usually go on my children's accounts with the express purpose of snooping, but I sure would if I were suspicious of anything. Don't like it? Well, you don't have to use the internet or facebook, then, young man. The end.

But what if I didn't police the accounts sometimes? Strong language warning ahead, folks... What if someone, say, (hypothetically of course!) were typing mean things like:

"im sorry that you had to get the FUCK in my bissness. and take up for some pussy ass bitch that wanna get in my mutha fuckn bizzness. all i fuckin did was compliment her!!!! fuck off (name) and dont come over!!!!"

Hmmm... If your child were to see a comment like that every now and then, what should he do?

See, big people have choices on facebook. One is called the "unfriend" option. We can do this when we realize that conversations with this person will never be productive. Another option is called the "ignore this behaviour for the present moment, as it may be that she is under the influence of an illegally-obtained substance" line of reasoning. Still a third option would be to talk with another adult if one feels truly threatened. A fourth option, and one I wouldn't ordinarily recommend using on people who can't even spell their cuss words correctly, would be to respond in kind.

And finally, the fifth option: revert to "clay tablet and stylus" method of communication. Perfect for those situations in which your "string with tin cans" telephone is impractical. Yes! That is just what the principal at Benjamin Franklin Middle School (Ridgewood, NJ) suggests. What on earth would you say if you were the parent of a child at the school and received this:

Dear BF Community,

In 2002 when I arrived in Ridgewood Facebook did not exist, Youtube did not exist, and MySpace was barely in existence. Formspring (one of the newest internet scourges, a site meant simply to post cruel things about people anonymously) wasn't even in someone's mind. In 2010 social networking sites have now become commonplace, and technology use by students is beyond prevalent.

It is time for every single member of the BF Community to take a stand! There is absolutely no reason for any middle school student to be a part of a social networking site!

Let me repeat that - there is absolutely, positively no reason for any middle school student to be a part of a social networking site! None. 5 of the last 8 parents who we have informed that their child was posting inappropriate things on Facebook said their child did not have an account. Every single one of the students had an account.3 Students yesterday told a guidance counselor that their parents told them to close their accounts when the parents learned they had an account. All three students told their parents it was closed. All three students still had an account after telling their parents it was closed. Most students are part of more than one social networking site.

Please do the following: sit down with your child (and they are just children still) and tell them that they are not allowed to be a member of any social networking site. Today! Let them know that you will at some point every week be checking their text messages online! You have the ability to do this through your cell phone provider. Let them know that you will be installing Parental Control Software so you can tell every place they have visited online, and everything they have instant messaged or written to a friend. Don't install it behind their back, but install it!

Over 90% of all homework does not require the internet, or even a computer. Do not allow them to have a computer in their room, there is no need. Know that they can text others even if their phone doesn't have texting capability, either through the computer or through their Ipod touch. Have a central "docking station" preferably in your bedroom, where all electronics in the home get charged each night, especially anything with a cell or wifi capability (Remember when you were in high school and you would sneak the phone into your bedroom at midnight to talk to you girlfriend or boyfriend all night - now imagine what they can do with the technology in their rooms).

If your son or daughter is attacked through one of these sites or through texting - immediately go to the police! Insist that they investigate every situation. Also, contact the site and report the attack to the site - they have an obligation to suspend accounts or they are liable for what is written. We as a school can offer guidance and try to build up any student who has been injured by the social networking scourge, but please insist the authorities get involved. For online gaming, do not allow them to have the interactive communication devices. If they want to play Call of Duty online with someone from Seattle, fine, they don't need to talk to the person.

The threat to your son or daughter from online adult predators is insignificant compared to the damage that children at this age constantly and repeatedly do to one another through social networking sites or through text and picture messaging. It is not hyperbole for me to write that the pain caused by social networking sites is beyond significant - it is psychologically detrimental and we will find out it will have significant long term effects, as well as all the horrible social effects it already creates. I will be more than happy to take the blame off you as a parent if it is too difficult to have the students close their accounts, but it is time they all get closed and the texts always get checked.

I want to be clear, this email is not anti-technology, and we will continue to teach responsible technology practices to students. They are simply not psychologically ready for the damage that one mean person online can cause, and I don't want any of our students to go through the unnecessary pain that too many of them have already experienced.

Some people advocate that the parents and the school should teach responsible social networking to students because these sites are part of the world in which we live. I disagree, it is not worth the risk to your child to allow them the independence at this age to manage these sites on their own, not because they are not good kids or responsible, but because you cannot control the poor actions of anonymous others.

Learn as a family about cybersafety together at wiredsafety.org for your own knowledge. It is a great site. But then do everything I asked in this email - because there really is no reason a child needs to have one of these accounts.

Please take action in your on home today.

Sincerely,
Anthony Orsini
Principal, BFMS

Source. Would you go along with the ban? With all due respect to the principal, I wouldn't. I just wouldn't tell him so. It doesn't surprise me that all the "response" he is getting is positive and none of the adults are complaining. They know that there is no point fighting with someone like this. The principal can bluster all he wants about what parents should or shouldn't do in their homes, but his argument lacks persuasiveness. One thing that strikes me is that he's asking for parents to remove facebook accounts, and yet the letter plainly states that parents were unaware of the facebook accounts in the first place.

I see facebook accounts for people such as "tami powerranger" or the like, and you can figure out who it is by the profile picture. But Mom and Dad doing a facebook search for the kid? They'll never find her.

Cue the "Evil" Music

The NEA bursts forth onto the national scene to remind us all that they're really, really GLAD that there is a proposed bill restricting the use of restraint and seclusion in schools. They're really, really glad. No, really. And they've been working a long time with disability groups and stuff and are heralding this great step forward blah blah blah and et cetera.

Have you puked yet? I'm kinda getting the angry dry heaves coming on here. When was the last time they have "advocated" for any teacher who slaps, restrains, secludes and/or otherwise abuses a student to be FIRED ON THE SPOT? Hmm? You just wow me with that overwhelming evidence *right now* and maybe we'll talk about how sincere this press release really is. Cue the "evil" music:

“We must work together to ensure the safety of all students and educators and create supports that provide proper training for school staff,” states NEA President Dennis Van Roekel.

Yeah.

Is this the same "working together" on common educational goals that the staff at my son's elementary wanted to do when they continually refused to provide a one-to-one aide, preferring instead to seclude him in a closet for his "manipulative" behaviour? I'm just wondering.

Maybe I need to stop being so cynical. Maybe we really DO need to work together. But I'd sure like a little more power on my side of the "bargaining" table when we're doing that. Is the union just giving in on this because it knows some of its members are abusers and need clear guidelines so they don't make the union look worse than it already does? I'm just trying to think of what it is about this bill that would make it in the teachers' union's best interest. More money for training/ higher pay for "qualified" disability teachers? That's a compromise I could certainly live with if it means that children's civil rights are respected.

What's your take? Am I just casting the NEA as the villain in every act of every play? Could they actually just get around to doing something right for a change, because they made a mistake and did something nice that would benefit a non-union member? (Gasp! LOL)

Or... wait. Wait. Don't tell me. It's political/liberal stuff, right? Is treating kids with respect a "liberal" thing now? "They" own that? Maybe that's it. Um... the more I think about it, the more I think probably that's it. At least on paper, "they" at least know we need to be nice to people. It's a pity more can't be said about conservative leaders who advocate swatting with belts as a logical consequence for common misbehaviours.

Um... and that's the moderate conservative. The extremists advocate absolute parental freedoms and all (you know, parents "free" to abuse their kids with no repercussions because God put 'em in the family, so God must like what's going on). These folks also think schoolteachers shouldn't do that, though... because there shouldn't BE any teachers outside Sunday School if y'all are being GOOD parents and homeschooling, right?? Though if it happens in Sunday School, that's ok because of some verse in Romans 13 about the powers that be being ordained by God, so shut up if the Sunday School teacher slaps your kid...

Siiiiiigh... Or worse yet, on another blog I read about how it is ALL YOUR FAULT, Mom, if your child is sexually abused in church because of some verse in Deuteronomy. And um, the verse means that you have to keep your kid with you at all times until she is married. If anything bad happens, you are 100% responsible (not the abuser; you've just placed "temptation" in his way with that hot 7-year-old of yours and her wily ways... *barf*) because you did not tomato-stake her properly.

I'm not going to link to the extreme stuff because it's so brainless and authoritarian that any good Christian should resist it. (Really. Read Galatians sometime. It's ok to think for yourself and figure out what the Pharisees don't want you to know about grace. And I am beginning to suspect that some legalism is a cover for very sinful behaviour; that of CONTROLLING OTHER PEOPLE, whether what they're advocating is right or not.

And MOST Christians don't buy it; they really don't. Please don't confuse "I agree with you that families are important" with "I agree that parents should be able to swat their kids with paddles until they bruise and gay people should be burnt at the stake." There's kind of a jump in logic that the simple questions of, "Do you support traditional marriage?" and "Do you think gay marriage is ok?" are not going to tease out... a jump in logic that differentiates most Christians from people like Fred Phelps.

Though maybe that is NOT a jump in logic if you find gay sex to be an absolute right akin to beating your kid senseless with a paddle. (!!??) Nothing really makes sense to me... no one's viewpoint really seems to be consistent on everything, including my own. That line between freedom and responsibility to others can be very tricky to draw indeed.

I tell you, the world is a topsy-turvy place sometimes. Sometimes, the people we think are evil don't turn out to be *wholly* evil... and the people we think are our allies? Well, you need to look out for them because you just never know, friend, what tomorrow may bring.

I am ready for the NEA to do something right. I'm ready for it to earn my admiration and respect, even. I'm going to try to keep an open mind on things.

But even as I tried to contact my congressman about this issue, I couldn't categorize it properly under "Civil Rights." The fellow had NO "Civil Rights" button, but there were about fourteen different words for "abortion" (pro-life, abortion, etc.) and tea party protest/ tax helps. I hope that doesn't mean that civil rights aren't important to him and that he wants five times as many comments about tax reform than education. Just an oversight? Will he listen?

I have a lot of questions about everything.

Proposed Law!

Dare I hope? It ends restraint in public schools and gives guidelines limiting the use of seclusion rooms. Ange is currently in Washington, advocating. BIG hats off to her, because what she's doing is so important. I got the link to the legislation from her blog and want to pass the word on to you.

Will you pray? Will you call your senator when this gets up for a vote? This is big stuff, folks.

And dare I say it? The Obama administration is taking some steps we never saw under Bush. And Senator Dodd of CT, big thanks to him as well. I very much wish that we had some more conservative folks who would "get" that abuse in school is not ok.

Fer Reallio.

It's not enough to just provide equal access to education as outlined in the Brown decision. I'm thinking some of the early civil rights activists would feel demeaned, insulted and infuriated by these ideas:

See, as long as these children have homes away from the watchful eyes of the state, we all know that some of those homes have problems. Apparently, according to this report, people who happen to be black or poor or Latino... or people who happen to not acquire a certain number of words by their third birthday or live in a less "language rich" environment... well, these people are all at a larger disadvantage and have less "success." And how are we gonna fix that?

I was surprised that "make all children become white and upper-class" was not proposed as an answer in this report. Go ahead and read it. It's kinda funny in a sad, twisted sort of way. If only people didn't really read this stuff and think it's "fer reallio" as Patrick would say, we could all guffaw about it.

Well, maybe we will anyway. The paper *seems* to present the idea that we need absolute equality in education. Or else. All children must achieve identical scores on standardized tests under No Child Left Behind. But this ideal hasn't been achieved, even though our schools are nearly perfect! We wonder why! Excerpt with fun snarkiness in red:

"However, out-of-school factors (OSFs) play a powerful role in generating existing achievement gaps, and if these factors are not attended to with equal vigor, our national aspirations will be thwarted."

That's right! Our NATIONAL ASPIRATIONS (please get two people to agree on these so we know what they are) will be thwarted! Thwarted, I tell you! By factors outside the school! So to have a good school, we must control the family! The community! The economic system! The world!

"This brief details six OSFs common among the poor that significantly affect the health and learning opportunities of children, and accordingly limit what schools can accomplish on their own: (1) low birth-weight and non-genetic prenatal influences on children; (2) inadequate medical, dental, and vision care, often a result of inadequate or no medical insurance; (Yes, this paper *actually* sets forth nutrition and economic programs as a solution so that no one is born at a low birth weight or needs to pay out of pocket for a cavity, ever again! For education, you see!) (3) food insecurity; (4) environmental pollutants; (5) family relations and family stress; and (6) neighborhood characteristics. These OSFs are related to a host of poverty-induced physical, sociological, and psychological problems that children often bring to school, ranging from neurological damage and attention disorders to excessive absenteeism, linguistic underdevelopment, and oppositional behavior."

Now go back and read that last sentence out loud again. HOW in the world can you "bring" excessive absenteeism to school? And isn't all "absenteeism" excessive?

And, people. You don't think schools will ever be effective until "family stress" is dealt with? Methinks I smell some sort of ruse here. Schools will never, never, NEVER be able to teach well, because there will always be one family with "family relations and family stress" out there.

Talk about a copout. Talk about asking for a little too much control and money. But I'm seeing this linked in other places in the education blogosphere as though it... you know... MEANT something scholarly and stuff.