Incisive Comments on Education

There's an excellent post by Heather MacDonald at Secular Right.

Educational technology would be the solution to mediocre academic performance only if the lack of educational technology were the cause. Somehow, however, John Milton managed to learn Latin, Greek, and Hebrew without an Ipad, as did thousands of other children far less gifted than he; generations upon generations have mastered algebra, geometry, and the rudiments of historical knowledge just reading from—gasp!—books!

The most important tools in the classroom are self-discipline, perseverance, and a desire to learn (or, failing that, fear of the consequences for not doing so).

Our problems with education in America don't involve spending too little money, or a lack of technology. Check out the whole post.

Clergy Letters on Evolution

Back in 2004, Michael Zimmerman, a biology professor at Butler University started the Clergy Letter Project.

For too long, the misperception that science and religion are inevitably in conflict has created unnecessary division and confusion, especially concerning the teaching of evolution. I wanted to let the public know that numerous clergy from most denominations have tremendous respect for evolutionary theory and have embraced it as a core component of human knowledge, fully harmonious with religious faith.

He has letters supporting the teaching of evolution for different religions, which are then signed by clergy. For example, the Christian letter has 12,722 signatures. He's just started one for Muslim clergy. Here's an excerpt.

We, the undersigned Imams of the mosques, assert that the Qur’an is the primary source of spiritual inspiration and of values for us, though not for everyone, in our country. We believe that the timeless truths of the Qur’an may comfortably coexist with the discoveries of modern science. As Imams we urge public school boards to affirm their commitment to the teaching of the science of evolution. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.

It will be interesting to see how many imams sign up.

h/t ContraRarian

Worst Places for Schoolchildren?

I came across an article called "The 10 Worst Places to Be a School-Aged Child." It's based on a study by the South African-based Global Campaign for Education. Here's their list of the top ten worst countries for school-kids.

1. Somalia
2. Eritrea
3. Haiti
4. Comoros
5. Ethiopia
6. Chad
7. Burkina Faso
8. Central African Republic
9. Mozambique
10. Zimbabwe

Other than Haiti, it appears that Africa has cornered the market on bad places for schoolchildren. According to the linked article, the criteria include: "access to basic education, teacher-to-student ratio and a lack of educational provisions for girls." With those factors in mind, there seem to be some major omissions. Two countries that spring immediately to mind are Afghanistan and Congo. Is school-age education really worse in Ethiopia than in Afghanistan, which is not only ravaged by war, but has terrorists regularly blowing up schools for girls? And I know Haiti is bad, but is it worse off than Congo, the rape capital of the world? If I were forced to send my son to a random foreign school and had to choose between Congo and Haiti, I'd take Haiti in a second.

School Lunches Affect National Security?

It sounds like an Onion News piece, but there is a story up at ABC News called, "School Lunches Are a Threat to National Security, Retired Officials Say." A group called Mission Readiness: Military Leaders for Kids, claims that they have identified a

dramatic increase of obesity among young adults age 17 to 24 – a trend that is reducing the pool of healthy young adults available for military service.

They argue that healthier school lunches are needed in order to reduce problems finding physically fit military recruits. I find this line of argument both ridiculous and dangerous.

First of all, despite the supposed problems getting physically fit recruits, we seem to have had little problem filling the ranks of the armed forces. This appears to be a manufactured "crisis" based on nothing. Second, whenever someone advocates more government manipulation of the population, let alone children, for reasons of national security, that should be a cause for alarm. Consider this statement.

The reason school lunch reform is so key, Moore added, is that school is an environment in which "we can get to kids" and influence what they eat. At home, it's much harder to change these habits, she said.

"We can get to kids." I don't want the government deciding what my kids need to eat in order to make them good military recruits. How about if schools just provide a decent, balanced selection of food and let it go at that?

I also question another assumption behind this whole idea. Is there any evidence that school lunches have gotten unhealthier over the years? Were school lunches ten, twenty or thirty years ago healthier than they are now? I recall eating all sorts of junk food items when I was in school. Why are school lunches suddenly a big issue?

Throwing More Money Down a Hole

For an administration that pretends to care about the deficit, the Obama administration has no problem spending more money on just about anything. The latest is $900 million in so-called "turnaround grants" for schools. The money will be handed out to "low-performing schools that opt for one of four reform models." Because throwing good money after bad is always a wise move.

It has long been my opinion that one of the prime areas where we can slash government funding is in education. The role of the federal government should be to set national standards, not to bail out schools in states that can't manage their own education systems. Believe it or not, there is nothing in the Constitution about federal funding for education or federal control. It was and should be a matter for states and localities. Not only are we burning an ever increasing amount of money for little return, but we have created and are deepening a culture of dependence -- where the states can't function without more and more federal assistance.  I know this won't happen, but we need major cuts in federal education spending, not more grant money to states.

Education in Pakistan

What about it, you may ask? Why is this of interest to an American? You are going to pay for it, that's why.

The United States plans to spend USD 200 million this year on education in Pakistan, the U.S. Agency for International Development's largest education programme worldwide, it said. 

The idea is to improve the capacity of Pakistan's fledgling civilian-led administration, and to promote trust between the two nations, the report said.

And believe it or not, this is being touted as an anti-terrorism measure.

With a curriculum that glorifies violence in the name of Islam and ignores basic history, science and mathematics, Pakistan's public education system has become a major barrier to US efforts to defeat militant groups thriving in the country, Washington Post quoted American and Pakistani officials as saying.

Yeah, I'm sure the public education system, no matter how bad, is a main reason fanatical, extremist Muslims turn to terrorism. No doubt a U.S.-assisted curriculum will work wonders to solve the problem. Let's hope they won't be importing leftist American teachers to portray the U.S. as responsible for many of the world's ills.

This program is part of our overall $7.5 billion aid package to Pakistan. Apparently with so much money to give away, we just weren't sure exactly what to do with it all and decided to experiment. It's also unlikely that the Pakistani government, which was up in arms about all the strings attached to aid, would actually allow us to meddle with their public education in any substantive way. This is just more U.S. taxpayer money thrown down a hole.

Obama School Speech Missed Some Students

Since I have a son in middle school, when he got home yesterday I asked him what he thought of the president's speech. His response:  what speech? Apparently at his public school, only the high school students had to listen to the speech. Maybe the administration felt it was just too long and boring to inflict on middle schoolers, let alone elementary students.

Obama's School Speech

I just read the transcript of Obama's upcoming speech to school children. As expected, the president will call on children to be the vanguard of a new socialist revolution. Just kidding. It's pretty much what you'd anticipate from a president talking to kids in school, innocuous stuff like studying hard, overcoming failure and being successful in life.

My main impression was that the speech is way too long, given the audience. I know Obama likes to hear himself talk, but I'll bet most kids will start tuning it out pretty fast.

Students Who Study Abroad

The Times of India has an interesting story pointing out that India is number two in the world in the number of it's students who go and study abroad.  Here are the top five with numbers:

1. China 421,000

2. India 153,500

3. South Korea 105,300

4. Germany 77,500

5. Japan 54,500

21% of all "mobile students" come here to the U.S., more than to any other single country. China and India are the two most populous countries, so it isn't that surprising that they would export many students. But I'm not sure what explains the high numbers from Germany and South Korea. South Korea has a population of less than 50 million, so proportionally it exports more students than any of the other top 5.

Diversity Doesn't Apply to Conservative Views

There's an interesting article in the Christian Science Monitor by Dan Lawton, a journalism student at the University of Oregon. Anyone who has ever had much contact with academia knows that diversity is preached like a religion at most colleges. But of course diversity of thought, when it comes to expressing conservative views, is frowned upon. Lawton, who isn't even a conservative, noted that conservatives professors were in short supply at his university. He had the temerity to  suggest the following:

In my column, published in the campus newspaper The Oregon Daily Emerald June 1, I suggested that such a disparity hurt UO. I argued that the lifeblood of higher education was subjecting students to diverse viewpoints and the university needed to work on attracting more conservative professors.

His account of reactions by leftist professors will surprise no one on the right. For example,

I was shocked by such a comment, which seemed an attempt to link Republicans with racist orthodoxy. When I wrote back expressing my offense, he neither apologized nor clarified his remarks.  Instead, he reiterated them on the record.

When aren't leftists accusing Republicans of racism? That's just standard practice, as he found out. He writes of another professor,

From the disgust with which she attacked me, you would have thought I had advocated Nazism. She quickly grew so emotional that she had to leave the room. But before she departed, she stood over me and screamed.

Again, nothing surprising. Many on the left are shocked and horrified that anyone would dare disagree with their deeply-held assumptions and world-view. Those who do are treated as evil, labelled as fascists, Nazis, or whatever other term they feel like using. The old saying, conservatives think liberals are stupid, and liberals think conservatives are evil actually applies in many cases. As Lawton points out, he wasn't even advocating conservative or Republican ideas, but merely argued that diversity wasn't being well-served by the absence of conservative thought in the faculty. Imagine the hostility he would have faced if he were an actual conservative trying to advocate right-wing positions on campus.

School Strip-Search Illegal

Back in March I wrote about the case of a thirteen-year old girl who was stripped searched because the school thought she had ibuprofen, of all things. The case reached the Supreme Court, and the court ruled that the search was illegal in an 8-1 decision.  In writing for the majority, Justice Souter wrote,

school officials must have a reasonable suspicion of the presence of dangerous contraband or information that contraband is hidden in a student's underwear before "a search can reasonably make the quantum leap from outer clothes and backpacks to exposure of intimate parts."

That shouldn't be too much to ask. Resorting to a strip-search based on nothing more than an unsubstantiated allegation was way over the line. 

Catholic Child-Abuse in Ireland

Ireland's Commission to Inquire Into Child Abuse just released a report after nine years of study focused on "Catholic-run institutions." The results are highly disturbing and a massive indictment of of the church schools.

priests and nuns terrorized thousands of boys and girls in workhouse-style schools for decades - and government inspectors failed to stop the chronic beatings, rapes and humiliation.

Despite the endemic abuse, the people who participated in it will escape any punishment.

findings will not be used for criminal prosecutions - in part because the Christian Brothers successfully sued the commission in 2004 to keep the identities of all of its members, dead or alive, unnamed in the report.

The Vatican had no comment.

Dumb Idea of the Day

Tom Ricks wants to close our military academies, and thinks we should also consider shutting down service war colleges as well.  What's the rationale behind this radical idea? Not much. Basically he thinks it would save money, and that somehow future officers would get better educations in civilian schools -- a highly dubious assertion. The service academies have a long history of providing a solid core of officers to the U.S. military, as Ricks acknowledges. And they specifically attract people who plan on making the military a career, unlike ROTC programs. Any cost savings would be a classic illustration of penny-wise, pound-foolish.

As for the war colleges, they serve the purpose for which they were created. There are no equivalent civilian programs that I'm aware of. Military history programs are not exactly widespread among civilian universities, let alone programs that study current issues of military strategy and tactics. If there are problems with the curriculum and teaching at the service academies and war colleges, as Ricks suggests, those problems should be addressed. Simply closing them down would be stupid and wasteful.

Strip-searching Students

We regularly read horror stories caused by various public school policies, often so-called "zero tolerance" rules that produce incidents of incredible stupidity, as administrators put aside all common sense in favor of blind obedience.  The New York Times reports on one incident that has reached the Supreme Court. A thirteen-year old girl was subjected to a strip-search because school officials "suspected her of having brought prescription-strength ibuprofen pills to school." The appeals court ruled in her favor.

I'm not sure why the school is even appealing this to the Supreme Court. It seems like a pretty clear-cut case. As one of the appeals judges wrote:

“It does not require a constitutional scholar to conclude that a nude search of a 13-year-old child is an invasion of constitutional rights.”

Apparently the school had no evidence that she had any pills; they didn't even question her before subjecting her to a strip search, and she had no prior disciplinary problems. It sounds like they did a strip search as a first resort, rather than last. They didn't bother to contact the student's parents and get permission for the search, and just proceeded as if they had full authority to strip-search anyone at the school on mere suspicion. Hopefully the Supreme Court will uphold the verdict. It sounds like some school administrators need to be replaced.

Obama on Education

President Obama gave a speech yesterday outlining some of his plans for education. His proposals are covered here by the Washington Post. I was struck by the following passage:

Obama's speech, his first as president devoted to education, struck a tone of urgency at a time when public education is slated to receive about $100 billion in new federal money under the recently passed economic stimulus package. The money may give Obama and his education secretary, Arne Duncan, more influence in reshaping a public education system traditionally guided by state governments and local school districts.

That pretty much summarizes a huge problem with our education system -- it's tied to a giant federal bureaucracy that's spends more and more money, and gets less and less results. Spending another hundred billion of taxpayer money to have the federal government tinker with our educational system is completely insane -- I don't know how else to describe it. But let's look at Obama's specific suggestions.

Merit pay for teachers. Rewarding employees for doing an excellent job -- what a radical concept! This should already be the case, and it isn't because of unions -- something the government encourages, since public school teachers are obviously government employees. Good luck getting merit pay that's based on actual performance instituted.

National standards. This is something that in my opinion is a reasonable role for the federal government in education. 

Extending the school day. Unnecessary. How about spending more time actually teaching important material, and less time screwing around with various fluff? How about reducing the number of school closure days?

Expanding charter schools. A good idea, as long as they are producing good results.

Expanding federal grants and aid. A bad idea. Still more spending. Cut grants and eliminate student loan guarantees entirely.

Overall Obama's education proposals rest on the false notion that the federal government needs to take a huge role in education. But unfortunately that idea is now so ingrained, that we can't get away from it. We will continue to spend massive amounts trying to improve education, and continue wondering why it isn't working. Some of Obama's tweaks might be helpful, but no one should expect great strides in education any time in the foreseeable future.

Training Kids to fight Gunmen

MSNBC reports that a Fort Worth, Texas school district is teaching students what to do if a gunman invades their classroom.  The instruction, provided by "Response Options," that employs military trainers,  is teaching kids to attack the intruder:

rush him and hit him with everything they've got — books, pencils, legs and arms.

One of the trainers, British Army reserve Major Robin Browne recommends that 

students and teachers “react immediately to the sight of a gun by picking up anything and everything and throwing it at the head and body of the attacker and making as much noise as possible. Go toward him as fast as we can and bring them down.”

Naturally this training is controversial, but as the father of an eleven year old, I'm in favor of it. If someone comes into the classroom shooting, there's no point sitting there, being a target, and waiting to die.  Unfortunately there aren't too many places to hide in a typical schoolroom. As Maj. Browne says:

“The fact that someone walks into a classroom with a gun does not make them a god. Five or six seventh-grade kids and a 95-pound art teacher can basically challenge, bring down and immobilize a 200-pound man with a gun.”