BrianGarst.com

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

Education Archive

Monday

19

December 2011

0

COMMENTS

Another Government Social Experiment Crashes Into Reality

Written by , Posted in Education, Government Meddling

Kids may not be the smartest eaters, but they’re not dumb, either.

It’s lunchtime at Van Nuys High School and students stream into the cafeteria to check out the day’s fare: black bean burgers, tostada salad, fresh pears and other items on a new healthful menu introduced this year by the Los Angeles Unified School District.

But Iraides Renteria and Mayra Gutierrez don’t even bother to line up. Iraides said the school food previously made her throw up, and Mayra calls it “nasty, rotty stuff.” So what do they eat? The juniors pull three bags of Flamin’ Hot Cheetos and soda from their backpacks.

“This is our daily lunch,” Iraides says. “We’re eating more junk food now than last year.”

Consider this their first lesson in the law of unintended consequences. More on the head-smacking failure:

For many students, L.A. Unified’s trailblazing introduction of healthful school lunches has been a flop. Earlier this year, the district got rid of chocolate and strawberry milk, chicken nuggets, corn dogs, nachos and other food high in fat, sugar and sodium. Instead, district chefs concocted such healthful alternatives as vegetarian curries and tamales, quinoa salads and pad Thai noodles.

There’s just one problem: Many of the meals are being rejected en masse. Participation in the school lunch program has dropped by thousands of students. Principals report massive waste, with unopened milk cartons and uneaten entrees being thrown away. Students are ditching lunch, and some say they’re suffering from headaches, stomach pains and even anemia. At many campuses, an underground market for chips, candy, fast-food burgers and other taboo fare is thriving.

They can’t even serve a reasonably healthy lunch that doesn’t leave children retching, and we expect them to deliver a quality education?

Saturday

6

August 2011

0

COMMENTS

Bloomberg’s Lazy Initiative to Help Minorities

Written by , Posted in Economics & the Economy, Education

Chronic poverty, broken families, unemployment, low graduation rates, and high crime rates plague minority groups, particularly in urban areas. These problems are certainly not unique to minorities, but they are particularly acute enough to have drawn special attention from the political class. But worry not, as some rich do-gooders have come to save the day! They’re going to throw money at the problems:

New York mayor Michael Bloomberg Thursday unveiled a $127.5 million campaign to help black and Hispanic youths who suffer from staggeringly high unemployment, crime and poverty rates.

The Young Men’s Initiative aims to bring in policy reforms to “connect young men to educational, employment and mentoring opportunities across more than a dozen agencies,” a statement from New York’s City Hall said.

The three-year program will be funded jointly by private and public dollars.

Billionaire George Soros’ Open Society Foundation pledged $30 million, while the Bloomberg Philanthropies also donated $30 million with the remaining $67.5 million to come from city funds.

…According to a recent report commissioned by the city, the poverty rate among young blacks and Latino men ages 18-14 in New York City’s five boroughs is 50 percent higher than among their white and Asian peers.

Unemployment rates among the group were 60 percent higher and more than 90 percent of young murder victims and perpetrators are black and Latino, it said.

…Specific initiatives within the program include $24 million that will be invested over three years to focus on college and career readiness among minorities.

There will also be initiatives to restructure in-jail services for inmates to prepare them for release, and more than $9 million will on expanding an internship program to help training for in-demand positions such as paramedics.

“This is a crisis that demands a crisis response,” said New York Deputy Mayor Linda Gibbs. “Expressly naming the problem of disparities and aggressively fighting barriers is how we are going to begin to achieve change.”

The benefits of this effort will be marginal, at best. They may well help some folks, but it sounds like the last thing they are likely to do is actually address the “barriers” at issue here. Those barriers are, after all, primarily of government construction.

Want to help improve the high minority youth unemployment rate? Get rid of minimum wage laws that price low-skilled labor out of the market, denying young people of all colors, but particularly those of poorer, less educated backgrounds, from learning the skills and work habits they need to advance.

Want to improve education among minorities? End the government school monopoly which traps the poor in failing schools, penalizing them compared to the wealthy who can afford to escape failing government schools for private alternatives.

These are things that can be done to actually help people. But they’re politically difficult and require real leadership. It’s easier for those who really just want publicity to throw some money at the problem. It’s almost like they’re more concerned about looking like they’re solving problems than actually solving them.

Saturday

30

July 2011

2

COMMENTS

Government Monopoly Educrats Object to Children Learning Too Much

Written by , Posted in Education

This is the sort of thing you can’t make up, but given the perverse incentives of government monopoly education, it ought not be too surprising:

Even if [Khan Academy] is truly liberating students to advance at their own pace, it’s not clear that the schools will be able to cope. The very concept of grade levels implies groups of students moving along together at an even pace. So what happens when, using Khan Academy, you wind up with a kid in fifth grade who has mastered high school trigonometry and physics—but is still functioning like a regular 10-year-old when it comes to writing, history, and social studies? Khan’s programmer, Ben Kamens, has heard from teachers who’ve seen Khan Academy presentations and loved the idea but wondered whether they could modify it “to stop students from becoming this advanced.”

Shouldn’t the goal of teachers be to educate students? Shouldn’t student advancement be seen as a good thing? Obviously, it should. But the sad reality is that the goal of government monopoly schools is not education, it’s subsistence. Their objective is to keep the government money coming and the teachers employed, and once all that is accomplished, they might then bother themselves to teach the children a thing or two.

Markets, unlike government monopolies, align the interests of the educators with the children. If schools had to compete for students, and their dollars, then they wouldn’t be able to get away with bemoaning the fact that some children are becoming too advanced, they would cheer it.

(Hat-tip: Andrew Coulson on Cato@Liberty)

Tuesday

7

June 2011

0

COMMENTS

California Schools Getting All Up in Your Business

Written by , Posted in Big Government, Education, Health Care, Welfare & Entitlements

How much private information should you have to hand over to enroll your student in a government monopoly school? Roseville, California apparently thinks it should be a lot:

Parents hoping to enrol their children in the Dry Creek School District have to complete an application form that asks if their child was delivered naturally or by caesarean section.

Those mothers who tick the ‘C-section’ option are then asked to explain why the procedure was performed.

…I really don’t feel think the school asking if the child was delivered vaginally or by C-Section is appropriate,’ a mother of two identified as Heather told the local CBS13 station.‘What’s next? This is an invasion of our privacy,’ she said.

Heather said she had asked the school to explain their reasoning behind the invasive questions, but had yet to receive a reply.

According to the article, the school has offered no explanation for its line of questioning. My guess is that it’s due to research which indicates that traveling through the birth canal exposes newborns to bacteria which builds up their immune systems.

But that fact ought not justify this inquiry. While the manner of a child’s birth might indicate susceptibility to certain conditions, they can be observed directly. Simply ask about what actual health conditions the child has, and that should be sufficient.

Finally, two things occur to me from this story. 1) Almost anything can be connected to health in same way, and so the more interest government is given in your health, the more it will seek to acquire such private information. 2) If schools were not under monopoly control of the government, they would have to be more responsive in explaining things like this (and no doubt less likely to try and get such information in the first place), and would not so easily get away with brushing off parents.

 

Saturday

4

June 2011

5

COMMENTS

There's Nothing Unhealthy About Competition

Written by , Posted in Education

Political Correctness run amok in Kentucky:

School districts in Kentucky are beginning to move away from naming valedictorians for graduating classes.

Instead, districts such as the one in Bullitt County have plans to de-emphasize what could be seen as unhealthy competition and recognize all high achievers.

Most everything in life is competition. We compete for jobs. We compete for status. We compete for love. We compete for fun. In many ways, competition seems paramount in human existence – or for life in general, really. Competition is not unhealthy – though like anything in life, it can be done in an unhealthy way. But I don’t see much argument that a simple ranking is an unhealthy form of competition. And what is the purpose of school if it excludes opportunities for learning about something so fundamental?

Moreover, this may also harm the ability of top performing students to get into the universities of their choice, another aspect of life that is unquestionably competitive. All around, just another example of silly political correctness overwhelming good sense.

Friday

6

May 2011

1

COMMENTS

Department of Education Wants More Students Falsely Convicted of Sexual Harassment

Written by , Posted in Education, The Courts, Criminal Justice & Tort

Does the headline sound preposterous? Well, that’s exactly what will happen in response to this:

In a “Dear Colleague” letter sent to colleges and universities in April, Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Russlynn Ali announced new federal regulations publicly funded schools must employ to address allegations of sexual harassment and sexual violence.

The new standards most notably lower the burden of proof to prosecute.

“[I]n order for a school’s grievance procedures to be consistent with Title IX standards, the school must use a preponderance of the evidence standard (i.e., it is more likely than not that sexual harassment or violence occurred),” Ali wrote.

FIRE responds:

“The Office for Civil Rights’ unilateral revision of campus codes across the country is unquestionably unjust. Students accused of serious crimes like rape should not be tried under the same standard of proof used for a parking ticket,” said FIRE President Greg Lukianoff. “OCR is proceeding from the fallacy that reducing protections for the accused will somehow increase justice. This is a dangerous and wrongheaded idea that will undermine the accuracy and reliability of the findings of campus courts.”

Indeed.

“Preponderance of evidence” standards are not used in criminal proceedings for a reason. And while these are not strictly speaking criminal preceedings, they have far more in common with such than the civil action cited by DoE as justification in their letter. Courts have specifically found that use of a preponderance of evidence standard can violate Due Process when the repercussions are serious enough, such as when states use it as a justification to deprive parents of custody of their children. What happens to a student “convicted” of sexual harassment in a college is not as bad as losing custody of a child, but it will have severe and lasting repercussions for that individual. Depriving a student of their education and good name should thus, at the least, require the more onerous of the civil tests, clear and convincing evidence.

In addition to lowering the standard of proof, DoE is taking the unusual stance that accusers should get multiple bites at the apple. They demand that any appeals process must allow both parties to appeal a verdict, rather than the typical practice of reserving such protections for defendants, so that they do not have to repeatedly defend themselves from the same charge:

OCR strongly discourages schools from allowing the parties personally to question or cross-examine each other during the hearing. Allowing an alleged perpetrator to question an alleged victim directly may be traumatic or intimidating, thereby possibly escalating or perpetuating a hostile environment. OCR also recommends that schools provide an appeals process. If a school provides for appeal of the findings or remedy, it must do so for both parties. Schools must maintain documentation of all proceedings, which may include written findings of facts, transcripts, or audio recordings.

They also wish to deny defendants (who they repeatedly refer to with the more inflammatory “alleged perpetrator”) their normal right to confront accusers (which they again tellingly call “alleged victims”).

This system clearly eschews the normal American disposition toward favoring the rights of the defendants, and instead stacks the deck in favor of the accusers. It’s the Mike Nifonging of campus sexual harassment enforcement, and should serve as a warning to any entity considering accepting federal dollars.

Friday

19

November 2010

0

COMMENTS

Rethinking Tenure

Written by , Posted in Education, Free Markets

I’ll let this article by Naomi Schaefer Riley at the WSJ mostly speak for itself:

…[The Franklin W. Olin] is showing what’s possible when a school sheds tenure, one of the most antiquated and counterproductive employment policies in the American economy. Instituted at a time when people in most professions remained in the same job for life, tenure today is an economic anomaly. The policy protects laziness and incompetence—and rewards often obscure research rather than good teaching.

F.W. Olin was an engineer and industrialist who amassed a fortune from a variety of manufacturing enterprises in the early 20th century. In 1938, he transferred much of his wealth to a foundation that bore his name, and, for the next 50 years or so, the foundation supported higher education on more than 50 campuses across the country.

…Olin students—a significant number of whom turn down more prestigious schools like MIT, Stanford and Berkeley partly because of Olin’s significantly lower tuition—take a variety of liberal arts courses as part of their general curriculum, as well as courses at Babson College, a business school adjacent to their own. During senior year, they work with a local company as consultants for an engineering project.

Some have worked on products like a photovoltaic system to power greenhouses. Others have helped develop advanced robotic devices and medical instruments that will result in less invasive surgeries. Their school is ranked 8th in undergraduate engineering by U.S. News and World Report.

Mr. Miller says that promoting a culture of entrepreneurship has been especially important. Like entrepreneurs, “engineers are people who envision things that have never been and do whatever it takes to make them happen,” he says.

Olin’s trustees put some structures in place to keep that entrepreneurial culture strong. In addition to the lack of tenure, the entire curriculum must be re-evaluated every seven years. There are no formal departments.

…Though Olin doesn’t offer lifetime employment, the school’s vision has been appealing enough to attract an average of 140 applicants for every faculty position. In all but three cases, Olin got its top choice to fill each teaching slot.

Mark Somerville left a tenure-track position in the physics department at Vassar to teach at Olin. “It was not a hard decision to make,” he says. Mr. Somerville says he has found that the lack of tenure has changed his teaching and research interests for the better.

“When one is on the tenure track,” he says, “the clock is ticking. There is a certain day on which you will have to produce a stack of papers.” He’s no longer worried about publishing a certain amount by a particular date. Instead, he’s free to pursue research he finds interesting—something Mr. Somerville says has been “liberating.”

According to Olin’s website, one of the school’s Founding Precepts is avoiding government entanglements:

9. The College to Remain Independent

The College shall remain a privately supported institution committed to supporting itself from private, rather than government or public resources. However, government grants from programs subject to peer review and open to other institutions on a competitive basis may be sought. Grants from so-called earmarked funds will be rejected.

Once again, innovation is found where government is not. Take that, Joe Biden!

Tuesday

17

August 2010

0

COMMENTS

Teachers Union Threatens LAT Boycott Over Teacher Effectiveness Analysis

Written by , Posted in Education, Free Markets, Labor Unions

It’s hard to imagine a teacher’s union making themselves even more despicable and obstructionist, but they’ve found a way.  First, the Los Angeles Times published an analysis on teacher performance:

With Miguel Aguilar, students consistently have made striking gains on state standardized tests, many of them vaulting from the bottom third of students in Los Angeles schools to well above average, according to a Times analysis. John Smith’s pupils next door have started out slightly ahead of Aguilar’s but by the end of the year have been far behind.

In Los Angeles and across the country, education officials have long known of the often huge disparities among teachers. They’ve seen the indelible effects, for good and ill, on children. But rather than analyze and address these disparities, they have opted mostly to ignore them.

Most districts act as though one teacher is about as good as another. As a result, the most effective teachers often go unrecognized, the keys to their success rarely studied. Ineffective teachers often face no consequences and get no extra help.

…Though the government spends billions of dollars every year on education, relatively little of the money has gone to figuring out which teachers are effective and why.

This is exactly what one would expect from an industry shielded from the competitive pressures of the market, and instead dominated by the influence of powerful unions.  In a free market, understanding what makes one teacher successful over others would be a top priority as schools seek to attract students by providing the highest quality education possible. But our public education system is more like a jobs program for union members, and it’s too much of a bother for them to worry about the little things like whether or not students are learning and why.

Rather than attempt to improve upon their performance and learn from this analysis, the LA Times reports that union leaders are threatening to boycott the paper.

The Los Angeles teachers union president said Sunday he was organizing a “massive boycott” of The Times after the newspaper began publishing a series of articles that uses student test scores to estimate the effectiveness of district teachers.

“You’re leading people in a dangerous direction, making it seem like you can judge the quality of a teacher by … a test,” said A.J. Duffy, president of United Teachers Los Angeles, which has more than 40,000 members.

Duffy said he would urge other labor groups to ask their members to cancel their subscriptions.

Measuring teacher quality based on student performance, how outrageous!

Saturday

19

June 2010

0

COMMENTS

Government Schools Invading Students Private Lives

Written by , Posted in Education, Government Meddling

I’ve lamented before the ridiculous overreactions of many adults when 21st century kids act like kids have always acted since the beginning of time, only using 21st century technology. Hysterical school administrations, prosecutors and parents have literally ruined the lives of young people because they sent to their peers, or received from them, racy photographs. Now, New York city schools think they have the authority to punish students for such activities, even when they occur completely outside of school.

Schools now want to punish students caught “sexting” — no matter where they do it.

The Department of Education wants to ban both cyber bullying and sexting in New York City’s public schools at all times, even outside of school hours.

…Not only does the Department of Education want to ban sexually explicit text messaging that students may do off hours on nights, weekends and summer vacation, but they also want to punish them for it, handing out up to a 90-day suspension.

Keep in mind that these are public schools, which makes them agents of the US government. Essentially, the US government is preparing to reach into the digital interactions of  children, judge the content of their behavior with other children, and then punish them when the government has decided they have transgressed.

Gee, I wonder what could go wrong?

Children are easy targets for government control

Friday

28

May 2010

0

COMMENTS

School Choice Before The Supreme Court

Written by , Posted in Education, The Courts, Criminal Justice & Tort

Reminding us again how important it is to place judges on the Supreme Court that actually adhere to the doctrine that the Constitution is the law of the land, another important case is before the court.  The Ninth Circuit wrongly sided with the teacher’s unions and others with a vested interest in defending education’s status quo of failure, but now the Supreme Court has a chance to correct this error.

From an Institute for Justice press release:

…This week, the Court agreed to decide whether Arizona’s scholarship tax credit program violates the Constitution’s Establishment Clause.  That will thrust school choice back into the national spotlight to a degree not seen since 2002, when IJ defended the Cleveland school choice program in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that vouchers are constitutional.

…The ACLU claims that the state, by giving taxpayers the choice to donate to both religious and nonreligious School Tuition Organizations, is unconstitutionally advancing religion in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution because most taxpayers to date have donated to religiously affiliated charities.

Mellor said, “This case is most notable for what it does not involve:  state action advancing religion.  Arizona structured its tax credit program to be completely neutral with regard to religion.  Neither taxpayers nor parents have any financial incentive to donate to a religiously affiliated scholarship organization over a nonreligious scholarship organization or to select religious over nonreligious schools.”

Newer Entries →
← Older Entries

About Me

profileI serve as Vice President of the Center for Freedom and Prosperity, a non-profit think tank dedicated to preserving tax competition and free markets. This site features my personal views, which are not reflective of CF&P.

Search Site

Categories

Archives