SCHOOL SPEECH TYRANNY RATCHETING UP?

An interesting email below from a reader:

There is a disturbing trend in public schools concerning free speech that you have addressed many times, but I noticed something in two of your posts that is very concerning. It is no secret that public schools are trying more and more to control what students say in school, whether it is blogged speeches or on a T shirt, but that control is now growing beyond in-school speech. I think you blogged about the high schoolers who were banned, and some even suspended, for wearing T shirts with slogans that protested their displeasure with gay rights events at their schools. One of the principals was quoted, "Living in a free society, people can't feel threatened to live any way they want to be. School districts need to be one of the safest, if not the safest, place for students to expand their thinking".

Controlling what students say in school during school hours isn't enough now. A while back you blogged about a school that suspended a student who posted a banner reading "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" across the street from his school during the Olympic Torch relay because they claimed it was a school-sponsored event and therefore the students are subject to school policy. Students have been punished for speech on their My Space pages that were created off campus outside of school hours.

I noticed in the Tongue Tied posts that both the Florida principal who had an *offensive* article physically cut out of the school paper and the Michigan principal who banned Huckleberry Finn ordered the students not to talk about the controversy even out of school. According to the St Petersburg Times, the Florida principal, William Orr, ordered the students not to talk about the article, and the Detroit News reported "parent Cyndee Push said school officials in her daughter's 11th-grade class told students not to discuss the decision." Both of these revelations were small throwaway sentences in the articles and not noted as indicative of the larger problem of censorship. (You linked to the St Pete's article, but I had to search for the Detroit article that I quoted) .

It is one thing to restrict speech in school or even at off-campus events, but to tell students not to discuss anything, much less a controversy about free speech, is ridiculous. When you blog about censorship in public schools, I think you should start looking for reportings of school officials telling students and families what to say and what not to say. I know that I'm going to look for that kind of censorship when I read articles about! censorship in public schools from now on, because I find that censorship even more worrisome than the original. It is one thing for a principal to suspend a student for wearing a T shirt that the principal believes is discriminating or a banner that the principal believes promotes a pro-drug agenda at a school-sponsored event, but to tell students not to discuss the event is a direct violation of their 1st Amendment rights. I really hope that this is the extent of this "trend," and it turns out to just be a coincidence. Unfortunately, I have a feeling that I'll be reading about more of these occurrences in the future.




BACK TO TRADITION FOR BRITISH GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS?

The cadet corps and the "house" system may be considered vestiges of Tom Brown's schooldays, but prefects, sporting societies and communal discipline could soon be making a far more prominent return. State schools are encouraged today to adopt the traditions of the public schools to prevent the gap between rich and poor growing ever wider. An influential left-wing think-tank has taken the rare step of advocating a return to some of the structures associated with public schools - including the house system and forcing young people to take part in structured and uniformed activities - to help the working class to gain personal skills for the 21st century.

The recommendations may be aired commonly in society's more conservative wings, but they have now emerged in a far more surprising quarter. The Institute for Public Policy Research believes that the young can no longer rely on good exam results to get on and that gaining personal and social skills will become more important to self advancement. It says that failing to teach these vital skills will lead to a widening social-class gap between rich and poor and make it more difficult for the working class to move up the social ladder. "We have looked hard at the evidence and children do better in these conditions," Richard Darlington, of the institute, said. He added: "We have to challenge some of the hippy tendencies of the Left on youth activities. Actually what works is structure, discipline, uniform and hierarchy."

All state schools should be encouraged to adopt the "house system" found in public schools and aped in grammar schools. "House systems are a good way to harness peer effects in a positive way. There are three main benefits to this approach: it ensures the pupils interact with older and younger peers, that their identity within school is not solely determined by their year or class and that they are members of structured hierarchies," the report, Freedom's Orphans, says. It adds that the house system would also encourage them to work collectively towards goals while breaking up traditional peer groups. All children aged 11 to 16 should be made to take part in two hours of structured activity in an extended school day under the institute's proposals. Activities could include martial arts, a cadet force or the Scouts - and most would involve wearing a uniform. Parents who failed to ensure their children attended the activities should face fines just as they are punished if their child is a persistent truant.

The report says that activities such as the Scouts and Guides can help to improve educational attainment, behaviour and personal and social skills. Mr Darlington added: "The evidence shows that wearing a uniform, be it in the Scouts or for martial arts, football or sports clubs, helps." The benefits of joining the Scouts or the Sea Scouts or cadet corps are, according to the institute, proven. Those who had participated in structured activities by the time they were 30 were less likely to be depressed. less likely to be single, separated or divorced and less likely to be in social housing. The report found that skills such as communication, self-esteem, planning and self-control had become 33 times more important in determining earnings between the generation born in 1958 and those in 1970.

Nick Pearce, director of the institute, said that there had always been class divides in education, but there was now a personal skills divide that was contributing to a decline in social mobility.

Source




Teachers warned off criticism



Teachers are being warned to watch what they write and say about students because of the risk of being sued for defamation. New South Wales schools have also been urged to closely vet student scripts for theatrical performances and postings on school websites, blogs or electronic bulletins. At least one former Year 12 student complained he had been defamed in the school magazine and threatened to sue everyone involved. Parents as well as students have threatened legal action over comments made by teachers or pupils at school.

Education Department lawyer Wayne Freakley [What an appropriate name!] has issued a warning to 50,000 public school teachers across NSW to be "on the lookout" for potentially defamatory material. Mr Freakley urged teachers to "always be circumspect in relation to comments - written or oral - you make about staff, students and parents".

The advice comes as anger has exploded in schools over new student reports which grade students on a scale of A to E for academic performance. Already some parents have expressed disappointment to their school over their child receiving E grades - a scenario many teachers believe labels the student as a failure.

While student reports carry a qualified privilege giving teachers some protection for the comments they make, serious complaints can be made by angry parents. Sources have told The Daily Telegraph teachers need to think carefully before using words such as "lazy", "grumpy" or "moody" when describing a child's behaviour.

Parents and Citizens' Association president Di Giblin believes words such as lazy or phrases such as "can try harder" should not be used. "It is very important when referring to young people that their self-esteem is not damaged," Ms Giblin said. "Try harder doesn't tell a parent anything . . . it is better to say 'needs motivating' or 'is finding it difficult to be engaged in work'. "Without wrapping kids in cotton wool we need to ensure that young people are given a positive outlook and are encouraged to move forward."

Teachers' Federation vice-president Angelo Gavrielatos said threats to sue meant Australia was "importing the worst of American culture". "It reflects, regrettably, that we do live in an increasingly litigious society and that is sad," he said. "All too often we hear threats of litigation . . . and what we are seeing imported into Australia and into our schools is that litigious environment or mindset that is so prevalent in the United States."

Source

***************************

For greatest efficiency, lowest cost and maximum choice, ALL schools should be privately owned and run -- with government-paid vouchers for the poor and minimal regulation.

The NEA and similar unions worldwide believe that children should be thoroughly indoctrinated with Green/Left, feminist/homosexual ideology but the "3 R's" are something that kids should just be allowed to "discover"

Comments? Email me here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site (viewable even in China!) here. My Home Pages are here or here or here.

***************************