All parents deserve the right to choose

State lawmakers should approve pilot program to allow 4,000 kids in poor communities to escape failing schools

Opponents of school choice in New Jersey -- mainly teachers unions -- build their case like a house of cards, stacking each individual argument carefully so the whole thing doesn't collapse.

They say school choice -- i.e. vouchers -- drains money from public schools. They say private schools can't do a better job than public schools. They say public tax dollars shouldn't go to private and religious schools.

Piled up, it may look to some like a solid argument until you consider this fundamental principle of what school voucher opponents are saying -- parents and kids should not have any control or choice over their own education. They're telling parents, "Hey, we know what's best for your kids, not you, and your kids have to go to the assigned public school we say and that's it."

You can spin the debate a million different ways, and the New Jersey Education Association and now the Camden Education Association are trying to do just that, but the bottom line remains the same. These teachers' unions lobbying so hard on this issue are determined to make sure kids and parents in eight of the state's worst school districts don't have a basic American freedom, the freedom of choice, when it comes to education.

In this country we can choose what we say, where we worship, what we eat, where we go and what we wear. It's the American way.

When it comes to using public facilities, everyone has a choice. If one public park is cleaner, nicer and has a bigger playground than another park, people go to the better park. If one road is wider and better paved than another potholed road, people use the better road. It doesn't matter what town or neighborhood that road or park is in.

But with schools, we don't allow for choice, at least for those without economic means. Middle- and upper-class families can move where they want for the schools they want. The poor cannot move so easily. Thus, they have little or no choice with schools.

So why are the teachers unions so afraid of giving families in our poor, urban areas a choice? Fear, perhaps. The fear of failing schools being exposed when parents start yanking their kids out. The fear of jobs being lost. The fear that parents will suddenly have power and school officials will lose power. The fear of minority students coming to mostly white schools.

Those peddling such fears are aligning right now in Trenton. They're determined to kill bill S-1607, a pilot program that would give 4,000 kids from the state's poorest and worst public school districts scholarships of $6,000 for K-8 kids and $9,000 for high schoolers to attend better public or private schools in their town or elsewhere.

Our lawmakers, always looking for a campaign donation, need to stop cowering to the NJEA, which has made itself a champion of the status quo on this issue.

Guess what, the status quo for kids in Camden, Newark and Trenton stinks. Most of the public schools there aren't working. It's sad but true.

This pilot program, sponsored by state Sen. Raymond Lesniak, D-Union, is far from a panacea. It will not magically turn around failing public schools in poor communities. What it will do is offer a lifeline for 4,000 kids and open the door just a crack to a freedom that most parents in this state have, but those in poor communities do not, the freedom of choice. Far more than 4,000 poor families should have this freedom, but at least this plan represents a start.

Source






The War on Abstinence

The Los Angeles Unified School District doesn't want Karen Kropf talking to its students. District leaders fear that what she says isn't "balanced" and that she's not a certified "expert" in the field. Really, though, they just don't like her message about teenage sexual self-control and the limited protection of condoms. That, and they're worried about what the ACLU might say, especially given California's law against "abstinence-only" education.

Investigating Kropf's situation, I was startled to discover an alarming trend that has gone unreported: The ACLU and Planned Parenthood have teamed up in an aggressive campaign over the past several years-a campaign to pressure states to eliminate abstinence education and to reject federal funding for these programs. And though their work hasn't drawn much attention, it has been remarkably successful. A year ago, only four states refused federal abstinence-education funding. Today the number is seventeen. The goal is to get enough states to refuse the federal abstinence-education funding to the point where the ACLU and Planned Parenthood can convince Congress to eliminate such funding entirely.

All this is happening, by the way, as fresh reports arrive almost every month about the benefits of teen abstinence and the effectiveness of abstinence programs.

But first, back to Karen Kropf. For ten years now, she has been speaking at local schools and community centers. When she was invited to speak at an L.A. public school, she was always brought in as a supplement to the official comprehensive sex-ed programs. Planned Parenthood frequently provides the official version, so you can imagine why teachers were eager to invite Kropf.

Kropf would share her story of how she became pregnant at eighteen and had an abortion. Of how the child she aborted would be her only chance, her multiple Chlamydia infections having eventually left her infertile. Her husband would come to the classes as well, warning the students that he had contracted genital herpes despite consistent condom use.

By telling these stories, Kropf brought the statistics about condom failure to life. But her message was more than a scare tactic or a command to "Just Say No." She would clear away the common rationalizations that teenagers use when they begin to feel the pressure to become sexually active.

More important, she would paint an appealing picture of what the alternative could look like-sexual self-control, resilience against passing temptations, better avenues of communication, a wider range of interests, and, ultimately, the ability to make a complete gift of self to another in marriage. As Kropf told me that she would tell the students, for her husband and her, this all "led to the only gift we had to give when we married, . . . proof that we could be faithful." It's a message that students respond to.

Scott Cooper, a teacher at James Monroe High School, where Kropf spoke, first heard her nine years ago. He told me that, "in my twelve years of being involved in educating high-school students, Karen Kropf's presentation is the most effective abstinence presentation I have seen. Students listen, students are shocked, students are moved by the emotional pain Karen has felt, and students respond. Every time I have seen Karen present in a classroom (at least twenty-five times now), easily 80 percent of both male and female students choose to accept Karen's charge that they are worth waiting for." He was so impressed by her presentation, that he joined her board of directors a year ago.

Kropf doesn't ask for any compensation for her programs. Relying on community support, she charges schools nothing and has never received government funding. Still, some were not happy with her message-though notably not the teachers who invited her, the students who appreciated her, or the parents who wanted their kids to wait until marriage (80 percent of American parents, according to a 2007 Zogby study).

But in 2006, with the ACLU attacking abstinence programs, the Los Angeles school district told Kropf that although she had been invited by teachers to public schools for eight years, she had to stop speaking until she wrote a curriculum and received approval.

She complied and submitted a curriculum. And this past December, the district notified her that she was not qualified to share her experience because she lacked a degree in the field-and, perhaps more decisively, she didn't promote condom use and birth control. It appears that the district was afraid of violating a California law that prohibits abstinence-only education. The California Department of Education reports that state law "prohibits `abstinence-only' education, in which information about preventing pregnancy and STDs is limited to instruction on abstinence from sexual activity."

Of course, the school district had someone else coming in to teach about contraception-couldn't Kropf continue as a supplement? No, because all "classes that provide instruction on human development and sexuality . . . shall include medically accurate, up-to-date information about all FDA-approved methods for: 1) reducing the risk of contracting STDs, and 2) preventing pregnancy." Even a supplementary speaker to a "comprehensive program" must be comprehensive, as California understands the term.

More here






British government schools killing off literature

A shake-up of GCSE [middle school] English will allow pupils to study travel brochures or biographies rather than novels, the qualifications regulator announced yesterday.

Exams in English, maths, and information and communication technology (ICT) will undergo a transformation in two years' time. The draft syllabuses were released yesterday by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA), which is seeking feedback from the public.

Pupils will be able to choose between three English GCSEs, rather than the traditional two. As well as English and English literature, there will be a new qualification in English language.

Although this includes assessment of reading, pupils will be able to pass the exam without studying any plays, poetry or classic novels.

The QCA says: "The aim is to develop students' understanding of language use in the real world, through engaging with and evaluating material that is relevant to their own development as speakers, listeners, readers and writers."

It describes the qualification as an "attractive stand-alone course" for students who have English as a second language. This reflects developments in the school population, and indicates that the exam system is changing to embrace the influx of immigrant families in some areas.

The QCA guidance adds that the English language exam would be suitable for "those needing a language qualification at this level but who are not required to fulfil the range of reading stipulated [in English literature]". It adds: "It provides an opportunity for students to extend their own skills as producers of spoken and written language in contexts that are both practical and challenging."

Source