Friday, January 15, 2021



Ignore the Teachers Unions and Open the Schools

Is your child's school open now?

Probably not—because teachers unions say that reopening would "put their health and safety at risk."

They keep schools closed by lobbying and protesting. "If I die from catching COVID-19 from being forced back into Pinellas County Schools, you can drop my dead body right here!" shouts one demonstrator in my new video.

But schools rarely spread COVID-19. Studies on tens of thousands of people found "no consistent relationship between in-person K-12 schooling and the spread of the coronavirus."

Even Anthony Fauci, head of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, encouraged schools to reopen, saying "close the bars and keep the schools open."

Heritage Foundation education researcher Lindsey Burke points out that studies in 191 countries find "no consistent link between reopening schools and increased rates of COVID transmission."

She says schools aren't COVID-19 hotspots.

"But it's logical that they would be," I push back. "Kids are bunched together."

"Positivity rates in schools are generally below those in the broader community," she says.

Closed schools hurt low-income students most because they have fewer learning alternatives. The privileged get around union restrictions.

Almost all of California's government-run schools are closed, but California Gov. Gavin Newsom's sends his kids to a private school that stayed open.

"Choice for me, but not for thee!" quips Burke.

Kids blocked from attending school suffer more than academic losses, she adds. "Kids are social animals. A lack of their ability to interact in person, see their friends, see their teachers, is really having an impact."

That's not a good enough reason to open schools, say the unions. In my video, one San Antonio teacher argues: "We understand that in-person learning is more effective than online teaching, but that's not the question. The question is what is safest."

"But that's really not at the heart of why unions are trying to keep schools closed," says Burke. "It's really a question of politics."

Definitely. Union demands include all sorts of things unrelated to teacher safety. The Los Angeles union demands: defunding the police, a moratorium on charter schools, higher taxes on the wealthy, and "Medicare for All."

"The Oregon Education Association…said they wanted the state to halt any transfers to virtual charter schools," says Burke. "There's clearly no health issue in a virtual setting."

It's revealing that government-run schools fight to stay closed, while most businesses—private schools, restaurants, hair salons, gyms, etc.—fight to be allowed to open.

Why is that? Burke points out that government schools "receive funding regardless of whether or not they reopen."

So, union workers get paid even when they don't work. Not working seems to be a big union goal.

At one point, LA teachers even secured a contract saying that they only are "required to provide instruction…four hours per day" and they will "not be required to teach classes using live video conferencing."

Nice non-work if you can get it.

Yet, the teachers unions keep winning. They will win more now that Democrats control the federal government. Congress' last stimulus package forbids any funds to be used to expand school choice: no "vouchers, tuition tax credit programs, education savings accounts, scholarship programs, or tuition assistance programs."

So, students lose. Parents lose. Taxpayers lose. America loses.

Unions win.

We asked 21 teachers unions to respond to the criticisms in this column. Not one would.

Their behavior reveals their true interest: power and money. Students come third.

UK: Headteachers claim live-streaming lessons from home is 'invasion of privacy'

State school heads who block teachers from hosting live online lessons due to privacy concerns have sparked confusion among critics who ask why educators can't just pick a blank background.

Headteachers claim live-streaming lessons from inside a teacher's home is a 'huge invasion of privacy' and takes away 'professional distance'.

And teachers' union NASUWT is strongly advising members to avoid live lessons unless there are measures in place to stop privacy breaches.

But many have asked why teachers don't utilise Zoom's 'virtual background' feature - or present in front of a blank wall.

Zoom offers users the option to pick from a set selection of 'sample backgrounds' or upload their own - meaning the user's face can appear in front of any image they choose.

Others have asked why teachers don't go into schools to teach their remote lessons from an empty classroom.

Chris McGovern, chairman of The Campaign for Real Education, said school heads banning Zoom is the fault of over-zealous teaching unions. He told MailOnline: 'Of course you can change a background. They are finding problems where no problems exist. 'It is teachers looking for reasons to keep schools closed as part of a political battle with the Government.

'Here we are looking after children's futures. It seems that for a very minor aspect of this problem they are prepared to sacrifice children's futures, particularly underprivileged children.'

He blames unions for creating 'an atmosphere of threat and intimidation' which puts pressure on teachers, adding: 'I don't think teachers should be seen as pawns in a political battle'.

Pauline Wood, head teacher at Grange Park Primary School in Sunderland, said she was 'at a loss' as to how live Zoom lessons could be deemed a privacy breach.

She told MailOnline: 'Teachers can set up their own devices in a position which suits them surely?

'If in school, it is no different from a regular lesson. If at home, choose a blank background.'

Militant teaching unions – which strongly urged teachers not to live-stream lessons last summer – said teachers must be able to choose whether to live-stream lessons or not and that it should only be used 'when essential'.

The National Education Union appeared to suggest that only pushy parents want live lessons, adding that the call for live teaching is 'often related to minority, but insistent, parental pressure'.

Guidance from the NASUWT teaching union even raises privacy concerns about pupils recording teachers' live lessons on their phones and uploading them to pornography websites.

The union 'strongly advises members to not participate in live video lessons to pupils' homes unless they are sure that measures are in place to prevent such inappropriate practices'.

School governor and former-teacher Calvin Robinson said he understands that some schools don't allow teachers on the premises to teach remotely.

But he said a different digital background would fix any worries about teaching at home. He said: 'It depends if they're allowed in schools, some have sent everyone home without the option to come back.

'I can relate, my mother's a lecturer and she expressed those same concerns, but she just blurs out her background.

'It can make people feel uncomfortable, but there are methods you can take. 'What I'd like to see is children back in classrooms'.

Mike Power, teacher and head of year in Manchester, said using an alternate background is 'a sensible approach'.

He said: 'There will be steps people can take to keep the intrusion to a minimum such as blurring backgrounds, even removing photos from a wall to use as a blank background if necessary.

'No teachers are sat thinking how can I avoid delivering live lessons, which at times it can feel like that's what people think.

'Teachers fundamentally want to teach as best they can in the circumstances.'

Last night, anxious parents demanded state schools ramp up live online classes as experts warned that a lack of real-time lessons threatened to widen the gulf in equality between state and private pupils.

Most independent schools and top-performing state schools have rolled out full days of live lessons via Zoom and other video platforms since the new national lockdown came into force.

But large numbers of secondaries and primaries, particularly in poorer areas, are relying on pre-recorded lessons, YouTube videos and online worksheets for their pupils.

Mark Lehain, director of the Campaign for Common Sense, said: 'Private schools had a big advantage: if parents can afford school fees, they've definitely got decent broadband and laptops galore at home.

'State schools couldn't rely on this. But the teaching unions were a disgrace, and made things a lots worse by telling staff not to plan at home, or that they didn't need to do online teaching.'

In a poll of 800 parents last week, almost a third said their children were not receiving any live lessons, suggesting that as many as three million pupils may not be having interactive video contact with their teachers during the lockdown.

A mother from Buckinghamshire told The Mail on Sunday: 'They need live lessons otherwise they are going to fall behind and may never be able to catch up.'

Leading educationalist Professor Alan Smithers warned that some children were missing out on their education completely and their life chances could suffer.

He said: 'Children want to learn in real-time and thrive by interacting and learning with their friends. Pre-recorded lessons are no way near to being in school.

'Not having children together in the classroom is increasing the unevenness of the educational experience and exacerbating inequality, and so is having this divide between schools that are offering live-streamed lessons and those that are not.'

Tory MP Robert Halfon, chairman of the Commons Education Select Committee, called for Education Secretary Gavin Williamson and regulators Ofsted to establish more detailed national guidelines for online teaching.

He said: 'Some state schools are doing fantastic work rolling out live-streamed lessons and I can't see why this cannot be replicated across the board. We cannot leave children behind.

'Children who are struggling and suffering at home need interaction with teachers, and live lessons make a world of difference.'

After schools were closed on Tuesday, teachers flooded social media with complaints that they did not want to deliver lessons via video platforms.

Cassie Young, head of Brenzett CofE Primary School in Romney Marsh, Kent, said: 'I can't and won't agree to my staff doing live lessons. The pressure, safeguarding and workload would result in burnout.

'Pre-recorded works just as well, keeps people safe and allows pupils to work at a pace that suits them, freeing up staff to support.'

She claimed 'professional distance' was needed, adding: 'Working at home and seeing inside people's homes feels like a huge invasion of privacy.'

One primary teacher in Manchester said that she 'felt sick' with nerves over leading live lessons, adding: 'The fact it's my home does feel invasive.'

Jo Campbell, headteacher at Ore Village Primary Academy in Hastings, added: 'I won't put that pressure on my staff and I have too many safeguarding concerns. Pre-recorded sessions are enough.'

In a poll of 800 subscribers to the Parent Ping education app last week, only eight per cent of parents said their child had received more than five hours of live lessons that day. Some 13 per cent said their children were in live lessons for three to four hours and 11 per cent reported one to two hours. Nearly a third (31 per cent) said their children had no live lessons and 11 per cent had less than one hour.

Government guidance says primary school pupils should have an average of three hours work a day, and secondary school pupils should have at least four, with lessons delivered by teachers through 'curriculum resources or video'

Parents told The Mail on Sunday that their children were not being set enough work. One mother from Kent said: 'My 17-year-old daughter goes to a grammar school and has live lessons on Microsoft Teams all day. My 14-year-old son goes to a comprehensive and has no live lessons. He finishes his work in half an hour and would be on the PlayStation if I wasn't telling him to read back through previous work.'

Another mother from Buckinghamshire said: 'My children's school is doing one live lesson a day private schools locally are doing a full diet of live lessons and after-school clubs with their boys.'

Paul Woods, principal of Westminster Academy in Central London, said his school was continuing with the full timetable, with all lessons live-streamed to all 1,100 pupils.

He said: 'Every child has been given a Google Chromebook and we are sticking to our normal timetable. We like having the real-time interaction, not just for education reasons but we can monitor our students' emotions at a time when things may be difficult for them.

'Teachers are able to see in real time how a child is coping and whether they are adapting well in these challenging times. 'It's certainly not a substitute for being in the classroom but it's the next best thing.'

Betsy DeVos’s Higher Ed Legacy

By RICHARD K. VEDDER

I have said umpteen times that I think the net contribution of the U.S. Department of Education to American collegiate life is negative—the average productivity of employees of that Department dealing with higher education issues is less than zero. The problem, however, is far less with the employees, many of whom are good people, than with the mission. In early 2017, newly elected president Donald Trump had an awful time even getting his Education Secretary nominee, Betsy DeVos, confirmed by the Senate: the vote was 50 to 50 (two Republican Senators voted against her)—with Vice President Mike Pence breaking the tie to confirm her, a first time in American history a vice president actually voted on a presidential nominee in the Senate.

On taking office, DeVos was already known as a strong advocate of charter schools and other deviations from the standard public school model, earning her the undying enmity of teachers unions. But she was not known for having any substantial connections to higher education, actually fairly typical, including President-Elect Biden’s nominee for Education Secretary, Miguel Cardona. However, she had a strong higher education aide in Diane Auer Jones, Principal Deputy Under Secretary, herself no shrinking violet with a somewhat controversial history, including years working in the for-profit higher education sector, which to some education policymakers is less honorable than, say, running a strip club or illicitly selling pot, an unfair perspective on the many good folks in that sector of higher education.

Yet I think Secretary DeVos has done a pretty good job, far better than her predecessor. I have known several education secretaries personally, some (e.g. Bill Bennett and Margaret Spellings) rather well. Mrs. DeVos is worthy company to them. Secretary DeVos in higher education will appropriately be best known for rolling back regulatory excesses of the Obama era, most notably the horrible 2011 “dear colleague” letter that pressured colleges and universities to address complaints of sexual harassment extremely aggressively, including denying basic due process protections to the accused in college judicial proceedings that have long been required in standard judicial trials within the U.S.

The current DeVos approved rules are far more reasonable. Some basic safeguards for those accused of wrongdoing, including the right to question one’s accusers and have one’s own witnesses, seem assured under the current regulations. There are some areas of legitimate controversy, for example, should college jurisdiction extend to off campus sites and incidences? My view is that where felonies are alleged as in the case of rape or sexual assault, matters should be adjudicated in courts of law first—college students should be treated the same as other citizens.

Secretary DeVos has tried to put some rationality into the federal student loan program, but that disastrous program is largely legislatively determined. Accreditation is another area of weakness, and again the Education Department is constrained considerably by laws imposed by Congress and the President. Two areas where some real improvement has occurred: students can access better information on college performance levels, and Congress finally has shortened the FAFSA (Free Application for Federal Student Assistance) form. On the whole, however, we did not see transformative reform or radical reduction in the administrative morass at the Department of Education.

Secretary DeVos, however, is leaving office with some good advice. She urges Congress to “reject misguided calls to make college ‘free’ and require the two-thirds of Americans who didn’t take on student debt or who responsibly paid off their student loans to pay for the loans of those who have not done the same.” She points out that debt forgiveness is regressive—aiding primarily the relatively affluent. She also urged Congress not to revoke her changes in Title IX (sexual assault) rules.

The Biden Administration and Congress will ignore her. It occurs to me that perhaps feisty ex-Secretaries of Education—think Bill Bennett and Betsy DeVos—should lead an education reform effort, especially regarding higher education—a Center for Collegiate Reform (CCR) or a Higher Education Reform Initiative (HERI). More “moderate” ex-secretaries—think Lamar Alexander or Margaret Spellings—might join as well, but I rather like the outspoken Bennett and DeVos leading the charge. I might even become a soldier in their reformist army.

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

My other blogs: Main ones below

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)

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

No comments: