SHORTAGE OF WOMEN TO TEACH FEMINISM

I guess they've got better things to do

The University of Washington is about to gain the distinction of having the only Ph.D.-awarding program in women’s studies to be led by a man. That man is David G. Allen, a professor of psychosocial and community health in the university’s nursing school, who has taught for years in the women’s studies program. Allen is popular in the department, and is well respected as a scholar, a teacher and a feminist. But his status as a man has created some fears in the department — worries he considers completely appropriate. “I think it’s a very legitimate concern and a concern I honor and want to work with,” Allen said. He said that until there is gender equity in academe, it is natural for many women to want to see one of their own in a position such as directing women’s studies. “When we have a level playing field, then it will become a non-issue,” he said.

Nancy J. Kenney, an associate professor of women’s studies, said she had “mixed views” on the appointment. (At Washington, chairs are not elected by departments, but are appointed by deans.) “I think David is a wonderful person and can be a really good administrator,” Kenney said. “At the same time, I am disappointed that there are no women who are seen as qualified to move into this position. Why not? Where are they?”

When Allen was approached about being considered for the job, he said, he sent an e-mail message to all of the faculty members and graduate students in the department, and asked whether he should go forward. “Not everybody, but almost everybody said that I should,” said Allen. So he decided to keep his name in contention, but not without mixed feelings of his own. “On the good side, men should have a positive commitment toward feminism, just as whites ought to support anti-racism. I’m chairing a faculty of feminist scholars doing outstanding work and my job is to make their work easier,” he said. “At another level, one of the things I am ambivalent about is that universities, because of our history of sexism and racism, have very few women or women of color at the upper ranks of the university. So when the dean was looking for a full professor with a commitment to the program, he had a very small pool, and that’s damning of our history,” Allen added....

Allen said that events involving the recruitment of graduate students may be difficult for him. All 22 of the graduate students in the department are women. “The students here know me, but those who don’t know me could make a decision based solely on my demographics,” said Allen. Kenney said that she too was worried about what message the appointment would send to students or potential students. “Students may look at it and say, ‘Oh, here we have a feminist institution being headed by a white male’ or they may say ‘feminists come in all shapes and sizes.’ “

More here





Leaving No Child Left Behind

States charged with implementing Bush's national education plan balk at the cost of compliance.

George W. Bush may go down in history as a war president, but like his father he also envisions himself as an education president. Conservative columnist George Will, pointing out that under Bush the Department of Education's budget has grown faster than defense expenditures, recently wrote, "Had 9/11 not happened, Bush's administration might be defined primarily by its education policy, particularly the No Child Left Behind law." And as state educators increasingly revolt, the Republican Party's education policy ceases to be defined primarily by its commitment to local control.

When No Child Left Behind (NCLB) first passed, it appeared to be a political masterstroke. It stands as one of Bush's few genuinely bipartisan domestic-policy achievements, clearing the House by a 381 to 41 margin with more Democratic than Republican votes. Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) partnered with the White House to steer it through the Senate. The measure promised liberals increased spending and focus on minority-student achievement; it offered conservatives enhanced school choice and tougher standards. By the 2002 midterm elections, some polls found that Republicans had virtually erased the Democrats' traditional advantage on education issues.

It was the political equivalent of the lion lying down with the lamb, but it didn't last for long. Conservatives soon balked at NCLB's exorbitant price tag and federal meddling. Far from being a "universal voucherization program," as one popular Republican blogger described it, the measure offered only very limited public-school choice. Liberals were outraged that it did not cost more, accusing the Bush administration of failing to live up to its commitment to fund the law fully. Senator Kennedy complained, "The tragedy is that these long overdue reforms are finally in place, but the funds are not."

But the biggest challenge to NCLB comes from outside Washington, as state legislatures and education officials resist federal requirements they say they cannot afford. The issue doesn't fit neatly into the normal red-blue lines. Utah gave Bush 72 percent of its vote in 2004, his highest margin in any state. In April, the Republican-controlled legislature voted to assign a higher priority to the state's accountability laws than NCLB; the Republican governor signed the bill, putting at risk Utah's $76 million in federal education funding. The lower house of the New Jersey legislature recently passed a similar bill.

Connecticut Education Commissioner Betty Sternberg was an early and vocal opponent of NCLB, arguing that its testing requirements are too expensive and that taxpayers "won't learn anything new about our schools by giving these extra tests." Many parents seem to agree. According to the Washington Post, "You go, girl," is a representative response.

One of Sternberg's supporters is Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, who is moving toward a lawsuit challenging the federal requirement that students be tested annually between grades three and eight and also in 10th grade. State auditors claim this is an unfunded mandate that will cost Connecticut $8 million more than it is receiving from Washington. Many local school boards have passed resolutions in favor of the potential suit. The Connecticut Association of School Superintendents also backs the attorney general. In late June, the state legislature closed ranks behind Blumenthal, voting to authorize him to sue. At this writing, Republican Gov. Jodi Rell was undecided about the legislature's action.

In all, officials in more than 40 states have proposed significant changes to the implementation of NCLB. The National Education Association (NEA) and three states are already fighting it in court. A standard complaint against the federal Education Department has long been that it makes some 50 percent of the rules but provides less than 7 percent of national education spending. NCLB was intended to use that 7 percent as leverage to get the states to abide by more rules still. The law creates new proficiency goals and requires regular testing to show results. Schools that are judged to be failing-i.e., leaving children behind-first receive additional funding but then are subjected to progressively stiffer penalties if they continue to miss their legal targets.

Not only must states strive toward the proficiency of all students by 2014, they must also provide data showing that designated subgroups of students-mainly minorities, students from low-income families, and the disabled-are making adequate progress. This subgroup category has contributed heavily to the controversy.

In Utah, for instance, Hispanic students test three years behind whites in the same grades. NCLB requires the state to work toward closing this achievement gap or be found leaving Utah's Hispanics behind. Standardized test scores revealed comparable discrepancies between Connecticut's black and white students.

But Connecticut education officials retort that the law doesn't take into consideration the state's demographics. Connecticut is a mainly affluent state dotted with troubled urban areas. Sternberg and others point out that the predominantly white suburban school districts perform above the national average, inflating the state's black-white performance gap.

The rebellion against NCLB has created some unlikely voices for states' rights. As early as the 2004 presidential campaign, Howard Dean was deploring the idea of distant bureaucrats-along with politicians like Bush and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas)-dictating how states run their schools. The debates in the Connecticut and New Jersey legislatures saw Democrats railing against unfunded mandates and federal encroachments, while many Republicans rose to defend their president's program.

The Bush administration has deployed Education Secretary Margaret Spellings, a former White House aide close to the president, to quell the grassroots revolt. Yet her strenuous defense of NCLB has often inflamed angry feelings rather than calmed them. She has compared recalcitrant education officials to children who need to be disciplined. In an interview with PBS's "NewsHour," Spellings said it was "un-American" for Connecticut to tolerate its achievement gaps between white and minority students.

The Department of Education's motion to have the NEA's lawsuit dismissed also contains some strong wording. The response says the suit is "no more than the use of a federal forum to proclaim an advocacy group's belief that states and school districts should be receiving more federal funds" and argues that "[s]uch advocacy is not an appropriate use of the federal courts."

But Spellings's angry comments belie her department's strategy of co-opting and accommodating NCLB critics through waivers and other inducements. Illinois was granted a waiver that allowed it to count fewer students' test scores toward its goals. School districts in the state will now have to have 45 special-education students in order for the federal government to monitor them as a subgroup under the law; last year it was just 40. This seemingly minor change cut the number of special-needs subgroups in Illinois from 535 to 394, relaxing standards for many districts. This means that state resistance may elicit greater federal flexibility, but not seriously jeopardize NCLB. Marie Gryphon, an education policy analyst for the Cato Institute, worries "that the state rebellion against NCLB will end with a whimper, not a bang."

"In Utah and elsewhere, waivers and backroom deals will replace the letter of the law and defuse the crisis," Gryphon says. "In the end, I think No Child Left Behind will become just one more expensive federal program that does not do what it was supposed to do."

Jack Jennings, president of the Center on Education Policy, points out that state legislation opting out of NCLB is still largely symbolic. Only when local principals and superintendents act under these laws by specifically refusing to do things mandated by NCLB will there be an impact-and this will likely be followed by bureaucratic negotiations and court wrangling. This takes time, and NCLB will be up for reauthorization in 2007.

Much will depend on the endurance and intensity of public opposition to NCLB. In the 1990s, the Clinton administration tried to head off congressional Republicans' welfare-reform bills by having the Department of Health and Human Services grant waivers to reform-minded governors. This approach ultimately failed because the public was willing to go further.

More here

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

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

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