Thursday, September 28, 2006

Protect students from strip searches

Imagine an America in which school officials could strip search every student in their school based on the unsubstantiated tip that one of them might have a joint. Congress is voting on a bill Tuesday or Wednesday that could make these police state tactics more common. We can stop Congress in its tracks, though. Call your representative RIGHT NOW and tell them to vote against this dangerous bill. If you don't know who your House representative is, simply call the Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121 and give them your address. They'll connect you directly with your representative's office. When you get a staffer on the phone, politely say something like: "My name is [your name] and I live in [your city]. I'm calling to urge [the congressman/the congresswoman] to vote against the Student and Teacher Safety Act (HR 5295) when it comes to the floor this week. This bill would allow schools and police to invasively search large groups of innocent students based on the mere suspicion that just one of them has drugs. It strips Americans of their 4th Amendment rights. Please let me know how [the congressman/the congresswoman] votes."

MORE INFORMATION

The Student Teacher Safety Act of 2006 (HR 5295) is a sloppily written bill that would require any school receiving federal funding (essentially every public school) to adopt policies allowing teachers and school officials to conduct random, warrantless searches of every student, at any time, for essentially any reason they want. All they would have to do is say they suspect one of their students might be carrying drugs, and then they could conduct a wide scale search of every student in the building. These searches could be pat-downs, bag searches, or strip searches depending on how far school administrators wanted to go. Although courts would have the power to overturn policies that went "too far", it could take years - possibly decades - to safeguard the rights of students in every school.

Disconnecting searches from individualized suspicion is what led to the Goose Creek scandal in 2003. That South Carolina city sent a machine-gun toting SWAT team into a high school because the principal suspected one of the students might be selling marijuana. 150 terrified students were handcuffed and forced to the floor at gunpoint as drug dogs tore through their book bags. No drugs or guns were ever found.

Searching students without individualized suspicion that they have done something wrong fosters mistrust between adolescents and the adults they should feel comfortable turning to when they do have substance abuse problems. Treating groups of students as if they're guilty until proven innocent sends them the wrong message about what it means to be American citizens, and makes them less likely to seek help and guidance when they need it.

The legislation is supported by senior House Republicans and the National Education Association (NEA). It's opposed by the Drug Policy Alliance, Students for Sensible Drug Policy, the ACLU, the American Association of School Administrators, and the National School Boards Association. The bill wasn't voted on in committee and is being fast-tracked to the floor under a procedure that requires a 2/3 vote to pass. This means there's a chance we can defeat it on the House floor. The offending text of the legislation (which is not officially public yet) is as follows:

(a) In General- Each local educational agency shall have in effect throughout the jurisdiction of the agency policies that ensure that a search described in subsection (b) is deemed reasonable and permissible.

(b) Searches Covered- A search referred to in subsection (a) is a search by a full-time teacher or school official, acting on any reasonable suspicion based on professional experience and judgment, of any minor student on the grounds of any public school, if the search is conducted to ensure that classrooms, school buildings, school property and students remain free from the threat of all weapons, dangerous materials, or illegal narcotics. The measures used to conduct any search must be reasonably related to the search's objectives, without being excessively intrusive in light of the student's age, sex, and the nature of the offense.

Source. (The bill has now passed the House so the battle moves to the Senate).






NO PROGRESS IN CALIFORNIA HIGH SCHOOLS

California's ambitious effort to better prepare high school students for college hasn't budged test scores yet, but educators say they believe it will eventually cut the percentage of freshmen who arrive at the state's public universities needing remedial classes. Although some studies suggest the closely watched program will work, test scores released Wednesday to California State University trustees show that only 25 percent of California high school students tested as juniors this spring scored ``proficient,'' or ready for college-level English. Just over 55 percent tested ready for college in math. Last year, 24 percent tested proficient in English and 56 percent tested proficient in math.

Yet three years into the biggest college-readiness effort in the nation, CSU educators say they are optimistic that the system's collaboration with California high schools ultimately will ensure that entering college freshmen can move through the university faster, with a higher percentage earning college degrees. The key is getting more school districts to participate. As it stands, about half the entering freshmen need remedial classes, which don't carry college credit.

In Nancy Galindo's English classroom at Yerba Buena High School in San Jose, the veteran teacher sees the initiative is paying off in reaching students before they leave high school. Galindo praises new teaching materials provided free by the CSU to help high school teachers get students ready for college-level reading and academic writing. They come in 14 different modules covering topics of interest to students -- from racial profiling and fast food to the Abercrombie & Fitch ``look.'' The curriculum was developed by college and high school teachers. ``For years and years, we have been teaching kids literature,'' Galindo said, ``but the colleges are telling us we need to focus on teaching kids to analyze expository pieces. Those are the skills they will need for every college course they take.'' Instead of having students analyze only literature, Galindo frequently asks them to read articles and write researched essays.

In the CSU Early Assessment Program, juniors can opt to take a test that will show whether they have college-level math and English skills. The exam is composed of 15 extra questions tacked onto the English and math parts of the California Standards Test, plus an essay. The statewide test is given in the spring. Juniors who test ``proficient'' are freed from having to take math and English placement exams if they attend a CSU campus. Those who don't still have a year in high school to acquire the needed skills. Working with high school English teachers, the university system developed a senior-year expository reading and writing course, the one Galindo is drawing on for her classes at Yerba Buena. It also is offering free math and English Web sites that students can use and special training for teachers.

Only a small number of districts is using the CSU English curriculum for a senior-year course, but CSU educators think that will grow now that the University of California has said the course meets its requirements for a fourth year of high school English. A small study found that students who had at least two of the English modules scored better than students who didn't, said Nancy Brynelson, co-director of CSU's Center for the Advancement of Reading. Another study, which focused on schools where a large number of teachers had received CSU training, showed that students at those schools showed greater growth than the statewide average. CSU will not achieve its goal of cutting the need for remediation to 10 percent of the freshman class by 2007, ``but we do expect to see movement anytime,'' said Beverly Young, assistant vice chancellor for academic affairs. She was not able to provide the cost of running the Early Assessment Program, which includes coordinators at each CSU campus to work closely with local schools.

Young said CSU would like to see UC ``get on board'' and use the early assessment test for placement, and to have the test made mandatory for all juniors. One of the attractions of the CSU English curriculum is that teachers can customize it and use some of the modules, Galindo said. ``I like the fact I didn't have to spend a hundred million hours developing this material on my own,'' she said. Last year, 18 juniors at the school scored proficient in English on the early placement test; 17 were in Galindo's honors English class. The materials and instruction she has received by collaborating with the university ``definitely have been very beneficial to the students,'' she said. ``I have been changing what I teach and how I teach it based on what I hear from the colleges.''

Source






The decline of grammar

Lynne Truss is a professional pedant. Her 2003 book Eats, Shoots and Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation sold 3 million copies worldwide. Truss has now followed up with a picture book for kids: Eats, Shoots and Leaves: Why commas really do make a difference. But should such a book be necessary at all?

Truss is avowedly fed up with poor teaching - or non-teaching - of punctuation, grammar and spelling in English schools. Her message is as relevant here as it is in Britain. Grammar and punctuation need to be taught well. It cannot be absorbed through the act of reading alone. Truss, in an interview in July with The Times Education Supplement, pithily summed up her frustration: "It's similar to music. You don't just pick up how to play the piano. I feel kids are being let down. In a communications age, knowing how to write is a life skill."

Formal grammar is not a usual part of most English courses in Queensland schools. This has been the case since the 1970s when it went out of fashion and creativity at all costs was the preferred approach. The results have been ruinous. Although it is encouraging that Queensland Education Minister Rod Welford indicated in March that state schools would put increased emphasis on reading, grammar and spelling from prep to Year 9, this will take time.

The problem lies with the way teachers are prepared. In one sense, teachers who have gone through training courses since the 1970s are not to blame. They have not been taught grammar during their school days or in teacher training institutions. They enter the classroom not knowing any. It is, however, their unavoidable responsibility to learn how to teach the structure of language.

The consequences of virtually no grammar instruction for three decades are plain to see. In September 2005, a study of 660 Defence Force Academy students - who had achieved a tertiary entrance rank of 80 per cent or better to gain admission - found that students presented with a poor level of expressive technical accuracy. ADFA associate dean of education Stephen Yeomans noted at the time: "What I particularly notice is improper sentence construction, inappropriate or no punctuation, lack of conjunctives, misuse of apostrophes, poor spelling and so on."

In February, 124 businesses polled by the Australian Association of Graduate Employers highlighted poor communication skills in prospective employees. The lack of grammar featured strongly. "The focus is now on the instantaneous. It's all about speed, it's quick responses and short messages and abbreviations and shortcuts. That's leading to people not knowing how to spell a long word, or writing in text message-speak rather than traditional, grammatically correct English," president Bill Reeves observed.

This is mirrored in Queensland. In May, Commerce Queensland president Beatrice Booth drew attention to employer dissatisfaction with the quality of young employees' English skills. "There are no remedial programs for young people at that age, yet we have a plethora of young people who can't spell, comprehend what they're reading or write a proper sentence," Ms Booth said.

Identifying the problem is relatively easy. There is enough research showing that spelling, grammar and punctuation are in decline in Australian children. To attempt to stem this, Premier Peter Beattie recently announced that children who struggled with English skills would be given up to 15 hours, at a cost of $1000 each, of one-on-one instruction. The students concerned are in the bottom 10 per cent of Year 5 and 7 - about 11,200 children.

In February, the Productivity Commission's report into government services found that one in five Queensland Year 5 students was not a competent reader. Knowing about the extent of poor language skills is one thing, knowing how to successfully manage it is more problematical. One thing is clear. Grammar teaching has to undergo a major rethink. Any student who learns a language other than English learns grammar so why is English any different? Because grammar is not a central part of English teaching in a majority of classrooms, children who are not taught it are being disenfranchised in their communicative skills.

Then there is the quality of the graduates who want to become English teachers. This is not uniformly high. The uncomfortable reality is that there are English teachers who are poor spellers, know little grammar and are unclear about punctuation. How can the incompetent teach children well? How did they get there in the first place? Some teachers who are going to enter Queensland classrooms in the next four years are being drawn from the lowest bands of OP scores. Universities are accepting students to become teachers with OP scores as low as 19. When it is remembered that the OP score bottoms at 25, this is cause for concern. The reality is that there is a significant proportion of English teachers who were low-achieving students in the subjects they are now expected to teach.

There is a solution. English teachers without grammar knowledge need to undergo rigorous professional development. This could take place within schools and be led by teachers who are confident in grammar. Experienced English teachers with expertise in technical elements of expression could be redeployed as in-house grammar mentors. It would be their responsibility to pass or fail their colleagues and offer additional support. Teachers nearing retirement could meet this need. This depends on the assumption that grammar, spelling, punctuation and sentence construction still matter. It is clear that for too long grammar has lost its glamour and many children do not know how their own language works. It is, clearly, low-skilled English teaching that is failing them

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 page is here

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

No comments: