"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power." - Thomas Jefferson 1820

"There is a growing technology of testing that permits us now to do in nanoseconds things that we shouldn't be doing at all." - Dr. Gerald Bracey author of Rotten Apples in Education

Search This Blog

Saturday, September 24, 2011

The Outrage of The (Bill and Melinda) Gates Foundation is Misdirected.

I have to say I am skeptical of Bill Gates asking for support of his educational vision. I am tired of the Gates Foundation putting out its version of how education should and can be fixed with The Gates Foundation plan using taxpayer money. Here is one of the latest articles and tweets from the Gates Foundation about "where's the outrage"?

Gates Foundation
Blog: "Why isn't there outrage, absolute outrage?" on inequalities in U.S. :

The Foundation's contention is the outrage has to do with inequality of opportunity. Read what Bill Gates has to say about these inequalities in the US educational system:

So many very talented and capable young people will not reach their full potential – just because they didn’t get lucky. Whenever I have a chance to talk with someone who has been affected by the foundation’s work in the United States, it gives me an even deeper, personal understanding of the phenomenal difference an education can make in a child’s life. And that’s why it’s so important to continue this work.

Does reaching your full potential have to do with LUCK or applying yourself to a goal and working hard? Does reaching your full potential have to do with self-direction and parental support or is it predicated on spending more taxpayer money and more governmental mandates? Is providing a world class education THE goal the public school system (increasingly driven by the private money of Bill Gates) should have for EVERY child?

From The View from Chaos Manner:

One of Gates’ problems is egalitarianism. Gates has said often that every American child deserves a world class university prep education. That goal is unattainable even in Lake Wobegon where all the children are above average, because not even all those who are above average can or should go to university, and a world class university prep education doesn’t necessarily equip them to do much in the real world. I understand that there can be real value in a university prep education coupled with some practical instruction, and if all the children were really above average this might be a goal worth striving for; but everywhere except in Lake Wobegon half the children are below average, and condemning all the children to a world class university prep education dooms about half of them to a school life of hell followed by being thrust out into the School of Hard Knocks unprepared to do anything anyone would pay you money to have done. OK – I exaggerate. But not by all that much.

The author is sympathetic to Gates' attempt to weed out bad teachers and corrupt unions, but acknowledges not all students are cut out to go to college and questions if that is a good use of money and educational direction. Question: whose money is being used to work toward these goals, The Gates Foundation or the American taxpayer?

The Wall Street Journal wrote about Gates' foray into educational reform (On the Poor Return from Bill Gates's Education Effort) and ends the article with this paragraph:

It's a response that in some ways encapsulates the Gates Foundation's approach to education reform—more evolution, less disruption. It attempts to do as much good as possible without upsetting too many players. You can quibble with Mr. Gates about that strategy. You can second-guess him. You can even offer free advice. Or you can shake his hand, thank him for his time and remember that it's his money.

The Journal is partially correct. It IS his money, but HIS money and HIS vision are directing the larger policies of the DOE which the taxpayers are paying for and have no voice. As Ze'ev Wurman has commented in response to the WSJ's article:

Jason Riley's interview with Bill Gates ("Was the $5 Billion Worth It?," Weekend Interview, July 23) shines a bright spotlight on some problems with Mr. Gates' educational and civic thinking.

Mr. Gates says he is a strong supporter of a uniform core curriculum across the land, and justifies it with "It's ludicrous to think that multiplication in Alabama and multiplication in New York are really different." Yet this is a false analogy. It is not about multiplication being different, but about how to teach it, and when. If the single best answer to this question was as obvious as Mr. Gates implies, we would not have a dozen nations lead America by a wide margin on international examinations, yet each having a widely different curriculum. Then Mr. Gates argues about possible economies of scale and why he does not see the need for competition among state standards. "This is like having a common electrical system. It just makes sense to me," he says. Yet education is not only about economies of scale, but also about what different people want. Further, the list of countries that beat us includes countries like Canada and Australia, where each of the provinces has a different set of standards. It is not surprising, however, to hear Mr. Gates preach one-size-fits-all -- luckily we didn't listen to him in the computer business, otherwise we would be all still running Microsoft DOS rather than playing with our Androids and iPads.

In the interview Mr. Gates clearly states that his goal is "to leverage private money" in a way that "redirects" how tax dollars are spent inside public education. Mr. Gates is using his personal philanthropy to direct government policy, to channel taxpayers' funds to pay for the national curriculum he personally wants. (emphasis added)

I would suggest those of you have twitter accounts reply to The Gates Foundation with these questions (search for the twitter using "gatesfoundation" as your search term):

Why isn't there outrage that schools have NO LOCAL INPUT? THAT'S the outrage! NO MORE NATIONALIZATION


Why no OUTRAGE that Gates is foisting his ideas on the DOE & the taxpayers are footing the bill?

Let's put the outrage where it belongs: To the people who are paying for a system that doesn't work, may not represent their values and is unconstitutional. Read our previous blog entry about Elizabeth Warren and Bill Gates. Where's the outrage from the students who are not college oriented (they don't want to go to college, have no desire to do so) and can't find jobs now because of the lack of skilled labor positions? Read this tweet by the Gates Foundation and a response:

Infographic: Diplomas = Dollars. See the tremendous potential impact if we help dropouts become graduates:

Here is a response from Raj Mahon, Founder CEO, Calcutta Yellow Pages, Indias premier Yellow Pages and Business directory for Kolkata, Calcutta, India:

Raj Mohan
Who then will weave the baskets tht philanthrophists will ooohaaah abt and buy for a 1000$ pls?

Why are we letting folks like Elizabeth Warren and Bill Gates drive any educational conversation and force the American taxpayer to pay for their vision?

Friday, September 23, 2011

Elizabeth Warren Has A Point for Bill Gates

Elizabeth Warren is a Democrat looking to unseat Scott Brown in the next Massachusetts election. She recently attempted to provide a logical rationale for the President's Buffet Tax Rule. In the liberal press, this speech is receiving rave reviews.
If you agree with all the things Ms. Warren credits public funding for doing, you must also agree that, without such public funding, things would be radically different. So let's consider her statement point by point, and let's pay special attention to her comment about education.
“You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear: you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for;"
Government providing and maintaining roads has been around since the Roman Empire. Roads provide for the movement of raw materials so that products that require multiple inputs can be designed and produced. They allow workers to travel to jobs that are not conveniently located near their homes. They provide a distribution system for finished goods so that there can be greater variety in the market, something demanded by the general population, not the manufacturer. That is why, in 1824 there was such public clamor for more and improved roads that Congress and James Madison passed the General Survey Act . The act specifically stated that, “roads were of national importance, in a commercial or military point of view, or necessary for the transportation of public mail." Note, Ms. Warren ,that corporate millionaires are not identified as a reason for the development of the roadways, but a government function (mail delivery) is.
The monies paid in taxes provide for the roads. It is a decent give-and-take relationship. Better roads, paid out of public monies, provide greater economic gains which in turn lead to increased public monies because their is more wealth to tax. This money also funds many of the social programs Democrats like to promise. The poorest pay no income tax and thus have not funded the development of these roads, but they are allowed to use them for free every single day. So to claim that the development of a travel infrastructure was specifically for the benefit of 20th century industrial barons who have unfairly taken advantage of them is absurd.
“You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did.”
Policemen are charged with protecting the public safety. One third of police calls are due to domestic disturbances, and these are the toughest calls they make. “More police officers are killed or seriously injured when answering a domestic call than anything else they do.” So unless these millionaires are operating out of their homes and only employing their family in a fairly hostile inter-personal environment, the primary benefit of police security is to the average citizen, not the large corporation.
It is important to keep in mind that the case she is making is for millionaires, who developed large businesses in this country, to pay more taxes. The part of her statement about this freeing them from having to hire someone to protect their property absurdly incorrect. Most businesses run by the millionaires she is talking about do supply their own security, even going so far as to hire private detectives to investigate employee theft and corporate espionage. If police have to provide traffic services for a large business, many towns have adopted policies requiring them to pay for those services directly. , like the roads, police and fire services are supplied to all residents, not just businesses. They are not even the largest user of these services. Lastly and are usually paid for through local taxes, while she is arguing for federal dollars.
It is her statement about education that is of greatest interest to this blog.
“You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate."
Education is funded primarily by local property taxes and businesses pay heavily into those. Having businesses pay more to the federal government so that they can spread those funds around to various states as they see fit, does not necessarily benefit the local business.  Additionally, in order to justify taxing the wealthy because they benefited from the public education system, you would have show that they were the only beneficiaries of this system and thus assume the lion’s share of paying for it. It would have to be demonstrated that no one working at somewhere like Wendy’s or the public library learned anything from public education that they use to function in this society.   You would also have to show that without their demand for such skills, no one would learn anything.  We would all remain in some sort of extended infancy.  

Ms. Warren’s statement implies that the skills needed to work in these large corporations were obtained solely in the “free” public education system.  How does she explain all the early industrial businesses that benefited from illiterate or uneducated workers?  Can she show us where someone learned to weld a fender on a Ford assembly line in any Detroit public school?  No one learned the advance accounting skills to necessary to work at Deloitte in a “free” public high school.  And you can bet no one learned Microsoft’s proprietary source code at any public school.  This advanced specialized education was learned at colleges and universities, which the individual pays for, or in the company itself.

Before you go pointing out that many universities are publicly subsidized and thus her argument still holds, you must account for people  like Walt Disney, Henry Ford, Mary Kay Ash, Steven Jobs or Ty Warner who did not even receive  a college degree yet still founded companies that made millions. Formalized tertiary schooling is but one path to education and business success.  It is a path most of us have been socialized to believe is necessary, but it is not the only path, and its value should be and is increasingly being questioned.  

But here is where her comment gets even more interesting to think about.  She is saying that companies like Microsoft who have benefited from public education should expect to pay more taxes for that benefit.  So Bill Gates (and really most in government now) who thinks it is public education’s JOB to train his future workers will have absolutely no grounds to balk at paying higher taxes because they are pushing for education to do exactly what Ms Warren says, train their workers. 

Thursday, September 22, 2011

University of Missouri's Version of Aerotropolis: Exporting Human Capital to China. UPDATED

It has been a wild week in Missouri legislatively speaking. A special session was called to take up some bills, including "Aerotropolis" aka "The China Hub" renamed "Made in Missouri Jobs Package" then renamed "Missouri Jobs Act".

The governor and some legislators have been insistent the state needed to provide $360 Million in tax credits to establish a hub that could import Chinese goods into Missouri and export Missouri beef to China. Citizens questioned:
  • why we couldn't use the 18 million feet of current vacant warehouse space-- the plan called for new construction in specific zones designated by the county executive and mayors of municipalities--instead of picking where new warehouses would be built and by whom;
  • and that beef exports to China are not currently allowed by China so why was this was listed as a selling point for the bill.
The plan is reported to be on its last legs as of this writing , as the Mamtek issue has taken center stage in the state. This is a tax credit deal signed off on by the state and the city of Moberly in 2010 for the construction of a Moberly factory owned by a Chinese company to produce artificial sweetener. Governor Jay Nixon boasted last year the deal would create over 600 jobs. The agreement was signed in 73 days, ground was broken, and the company subsequently defaulted on its bond payments.

The finger pointing has started and we have our own mini-Solyndra scandal in Missouri! But it is important, apparently, to keep Missouri's partnership with China for the future. Here's a link describing how two colleges in the Missouri public system are offering courses in new campuses in China:

KSDK-TV reported that Thomas George, chancellor of the University of Missouri-St. Louis, announced the undertaking in a speech Wednesday to faculty and staff.

The new campus is under construction in Sichuan Province, in southwestern China. George said it's about half-built, and approval from the Chinese Ministry of Education is expected later this fall.

UMSL is partnering with Missouri University of Science and Technology in Rolla to offer courses in business, nursing, social work and engineering.

We have a few questions:

  • Is the University of Missouri providing any of the building costs of this campus in China?
  • Will our social work students learn the Chinese imposed law of one child per family?
  • Will our social work students learn that religion has little place in a person's life and religious practices outside of governmental approval is frowned upon and in some cases result in imprisonment?
  • Will social work students learn a child's primary attachment is to the state vs his/her parents?
  • Will our business students learn that governmental managed economies are preferable to free market capitalistic models?
  • Will the nursing students learn that female babies in utero are not valued and abortions are encouraged and mandated if an urban family already has one child?
  • Will the engineering students learn they might as well study in China and live there when they graduate because the manufacturing jobs are practically extinct in the US?
  • Will all these students learn political viewpoints different from the government are frowned upon and not allowed without punishment?
(Here's a list of Chinese human rights violations).

Just a thought. Could the move for the China Hub have to do with exporting product from the US and it's not beef? Could it be for our university students? We don't need warehouses; we need more passenger terminals to send our students overseas for an education they apparently can't find in Columbia or Rolla, Missouri.

Why are we sending our students to a communist country for study? Why is it so important to be globally competitive and globally indoctrinated? Do we need an airport for human capital instead of cattle to ship to China? It seems rather silly to write that last question, but maybe there's some validity in asking about the exportation of our citizens. How will this push to send our "best and brightest" to China for study improve our US educational institutions and students, goals of Arne Duncan and the Department of Education?

UPDATE. According to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the courses are being offered to Chinese students who will then transfer after two years of study. American professors will be sent to China and apparently, the costs will be borne by the Chinese government.

The professors will work on curriculum and it will be interesting to see how free market capitalism (if it is still a theory that is taught) will be received in China. I wonder if the social science curriculum will raise any alarm bells in the Chinese government regarding some of the differences between the two cultures. I'm glad American students won't have to study the cultural and legal practice of forced abortions, but I wonder how that subject can or will be handled from an American viewpoint to a Chinese student.

With all the talk about American students not keeping up with the Chinese students, why are we investing in educating their students? I thought this big push for global competitiveness was primarily for American students, not focused on the students we are allegedly falling behind in test scores and performance. According to the article:

The Missouri universities also would split a consulting fee of at least $1,000 for each enrolled student, and could get up to $4 million annually through the partnership.

"This is a money maker for us," George said.

Wednesday, September 21, 2011

KC Schools Lose Accreditation

To the surprise of perhaps no one, the Kansas School District lost its MSBE accreditation, effective January 1, 2012. The district failed to meet the minimum six of the State Board of Education's fourteen performance standards in order to retain their provisional accreditation which they have held since 2002.

Most Missourians are all too familiar with KC's school woes.  Who can forget the massive court case, the rise of Judge Russell Clark as the defacto sole director of the district, the funds lost to other districts so that KC could receive "what it needed" to fix their schools, the bureaucracy, mismanagement and fraud that cost almost $2 billion in the 90's with nothing to show for it?

Just a year ago we wrote about the policy KCMSD adopted of grouping pre-K-6 students by ability (at least in math and reading) rather than age in an attempt to focus teaching on the student's particular needs (MEW July 30, 2010)   At the time Richard DeLorenzo, co-founder of the Re-Inventing Schools Coalition, which coaches schools on implementing the reform, said that such drastic changes could take time to explain to parents, teachers and students. He gave this prediction in July of last year, "If the community isn't sold on the effort, it will bomb."

What can be learned from KC's latest news? They failed to meet the standards in the areas of math and communication arts which clearly are impacted by the type of policy change noted above. Was the community not sold enough on the changes? Did they need more time to show improvement?

Money wasn't the answer for KC. Ability grouping seems not to be working (scores actually went down from 2010 in both areas for K-8.) It can't be the staff, because Andrea Flinders, president of the Kansas City Federation of Teachers and School-Related Personnel, assures us in the stlToday article, "We've got great teachers and staff in our schools. I think we have to continue to do what they're doing and that's taking care of kids." So what does KCMSD need to succeed? Finding  the answer to this question should be critical to people in KC, DESE and MSBE.
There is a bright spot in this story. KC did meet the standards for advanced courses, career education courses and career education placement. Why is this significant?  It means that, for a certain percentage of their students, they are doing a good job.  For the brighter students, the ones we are counting on to be gainfully employed or, even better, the job creators of the future, things are good in KC. The fact that they did not meet a state standard for college placement, but did meet the standard for career education and placement, shows that KC schools are doing their part to help students, for whom the traditional academic path is not right, find other means of developing themselves so they become self sufficient adults. Those two facts should be very encouraging for KC and society in general.

What will happen to KC schools if the answers to the questions about why they failed are found to be politically undesirable?  How do you fix something when you are not willing to identify the real problem? Stan Archie, a state education board member from Kansas City, gives us clue what you do.  He said he, "hopes for improvement in the district and that the loss of accreditation could help boost the resources and attention paid to its schools." Apparently his memory about KCMSD is not as good as everyone else's. So expect to see continued changes to curriculum, testing and reporting that only appear to be addressing the problem, public bureaucrats perpetually speaking about the need for more money and a revolving door on the people at the top of the local administration as a steady stream of scapegoats go in and out.  That way, no one can say they aren't at least trying to help the little children, and we can always HOPE that things will get better.

Tuesday, September 20, 2011

AWESOME! It's Common Core Standards Bingo at Missouri DESE for Teachers!

Cool! The Missouri Department of Education and Secondary Education is making the implementation of Common Core standards FUN FUN FUN for the teachers. It's come up with.... Common Core State Standards Bingo! Yippee! DESE is even giving away prizes to the lucky individuals who get a completed row in the card!

To ready the teachers for common core implementation, here are the directions for playing CSS Bingo from DESE:

Your mission: Find enough individuals to sign your card until you get 5 in a row to form BINGO. Each individual can only sign one box on your board!

And to entice the teachers to play the game, the form states: Fill in the information on the back and drop in the box for a chance to win one of the door prizes!

Some of the information the teacher needs other teachers to sign off on includes:

  • Knows the number of tables in the Appendix
  • Knows the name of the book used in writing the CCSS
  • Knows when Missouri adopted the Common Core State Standards
  • Can name at least two of the Standards for Mathematical Practice
  • Knows the name of the NCTM document used in writing the CCSS
Other non-academic information needed to be completed includes:
  • Teaches in grades K, 1, or 2
  • Has a calculator currently with them
  • Someone who does not teach in the same district as you
  • Is a first year teacher (or just finished year 1)

I'm sure this exercise of filling out a bingo card will result in those teachers being designated a "highly effective teacher". As professionals, the teachers should find this type of exercise silly and shameful. Does a teacher need a college education to complete such an exercise?

This Bingo card and game denigrates the teaching profession and doesn't help the teachers implement standards that are overwhelming and depend more on learning how to teach to the test than actually teaching. Shouldn't teachers be spending more in actually teaching than filling out a Bingo card with useless information?

Here's the link for the Bingo card available to every public school teacher in Missouri. We'd love to hear from teachers on what door prizes are offered by DESE. How much taxpayer money was used to implement such silliness?

Monday, September 19, 2011

Are Students Learning America is a Republic? Maybe Not. Ah Heck. Let's Just Change the Pledge of Allegiance.

Are you concerned about the curriculum used in your school? Do you live in an area you believe upholds your values and historical understanding of the United States? Do you want your children to understand how their government is set up to operate? Do you want your children to live under a Constitution which provides clear direction or a Constitution that can be bended (elastic clause) for more Federal control vs state sovereignty?

Below is an email from a school board member in Franklin County Missouri. If what he writes alarms you, contact your district and read what version of history your district students are learning. The title of the history book, "The Living Constitution" might just alert you to the book author's beliefs and the Constitution's application allowing the Federal Government's grab for more and more power:



The Living Constitution

By Dennis Schillings

Review by Jerry Breihan

September, 2011

I have reviewed four books used at Franklin County R2 school relating to government and history. Here are my findings on the book used by the 7th grade for studying the U.S. Constitution entitled The Living Constitution, by Denny Schillings.

The “Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag” is as follows: “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty, and justice for all.”

According to Schillings, the pledge should be changed to read, “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Representative Democracy for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty, and justice for all.”

Nowhere in the book does Schillings use the word Republic.

Most of the book appears to be adequate in explaining the U.S. Constitution with the exception of a few enormous errors.

· Concerning the Preamble, Schillings explains the principles of a representative democracy and that this principle is established in Article I. Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 18 of the Constitution reads “To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.” Schillings’ explanation of Paragraph 18: “18. To make laws needed to carry out the Constitution and govern the nation. The framers expected the future to bring conditions they had not foreseen. They wanted to let Congress carry out its duties, without being limited by the ‘enumerated powers.’ This elastic clause lets Congress expand its powers as needed.” Even a brief reading of the writings of the founders indicates this explanation to be false. What can the federal government do? Only the nineteen areas of authority listed in Article I, Section 8, examples “1. To coin money, regulate the value thereof. . ., 2. To declare war. . . 3. To establish post offices. . . “

“Remember democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” John Adams, 1814

The 10th Amendment states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” Schillings’ explanation of the 10th Amendment states, “This amendment aims to make the state’s relationship to the federal system clear.” There is no aiming. This amendment makes the relationship clear. If you read the founding father’s thoughts on this separation of powers, they say it is so clear that we would not even need the Bill of Rights. In the Federalist Papers, James Madison, in Federalist Paper 41 puts it this way, (paraphrasing) How can this be misunderstood what the federal government can do and what the States can do when the different parts are not even separated by a pause or a semicolon? What James Madison means in Federalist Paper 41 is the fact that the federal government can only do what the Constitution gives it authority to do.

Is it any wonder that a lot of citizens say, “We all know the federal government always trumps state government”? We all need to be working to teach our children correct history, for instance:

- What is the difference between a democracy and a constitutional republic? First of all, our founding fathers did not intend to and did not set up a Democracy. All of our founding fathers came out of countries that were in chaos and knew that democracy itself does not work.

- Definition of a democracy. Whether a pure democracy or a representative democracy, 50% + 1 is the law of the land. Example: we have four lambs and five wolves and we all vote on what to have for supper. The vote total is five votes to have lamb chops, four votes to NOT have lamb chops. What do we have for supper? Lamb chops.

- Definition of a constitutional republic. The sovereignty of the government remains with ALL the people (whether you are a wolf or a lamb). No matter what the vote is, we cannot violate the rules of the written Constitution. Murdering someone for supper is not allowed by this constitution. No matter what the vote, lamb chops are not on the menu.

This is a very important distinction and the reason why the founding fathers insisted on a written constitution. Three of the founding fathers (Edmund Randolph, VA, George Mason, VA, and Elbridge Gerry, MA) did not vote to ratify the constitution because it did not have a Bill of Rights.

- Who created the federal government (not central government)? Was it the federal government who created the states, or was it the states who created the federal government? The federal government is nothing more than an agent the states hired to help them, not to dominate them. The government should never be allowed to do to an individual what an individual is not allowed to do to another individual. One of the sayings by the founding fathers was “Is lex, rex or is rex, lex?” meaning is law the king or is king the law? In our country, it is lex, rex.


Jerry Breihan

School Board Member, FCR-2

Sunday, September 18, 2011

The Sunday Education Weekly Reader: 9.18.11

Education articles are coming fast and furious these days. They concern Common Core standards, Race to the Top unfunded mandates (just discovered by state legislatures, school districts and governors as unaffordable), curriculum being taught in districts taxpayers find distasteful, etc.

We can't comment on all the articles we'd like to share, so every Sunday we will link a few stories on education we hope you will find informative with a brief description. For you readers old enough to remember, we've fashioned it after "The Weekly Reader". In a time before computers and instant information, my classmates and I enjoyed finding out about the world around us and stories that transported us beyond our classroom.

We hope these educational articles we post daily and in the "Education Weekly Reader" will spur you on to research educational issues for yourself. If you find stories you believe would be of interest to readers interested in education, drop us a line.


Are you concerned about privacy rights for your family and student data? You should be. Here's a guide from Privacy Rights Clearinghouse for parents and college age students :



Here is a related story about two brothers convicted for using hacked information from University of Missouri students for financial gain:



And again, a reader gets it right in the comment section on schools receiving a $10,000 grant for environmental curriculum and practices:



Character Training for Global Citizenship

When fifteen-year-old Kevin walked into his American History class at Cupertino High School in California, he was given a handout. He glanced at the title: "Heterosexuality: Can It be Cured?" Weird, he thought and looked around. Some of his friends were studying it, too. He read on:



Here's an educational quote for the week (please pass on any you would like to share):

Adults who still derive childlike pleasure from hanging gifts of a ready-made education on the Christmas tree of a child waiting outside the door to life do not realize how unreceptive they are making the children to everything that constitutes the true surprise of life.
Karl Kraus


Site Meter