The Obama Administration should win a Nobel Prize for its Extraordinary Foolish Educational Policies

This is one of the reasons public school education is doomed.

Robert Weissberg in American Thinker dissects parts of Race to the Top that illustrate the reason this is not about education at all, but about perceived racial and other injustices:

Their latest education-destroying innovation is eliminating the disproportionate suspension and expulsions of African-American students. This is not empty rhetoric; it is included in the Obama administration's $4.3-billion Race to the Top initiative, and schools that fail to mend their ways will lose federal funds and face expensive litigation at a time of shrinking education budgets. In fact, the future is already here, as schools are increasingly being targeted in resource-draining civil rights complains about disciplinary unevenness (see here).

I can attest from personal experience this has been occurring in the school districts my sons attended. I was told by a minority teacher in my son's middle school that there was "one measure of discipline for minority students" and "one for the non-minority students". She indicated she was disgusted with the district's policy of not disciplining minority students as harshly as the non-minority students; she asked "what message does that give to the minority kids"?

It is not only targeted to African-American students, but also to students with disabilities:

Actually, racial disparities are just the beginning. Obama's Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, has also called for proportionality for disabled students (see here), and while "disabled" might conjure up images of wheelchair-bound students, this category also includes those with below-average intelligence, often compounded with psychological problems inclining them to disruption, if not violence (see Tomsho and Golden, "Educating Eric: A Troubled Student was Put into Regular Classes. Then He Killed the Principal. Wall Street Journal, 2007, May 12-13).

My older son could not pay attention in a geometry class in 10th grade because of disruptive students. When we had a meeting with the teacher and administration, we were told nothing could be done because those students (behavioral disordered) had an IEP. They had a paraprofessional with them, but neither the aide or the teacher could get these four students' behavior under control. Mind you, our son had an IEP because of his hearing impairment and the teacher told us IEP's were designed to help students who really wanted to learn like my son. She said it was not designed to allow them to take advantage of the system with bad behavior such as the trouble-making students, but she had no control of the situation. Because of the disruption these four students caused, my son was given permission to return to the resource room so he could concentrate.

What and who do these policies protect? I understand adolescents have turmoil just because they are adolescents. I understand students with special needs present unique situations. When these incidents become everyday occurrences and disrupt the learning experience for the majority of the students, the disruptive students must be removed from the classroom. Courtesy, respect for authority, and a willingness to learn should not expected only from particular groups of students based on racial makeup or disabilities. Why should students who want to learn be penalized by those few who want to be disruptive and don't want to learn? What is going to happen to the students who are allowed to misbehave with no consequences?

But, rhetoric aside, the measure will undermine education for many education-hungry blacks in racially mixed schools by subverting school discipline. To be impolite, given a choice of helping blacks versus draping a destructive policy in feel-good historical rhetoric, Obama elects the anti-education option. This sin is inexcusable -- a sign of moral depravity, not just inept policy-making.

Mr. Weissberg is correct. These policies are a sign of moral depravity. Welcome to the reality of public education.

Parents are "Inconsequential Conduits" that Channel Money away from Public Schools

My intense interest in the deficiencies of public education began when my son was placed in a special education program for hearing impaired children. He began attending school when he was 3 years old and we filed due process when he was just turning 6 years old. It became apparent he preferred to talk rather than sign, and this choice was not welcomed by the district. This went against its "preferred educational method". Even though we paid the taxes for the district and the district was servicing our child, it was inconsequential what our preferred educational method would be for our child.

The IEP (Individualized Educational Program) we had for our son was in reality just a "fill in the blank" for hearing impaired students. It didn't matter what the individual needs of a child were; if those needs didn't fit into the system offered, the system could not accommodate that child's needs. We requested the district pay for private school tuition as there was no program in the district that could teach him to talk. No district teacher had specific training in oral education to teach our son that skill.

During our administrative law hearing, the teachers testified that if he made some progress during the year, the district had provided some educational benefit. According to IDEA, they were legally correct. When pressed by our attorney, these teachers stated if he learned his ABCs in one year, they would be satisfied, and had met the district's obligation to our son. The level of low expectations the district had for our child was absolutely stunning.

Our son was 6 years old and hearing impaired. He has no learning disabilities such as processing issues. His ability to learn was certainly higher than taking one year to learn the alphabet. I used to think this low expectation was because he was deaf. Apparently not:

http://biggovernment.com/bewing/2010/08/24/public-school-fail-video-clip-that-will-shock-sadden-you/#more-160033

Read the comments from the Institute for Justice after you watch the video. This particular paragraph regarding school choice caught my attention: "The powerful teacher unions and their allies had filed suit against the program (school choice). At one point they argued that parents are "inconsequential conduits" channeling money away from public schools".

The Institute of Justice took this lawsuit to the Supreme Court...and won. She was lucky. We lost our case on appeal. But in other ways, we won. I'll explain that in just a bit.

I have a few thoughts I would like to share with you.

• This nanny state educational attitude has been pervasive for many, many years in public education. Perhaps this began in earnest when the Federal Department of Education was created in 1970 and local control became diluted to the point where it is now practically nonexistent.
• We still are considered "inconsequential conduits"...just read the proposal by the Federal government for RTTT and the MO proposal for funding. Parents truly are considered for two reasons only: to provide the children and the taxes to perpetuate the system. From testimony I listened to in our lawsuit, I learned a valuable lesson: school systems do not exist to protect children; the system exists to protect the system.
• Unions protect the teachers. The unions do not have the interest of the children in mind. That was apparent in our lawsuit and the one highlighted by biggovernment.

I hope the young girl from 10 years ago is doing well in school. I mentioned previously that we won, even though we lost our case. When we realized what low expectations these teachers had for our son, we were able to move from that district with no qualms. We never looked back. We didn't know what was ahead of us, but we sure knew what we were leaving behind...a system that did not allow children to succeed to their highest potential.

We moved to a city with oral deaf schools, and our son received intensive private instruction for 5 years. He then mainstreamed...and is now completing his second year of college. He considers spoken language his primary language. Financially and emotionally it was difficult, but in the long run, it was the best move for our son and our family.

My story and this young girl's story is not unusual or unique. Biggovernment has the title correct in its article: Public School FAIL. I am just heartsick for those children who cannot escape failing systems...or those who have their vouchers pulled from them, such as the students in Washington, DC.

To be stuck in systems that believe learning your ABCs in one year is adequate progress is the epitome of failure and disgrace. Parents MUST have a choice to escape systems that are failing their children. Parents MUST have that choice because the public education system and teacher unions really do believe parents are "inconsequential conduits".

This girl's father and I know it. We've lived through it.

(ht to a watchdog for the biggovernment link)