This statement via The Washington Post, is from Arne Duncan, Secretary of the Department of Education, regarding the shootings in Arizona and the actions previously taken by Pima Community College where the shooter attended:
...Where violence becomes sort of part of the political dialogue, where you have lax gun laws, where you have folks that are mentally unstable, easy access to guns, I think that's a recipe for disaster."
Duncan is blaming this on political motives and lax gun laws. When these two scenarios are combined, he apparently believes this allows the opportunity for mentally ill people to kill others.
Is this all about lax gun laws and heated political rhetoric? The latest news I've read about Jared Loughner's background, his fascination with the congresswoman started in 2007, long before any "violent political dialogue". Read two comments from readers that question Duncan's statements and refer to "lax gun laws":
Monday, January 10, 2011
Political Education 101: Niftiness and Transparency Are Taken to a National Level
We provided a link a few days ago, e-lobbyist.com, which gives readers information to track legislative bills introduced in state legislatures.
Here is a link I discovered sponsored by C-Span, congress.org, which focuses on national legislation and legislators' votes:
| Track your Senators' and Representative's votes by e-mail | ||||||||||
 | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
Directories
Legislation
Issues & Actions
More Resources
You now have an efficient manner to track legislation on the state and national levels. These sites are marvelous tools in obtaining the elusive transparency voters desire from the government and elected officials. It seems this would be a valuable tool for students studying government.
Many thanks to C-Span for this service. The entire Health Care debate was promised to be read in the spirit of transparency on C-Span by the new administration, but alas, this did not happen. The public received one hour of debate the administration allowed C-Span to air. This site may be the only transparency the voters get until that promise is fulfilled.
Sunday, January 9, 2011
Condoms in High School: An Example of the Potential Problems of Common Core Standards?
School officials in Monadnack Regional School District in New Hampshire quickly back pedaled a decision made to pass out condoms to high school students. The situation became a public relations nightmare for the school district when parents found out their students were receiving candy along with condoms and flavored lubricant without parental knowledge or permission:
When some parents learned about the distribution of the kits, they complained to the school administration, school board and AIDS Services.
"The biggest issue among parents and some staff is that AIDS Services for the Monadnock Region distributed sexually enticing products," said parent Brandie Roof.
Roof said she was also offended that as a parent, she was not notified of the visit from AIDS Services, the distribution of the kits, or given a chance to have her children "opt out" of the day's events.
You can watch a youtube of parent reaction here.
The distribution of the condoms in safe-sex kits was in conjunction with Worlds AIDs Day presentation. It was developed by AIDS Services of the Monadnock Region, a nonprofit that provides client services, community education and outreach, and housing for AIDS patients. Director Susan McNeil said this about distributing the condoms:
MacNeil defended the need for safe-sex kits in high schools and said officials at Monadnock Regional High School had given written approval for their distribution.
McNeil has visited other New Hampshire High School and made presentations and given bags to students:
..AIDS Services distributed all its 200 kits at Keene High School in November before Principal Alan Chmiel called a halt to the distribution. She said a team of Keene teachers approved the distribution, and the two-day program continued.
A Monadnock school board member responded in this manner:
...school board member Bruce Barlow said the board is revisiting its policies to make sure nothing similar happens in the future.
The preceding sentences encapsulates the important issue in the article as it concerns common core standards and the autonomy of local school boards. Presently school boards still have the authority to make such decisions if "curriculum" decisions are deemed to be inappropriate. They can reflect the social mores of the community they serve. With the adoption and implementation of common core standards, this ability is lost. The following comments are from other education officials in the state:
Across New Hampshire, each school district decides whether to distribute condoms or not, said Deputy Education Commissioner Paul Leather.
"I don't believe it's a wide practice, but I don't know," he said. He said school boards should have policies in place to deal with such issues.
Condoms aren't distributed in Manchester, the state's largest school district, said Superintendent Tom Brennan. He said Manchester schools focus on abstinence, and West High School even invites in an educator from Catholic Medical Center to discuss abstinence with students, he said.
The school district also teaches from textbooks that explain sexual activity and contraception, he said. Brennan, a former administrator in Jaffrey-Rindge and Kearsarge districts, said neither of those districts allowed condom distribution when he was there.
"I just don't think it's appropriate for schools to get into the situation where they're taking on the responsibility of parents," Brennan said.
I have a question: What will happen in the future when common core standards are in place for your state, and your consortium deciding curriculum in health possibly decides distributing candy and condoms to your 12 year old is part of an "appropriate education"? You or your school district will have NO POWER to change this curriculum.
This is a possible scenario and question to ask your legislators regarding the wisdom of agreeing to common core standards. Your school district is becoming increasingly powerless to decide what its students should learn. Our senators on the education committee seem to agree with relinquishing state responsibility and authority to set standards. Read "Educated Citizenry 2020".
State educational decisions are being handed over to an unknown consortium with an unknown agenda. We've signed away Math and Communication Arts standards; Science and Social Studies are next. Does that raise a red flag in your mind? Even charter schools so heavily touted in this plan are subject to common core mandates. Parents can't put their children in charters and expect a high quality education if they are operating under the same standards as public schools. Ask your legislators about this bit of information that is not addressed in the plan.
Saturday, January 8, 2011
Watch the Legislation Proposed in Your State. This is Really a Nifty Educational Tool.
If you only bookmark one website, e-lobbyist.com might be the one to bookmark and refer to frequently while the Legislature is in session. This site is free to use and you can become aware of bills introduced in the state which you are following. You can also track up to 10 bills at a time to monitor their progress through the House, and if they make it out of the House, then through the Senate.
I had my eye on this bill last night, HB 59:
Status
January 6 2011 - Read Second Time (H)
Summary
Requires the State Board of Education to establish a coordinated health program board to develop a program on the prevention of student obesity, cardiovascular disease, and type II diabetes
It seems Michelle Obama's recent push to regulate food intake and eradication of obesity might be important in the education of our children. Do you think with Missouri's current $500 Million shortfall this year this program (complete with a board) is a necessity the state budget can afford? Here's another thought: should childhood obesity and the tracking of childrens' medical health be left up to the parents?
That last question might be a radical thought, to leave the health management of children to the parents. It's just a crazy idea. Might save a bit of money, don't you think?
However, HB 59 may be a piggyback on HB 57 :
Status
January 6 2011 - Read Second Time (H)
Summary
Establishes the Missouri Commission on Prevention and Management of Obesity
What IS it this year? Has war been officially declared on obese children and adults? Be sure to register to track bills being presented this year. The session hasn't been in a week, and you'll be amazed how busy the legislators have been already.
Keep your eyes open! (And maybe pass on that piece of pie after dinner).
Setting Real Goals For Education
Representative Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) said on the US House floor yesterday that the US involvement in Afghanistan was a "national embarrassment and a moral blight." She inferred, from public polling results, that people did not think the war was not worth fighting. A better worded poll might have shown that people’s frustration with the war was due more to our lack of success there which many have said is a result of our lack of a reasonable goal and the subsequent tying of our military’s hands in trying to achieve it. Roger Stone, long term political consultant and, in his own words, Ron Paul conservative, responded on the Dana Loesch show that he agreed the US did a terrible job strategically in Afghanistan, that we did not look seriously enough at the war history in the country before we settled on a mission. If we had, we would have seen that military giants from Britain to Russia failed in traditional boots-on-the-ground campaigns there and yet that is exactly the kind of effort the US has engaged in. We would have been better served to develop a radically different definition of success in that country and design an out of the box military campaign to achieve that success allowing the full force and expertise of the US armed forces to accomplish the task.
So why talk about US strategy in Afghanistan on a blog dedicated to education? Because the same lack of well thought out definitions of the final goal, the continued reliance on a model that has not proven successful and a disconnect between intentions and implementation are exactly what mires the US policy on education. And it is not a huge jump to see how such failings in the military can similarly be predicted in a centrally run education system like that envisioned in Race To The Top.
Generally speaking, in the United States, we have made our goal to graduate students. We say our goal is to educate students, but the metrics we use to achieve that tell a different story. Every school meticulously collects and publishes data showing graduation rates, college entrance statistics, and drop-out rates. They don’t show statistics on whether parents and kids thought students were prepared for the real world. They don’t show how students’ talents and gifts are nurtured and supported. They don’t track kids who do not go to college and ascertain whether they are able to sustain themselves with the 12 years of education the public gave them.
Instead, we have developed surrogate metrics that try to get at these goals. Take, for example, the requirement that students attend school for a minimum number of days. This requirement recently caused the Francis Howell district, which lists itself as “accredited with distinction,” to add 5 minutes to every day in order to make up for 5 lost days in their new traditional school schedule. The case could perhaps have been made that additional learning would take place if they added those 5 days to the beginning or end of the school year. But adding two minutes to the start time and three minutes to the end time of each day can hardly be argued as a case for additional learning time. It did, however, meet the surrogate metric for learning.
The St. Louis School District has proposed requiring kids to be in school from age 5-18. Here again the focus is on an arbitrary assignment of age that is supposed to guarantee successful education, but in fact merely defines the terms for graduation. Why does the 5 year old, who not only knows his alphabet and numbers, but can maybe even read a little, need to be in school when the majority of students there will be focusing on learning what he already knows? One assumes that the school district is trying to get to the kids who arrive at school at age 7 without basic knowledge of letters, numbers, colors etc. and who become a drag on the 1st grade teacher’s ability to get to their curriculum while they try to catch those kids up. This is laudable, but the proposed requirement is a contorted means of achieving that goal. A truer focus on education might instead say, bring your 5 year old in to take a test of basic skills. If they pass the test, we don’t need to them to come in for another year. The school district could then focus their efforts only on the kids who needed the help, saving time and money, and retaining the commitment to education.
A lot of this stems from the disconnect between intentions and implementation. This disconnect is part of being human. Any mother who has chaired a PTO or other volunteer type committee has seen this played out when volunteers are given instructions for accomplishing a task. Interpretation, misreading, lack of time or personal opposition to the source of the instructions can all lead to a result that is far from what you intended. It’s why it is so important to have those writing rules be as close as possible to those implementing the rules.
And THIS is why Common Core Curricula and RTTT, no matter how well intentioned or written originally, are doomed to fail. Because implementation of them will take place far from the creators and is likely to produce a whole host of unintended consequences. It will foster a system whose goal is destined to become its own perpetuation and comfort, not education. It's why you can bet that future polls of the popularity of our education system are likely to have the same results as the current poll of the war in Afghanistan.
So why talk about US strategy in Afghanistan on a blog dedicated to education? Because the same lack of well thought out definitions of the final goal, the continued reliance on a model that has not proven successful and a disconnect between intentions and implementation are exactly what mires the US policy on education. And it is not a huge jump to see how such failings in the military can similarly be predicted in a centrally run education system like that envisioned in Race To The Top.
Generally speaking, in the United States, we have made our goal to graduate students. We say our goal is to educate students, but the metrics we use to achieve that tell a different story. Every school meticulously collects and publishes data showing graduation rates, college entrance statistics, and drop-out rates. They don’t show statistics on whether parents and kids thought students were prepared for the real world. They don’t show how students’ talents and gifts are nurtured and supported. They don’t track kids who do not go to college and ascertain whether they are able to sustain themselves with the 12 years of education the public gave them.
Instead, we have developed surrogate metrics that try to get at these goals. Take, for example, the requirement that students attend school for a minimum number of days. This requirement recently caused the Francis Howell district, which lists itself as “accredited with distinction,” to add 5 minutes to every day in order to make up for 5 lost days in their new traditional school schedule. The case could perhaps have been made that additional learning would take place if they added those 5 days to the beginning or end of the school year. But adding two minutes to the start time and three minutes to the end time of each day can hardly be argued as a case for additional learning time. It did, however, meet the surrogate metric for learning.
The St. Louis School District has proposed requiring kids to be in school from age 5-18. Here again the focus is on an arbitrary assignment of age that is supposed to guarantee successful education, but in fact merely defines the terms for graduation. Why does the 5 year old, who not only knows his alphabet and numbers, but can maybe even read a little, need to be in school when the majority of students there will be focusing on learning what he already knows? One assumes that the school district is trying to get to the kids who arrive at school at age 7 without basic knowledge of letters, numbers, colors etc. and who become a drag on the 1st grade teacher’s ability to get to their curriculum while they try to catch those kids up. This is laudable, but the proposed requirement is a contorted means of achieving that goal. A truer focus on education might instead say, bring your 5 year old in to take a test of basic skills. If they pass the test, we don’t need to them to come in for another year. The school district could then focus their efforts only on the kids who needed the help, saving time and money, and retaining the commitment to education.
A lot of this stems from the disconnect between intentions and implementation. This disconnect is part of being human. Any mother who has chaired a PTO or other volunteer type committee has seen this played out when volunteers are given instructions for accomplishing a task. Interpretation, misreading, lack of time or personal opposition to the source of the instructions can all lead to a result that is far from what you intended. It’s why it is so important to have those writing rules be as close as possible to those implementing the rules.
And THIS is why Common Core Curricula and RTTT, no matter how well intentioned or written originally, are doomed to fail. Because implementation of them will take place far from the creators and is likely to produce a whole host of unintended consequences. It will foster a system whose goal is destined to become its own perpetuation and comfort, not education. It's why you can bet that future polls of the popularity of our education system are likely to have the same results as the current poll of the war in Afghanistan.
Friday, January 7, 2011
Is Your Legislator on a Committee for Educational Policy, Budget or Appropriations?
Many thanks to a watchdog for forwarding me the list of house committee assignments of state legislators involved in crafting educational policies, budgeting, and the appropriation of educational funding. Please contact your senator and representative regarding your views on the educational plan proposed via Educated Citizenry 2020; but the legislators listed below will also be important to contact as well.
Below are the House Committees that were appointed this week by Speaker Steve Tilley. These committees will be instrumental on setting the educational direction of the state. Determine if YOUR State Representative has been assigned to any of these committees. President Pro Tem of the Senate Rob Mayer has not yet appointed committees.
Should a Minority Stakeholder in Education be Making All the Rules?
I'm curious. This report was released from Chris Nicastro's office as a general information letter to taxpayers.
Near the end of the letter, there are several graphs illustrating the source of educational funding for the state. My question is: Why are we giving up total control of our curriculum to Federal mandates when our state receives only 23% of our funding from the Federal Government?
Does this make sense to you? The federal mandates under which we've been operating haven't been successful so why would additional and more controlling mandates be considered the answer to ensure higher test scores?
Near the end of the letter, there are several graphs illustrating the source of educational funding for the state. My question is: Why are we giving up total control of our curriculum to Federal mandates when our state receives only 23% of our funding from the Federal Government?
Does this make sense to you? The federal mandates under which we've been operating haven't been successful so why would additional and more controlling mandates be considered the answer to ensure higher test scores?
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Field Trip to Jefferson City! It's Truly an Educational Experience.
This is from the Missouri State Senate page:
Tuesday, Jan. 11, 2011 Senate Committee Room 1
11:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. Sen. David Pearce, R-Warrensburg; Sen.-elect John Lamping, R-St. Louis; Sen. Jane Cunningham, R-Chesterfield; and Sen. Victor Callahan, D-Independence
The other groups can be found on the Senate site. If you are concerned or curious about the educational legislation being proposed for Missouri, this is the time to hear the specifics from the senators whose names appear on the bill.
Education is one of the top priorities in the state this year, and the proposed plan is quite sweeping in its intent on reshaping the delivery of educational services to students. It includes many of the mandates and goals found in Race to the Top, and praises the adoption of common core standards. Missouri did not adopt RTTT, but did sign on to common core standards, giving away the state right to set curriculum. This is a sweeping change in the idea of local control and the further dependence on the Federal Government for funding. The proposed plan is Educated Citizenry 2020 and you may find it here.
Note how you can make your suggestions to the senators:
The work groups, established by Senate President Pro Tem Robert N. Mayer, R-Dexter, are charged with collecting citizens’ submitted ideas through the Rebooting Government website (www.senate.mo.gov/RebootMO) and examining how to make state government more efficient through control, alterations and deletions.
JEFFERSON CITY — Dates and times of the seven work groups encompassing the Missouri Senate's "Rebooting Government" initiative were recently announced. These working groups are responsible for examining state departments and programs in order to reduce costs and maximize state resources. Please note the date and time change in the Courts and Public Safety work group below as well as the dates and times for the other Rebooting Government panels:
Tuesday, Jan. 11, 2011 Senate Committee Room 1
11:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. Sen. David Pearce, R-Warrensburg; Sen.-elect John Lamping, R-St. Louis; Sen. Jane Cunningham, R-Chesterfield; and Sen. Victor Callahan, D-Independence
The other groups can be found on the Senate site. If you are concerned or curious about the educational legislation being proposed for Missouri, this is the time to hear the specifics from the senators whose names appear on the bill.
Education is one of the top priorities in the state this year, and the proposed plan is quite sweeping in its intent on reshaping the delivery of educational services to students. It includes many of the mandates and goals found in Race to the Top, and praises the adoption of common core standards. Missouri did not adopt RTTT, but did sign on to common core standards, giving away the state right to set curriculum. This is a sweeping change in the idea of local control and the further dependence on the Federal Government for funding. The proposed plan is Educated Citizenry 2020 and you may find it here.
Note how you can make your suggestions to the senators:
The work groups, established by Senate President Pro Tem Robert N. Mayer, R-Dexter, are charged with collecting citizens’ submitted ideas through the Rebooting Government website (www.senate.mo.gov/RebootMO) and examining how to make state government more efficient through control, alterations and deletions.
Citizens may submit their ideas on how to “reboot” state government by visiting the Missouri Senate’s Rebooting Government website (www.senate.mo.gov/RebootMO). The site will be available throughout the 2011 legislative session.
If you are concerned about unfunded mandates and increased federal control in education, now is the time to alert the senators. Please attend this very important meeting and I hope to see you on Tuesday, January 11, in Jefferson City.
When Republicans Sound Like Democrats and Democrats Sound Like Republicans. It's True!
This should be an interesting session in the Legislature. Here is a quite informative article from the Missouri News Horizon quoting Republican and Democratic lawmakers on the subject of educational reform.
Here is the Republican stance:
Rep. Scott Dieckhaus, R-Washington, chairs the House's Elementary and Secondary Education Committee. He said he wants his committee to be aggressive when considering reforms to the state's education system.
"Everything is on the table," Dieckhaus said. "Whether it's tenure, whether it's making sure we're not sneaking kids through the system by social promotion, whether it's...vouchers and open enrollment, and all the things that have been pulled off the table in past legislative sessions, I want to have a true dialogue on those issues this session."
That sounds on its face exciting and visionary. Some of it is. Some of it isn't so wonderful. Open enrollment will kill local school district autonomy for setting their student make-up. Open enrollment will cause deficits to schools as reimbursement will not cover the full amount necessary to educate the child at the district's set rate. Who will pay for the additional resources necessary for an influx of students? The district? The state? How can a district set a realistic budget? Charters weren't mentioned, but they are a big item in Educated Citizenry 2020. If a true dialogue is desired by the lawmakers, perhaps taxpayers should understand they may very well be under the same mandates as public schools having to adhere to common core standards.
Robyn Wright-Jones, Democrat from St. Louis said this:
But one of the Senate's leaders on public education, Sen. Robyn Wright-Jones, D-St. Louis, warns that moving too fast on controversial topics such as open enrollment and tenure reform takes the focus away from a root cause of educational deficiency in the urban core -- the lack of economic opportunity for parents of school children.
"When we have a decent wage in every household, and we have our parents working, they can do a traditional family plan, where there's money to do the things they need to do, then test scores will improve," Wright-Jones said.
She said open enrollment is not the answer to educational inability. She favors keeping students close to home.
"We need to put our neighborhood schools back on the block, down the street from where our children live," Wright-Jones said. "You send a very bad signal to a kid when you put him on a bus at five in the morning and take them off at seven (at night) and tell them they just got a better education."
She's right. She sounds like a traditional Republican (jobs, jobs, jobs and traditional family) and fostering community pride. The Republicans sound like traditional Democrats (curriculum mandates, increased spending and unfunded mandates created by common core standards).
House Speaker Tilley said:
...the status quo is not good enough anymore.
"Every year, people who are opposed to educational reform say 'No, this isn't a good idea, this isn't a good idea...' Tilley said. But they don't come up with alternative solutions and we continue to shuffle thousands of kids through schools that just aren't doing their jobs."
We have our ideas on educational reform. Return the majority of educational decisions to the state and reduce our dependency on the federal government for funding. Could it be we are in trouble because we are going broke trying to fulfill the endless mandates coming out of Washington? After all, for every dollar we send to the Department of Education, we get back 80 cents. That doesn't seem like a very good investment for taxpayers and students.
Cutting our strings to Washington would be a good first start. Isn't that what the Health Care Freedom Act was all about? How about we start an Educational Freedom Act? We don't like the health mandates OR the educational mandates. There is no difference in the amount of control in either healthcare or education. Decrease federal control and spending. Sounds like a good plan to me.
Here is the Republican stance:
Rep. Scott Dieckhaus, R-Washington, chairs the House's Elementary and Secondary Education Committee. He said he wants his committee to be aggressive when considering reforms to the state's education system.
"Everything is on the table," Dieckhaus said. "Whether it's tenure, whether it's making sure we're not sneaking kids through the system by social promotion, whether it's...vouchers and open enrollment, and all the things that have been pulled off the table in past legislative sessions, I want to have a true dialogue on those issues this session."
That sounds on its face exciting and visionary. Some of it is. Some of it isn't so wonderful. Open enrollment will kill local school district autonomy for setting their student make-up. Open enrollment will cause deficits to schools as reimbursement will not cover the full amount necessary to educate the child at the district's set rate. Who will pay for the additional resources necessary for an influx of students? The district? The state? How can a district set a realistic budget? Charters weren't mentioned, but they are a big item in Educated Citizenry 2020. If a true dialogue is desired by the lawmakers, perhaps taxpayers should understand they may very well be under the same mandates as public schools having to adhere to common core standards.
Robyn Wright-Jones, Democrat from St. Louis said this:
But one of the Senate's leaders on public education, Sen. Robyn Wright-Jones, D-St. Louis, warns that moving too fast on controversial topics such as open enrollment and tenure reform takes the focus away from a root cause of educational deficiency in the urban core -- the lack of economic opportunity for parents of school children.
"When we have a decent wage in every household, and we have our parents working, they can do a traditional family plan, where there's money to do the things they need to do, then test scores will improve," Wright-Jones said.
She said open enrollment is not the answer to educational inability. She favors keeping students close to home.
"We need to put our neighborhood schools back on the block, down the street from where our children live," Wright-Jones said. "You send a very bad signal to a kid when you put him on a bus at five in the morning and take them off at seven (at night) and tell them they just got a better education."
She's right. She sounds like a traditional Republican (jobs, jobs, jobs and traditional family) and fostering community pride. The Republicans sound like traditional Democrats (curriculum mandates, increased spending and unfunded mandates created by common core standards).
House Speaker Tilley said:
...the status quo is not good enough anymore.
"Every year, people who are opposed to educational reform say 'No, this isn't a good idea, this isn't a good idea...' Tilley said. But they don't come up with alternative solutions and we continue to shuffle thousands of kids through schools that just aren't doing their jobs."
We have our ideas on educational reform. Return the majority of educational decisions to the state and reduce our dependency on the federal government for funding. Could it be we are in trouble because we are going broke trying to fulfill the endless mandates coming out of Washington? After all, for every dollar we send to the Department of Education, we get back 80 cents. That doesn't seem like a very good investment for taxpayers and students.
Cutting our strings to Washington would be a good first start. Isn't that what the Health Care Freedom Act was all about? How about we start an Educational Freedom Act? We don't like the health mandates OR the educational mandates. There is no difference in the amount of control in either healthcare or education. Decrease federal control and spending. Sounds like a good plan to me.
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Lesson of the Day for DESE. It's a Doozy.
The new state senators and representatives were sworn in today and here is a video and link about the issues in education funding facing these legislators. One senator said:
"It's going to be a challenge," said Sen. Victor Callahan, an Independence Democrat.
"We'll have to make a lot of cuts in different areas." Callahan, the Senate minority leader, said the state probably won't be able to fully fund classrooms as required by state law.
This last sentence is particularly important and expresses the gravity of the financial situation the Legislature is facing. The Legislature is mandated by law to balance the budget, even in poor financial years.
What is DESE's view on the budget shortfall? It's quite stunning:
In its funding request to Nixon's budget office, the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education sought state money to fill the hole left by the federal stimulus money, plus a $255 million increase to fully fund the school aid formula.
This is a fascinating request from Chris Nicastro. DESE wants the state to fill a federal money hole created by one time stimulus funds and another $255 million the state doesn't have. I didn't read anything about DESE employing budget cutting measures and working within reality.
The legislators have a tough job making cuts and it's difficult to believe DESE is actually asking for additional funds that don't exist. Legislators have a duty to produce a workable budget. They are not magicians and they don't print money.
That's the lesson of the day for DESE.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Even before the horror of Virginia Tech, which forced a complete rethinking of classroom safety, many college administrators and faculty devoted countless hours to discussions and strategies about how to help students in distress or who are disruptive or manifesting signs of mental illness. The ADA compels us to help and support students who are ill, including mental illness, and quite often, there's a judgment call involved in whether to summon help from campus security or campus health services. FERPA -- the privacy law --- also sometimes obscures the best answer to red flag misconduct.
This unbelievable tragedy in Arizona will force even more review of student rights, disciplinary and security procedures, and campus mental health services. Most certainly, we will also see an equal amount of deeply concerned discussion on the part of faculty members and campus leaders about the balance between access and safety when students manifest weird, bizarre, inappropriate or strange conduct that may not be a direct threat (hence, actionable) but that may be evidence of an unfolding mental health breakdown.
Colleges are largely open places where unusual behaviors often gain notice as the searching expressions of free spirits. Each tragic story moves the walls of that freedom a little bit closer to the real need for more control, firmer rules about conduct, and less blithe acceptance of behaviors that signal possible illness. We will continue to struggle with the balance among the competing values of privacy, freedom, security and access.
The second comment:
yep, the sheriff was certainly aware of the man.
guess what they're supposed to do with such info?
get it to the feds so the man cannot buy a gun.
failure of existing laws.
too bad the sheriff blew off the threat and referred to it as the "judges problem"
read the full story, get all the info.
This may be the full story the reader refers to in his/her posting that Pima Sheriff County Clarence Dupnik doesn't want to talk about and Arne Duncan is ignoring.
These readers question college policy and the police not following the law. The readers have a better grip on reality than Duncan. If institutions could effectively deal with disturbed students without legal ramifications (privacy concerns) and governmental authorities had done their jobs, perhaps a tragedy could have been avoided. For Duncan to blame it on heated political rhetoric and lax gun laws is a travesty.
Is Arne Duncan really the best person to head the Department of Education? Is political correctness overtaking common sense and critical thinking?