Beyond The Broken Spectrum

More phony-white-liberal crocodile tears have been shed over the issue of academic freedom than perhaps over any other. More academics have waxed more eloquent over it than over perhaps any other topic receiving their tender attention. In the eyes of some, it has been equated with the very basis of Western civilization. In the eyes of others, judging by their anguish, it has been equated with the Second Coming!

There is not a day that goes by that does not see the American Civil Liberties Union in a virtual state of apoplexy over some real or imagined violation of academic freedom. And all this seems pale in comparison with the gnashing of teeth and frothing at the mouth by labor unions of professional academics and teachers in this fair land of ours.

From the name itself, academic freedom would seem to be innocuous enough. All it would seem to mean would be that academics, like anyone else, should have freedom. Freedom of speech, freedom to come and go, and freedom to quit a job. The usual freedoms that everyone has.

Such is not the case, however. “Academic freedom” has a very special meaning: the freedom to teach the subject matter in whatever way the academic in question wishes the subject taught, despite any wishes to the contrary that his employer may harbor. In other words, the employer may not fire the academic as long as he teaches the subject matter in any manner that the academic, not the employer, wishes. (more…)

Think long and hard about the meanings of this song.

Children are sent to school every day so that they may gain valuable knowledge that will guide them through life and help them secure a career that will enable them to support themselves and their families. The role of a school is to educate a child, however it is not the role of a school to play the part of mommy and daddy.

Many parents perform their roles well, and when they send their child to school each day, they expect their child to learn mathematics, grammar, science, history, etc. When it comes to subjects such as morals, values, appearances, etc, these parents assume the role of teacher in these areas and generally do not take kindly to others teaching their children their own beliefs, especially if that person isn’t family or a friend. This being said, why is it that we are allowing schools to dictate to our children their beliefs and values? (more…)

This article concerns the hijacking of Texas education standards, and in actuality, a large proportion of the nation’s standards. Admittedly, there is a “left slant” to this article, but the points made are relevant and worthwhile. It is alarming to me that the education standards are hijacked by either side of the bias’. There is definitely something fowl in Texas though.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2010/1001.blake.html

“If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away.”

~ Henry David Thoreau, Walden, Conclusion, 1854

Being a libertarian, I have never been comfortable working in a government-run public school, but a PowerPoint presentation at a recent faculty meeting made me realize just how monstrous the system really is. The presentation was on something called RTI (Response to Intervention), and it began with a slide entitled “When a kid gets sick…” While RTI is hailed as a revolutionary new approach, it is really just an old practice dressed up in new jargon. With both RTI and its predecessor, nonperforming or uncooperative students are identified and treated as if they suffer from some kind of illness. In either case, the process typically ends with parents seated at a long conference table facing grim-faced teachers, administrators, counselors, social workers and perhaps even a psychiatrist all armed with file folders full of evaluations and test results. The remedy these “experts” prescribe usually involves placement in some Special Education program (i.e. low expectations dumping ground) and sometimes even the prescription of some dangerous mind-altering drug like Ritalin. Few parents ever object to or question these measures. Many parents even insist on them believing this special treatment is necessary to help their “ill” child. Supporters of RTI may protest that they are only trying to help and that Special Education or drugs are only last resorts. That may be true, but they fail to see the stigma attached to the child being labeled and processed like some kind of lab rat, and they fail to acknowledge the record of failure for all of their “interventions.” Most important, they fail to even consider that the problem may be with the school and not with the child. (more…)

A school in Danvers, Mass. has banned the word “meep” after school officials found out that students were planning a large disruption at school by saying “meep”.

When school officials found out about what the students were planning on Facebook, Thomas Murray the school’s principal banned the word meep. After students ignored warnings to stop the meeping, Murray sent a message to students through e-mail and text message informing them that police are monitoring the situation and that any students who say or display the word at school could be suspended.

That’s just sad…

Parents send their children to school to acquire the knowledge that has come down to us as a legacy of our culture– whether it is mathematics, science, or whatever– so that those children can grow up and go out into the world equipped to face life’s challenges.

Too many “educators” see teaching not as a responsibility to the students but as an opportunity for themselves– whether to indoctrinate a captive audience with the teacher’s ideology, manipulate them in social experiments or just do fun things that make teaching easier, whether or not it really educates the child.

You can, of course, call anything that happens in a classroom “education”– but that does not make it education, except in the eyes  of those who cannot think beyond words. Unfortunately, the dumbed-down education of previous generations means that many parents today see nothing wrong with their children being manipulated in school, instead of being educated.

Such parents may see nothing wrong with spending precious time in classrooms chit-chatting about how everyone “feels” about things on television or in their personal life.

Article continues at Capitalism Magazine

So if I was writing biology text books for use in Texas or Kentucky or Missouri schools I think I would join their education authorities in demanding that the word evolution not be mentioned. Instead I would put all of my effort into explaining speciation. Show how that original bacterium could become 2, 4, 8, 20, 30, 60 … species. Could become, even after losing tens of thousands of species along the way, the tens of thousands of species, including humans, chimps, and bacteria, we see today. Explain about the movements of continents, and climate change, and its effects on both the origin and demise of species. You will find they will know about climate change in the past as a result of another misinformation campaign, but it will come in useful here.

An except from an article at the Huffington Post

Article by Paul Armentano at Mises.org

If popularity was the sole measure of success then D.A.R.E., the “Drug Abuse Resistance Education” curriculum that is now taught in 80 percent of school districts nationwide, would be triumphant.  However, if one is to gauge success by actual results, then America’s most pervasive and expensive youth drug education program is (and always has been) a gigantic and incontrovertible flop.

So says the General Accounting Office (GAO) in a scathing new report that finds the politically popular program has had “no statistically significant long-term effect on preventing youth illicit drug use.”  In addition, students who participate in D.A.R.E. demonstrate “no significant differences… [in] attitudes toward illicit drug use [or] resistance to peer pressure” compared to children who had not been exposed to the program, the GAO determined.

Their critique was the latest in a long line of stinging evaluations that have plagued D.A.R.E. throughout its 20-year history.  Established in 1983 by former Los Angeles police chief Daryl—All casual drug users should be taken out and shot!—Gates, the D.A.R.E. elementary school curriculum consists of 17 lessons—taught by D.A.R.E.-trained uniform police officers—urging kids to resist the use of illicit drugs, including the underage use of alcohol and tobacco.  Upon completion of the curriculum, which often relies on scare tactics and transparent “just say no” ideology, graduates “pledge to lead a drug-free life.”  Numerous studies indicate few do.

These include:

• A 1991 University of Kentucky study of 2,071 sixth graders that found no difference in the past-year use of cigarettes, alcohol or marijuana among DARE graduates and non-graduates two years after completing the program.
• A 1996 University of Colorado study of over 940 elementary school students that found no difference with regard to illicit drug use, delay of experimentation with illicit drugs, self-esteem, or resistance to peer pressure among D.A.R.E. graduates and non-graduates three years after completing the program.
• A 1998 University of Illinois study of 1,798 elementary school students that found no differences with regards to the recent use of illicit drugs among D.A.R.E. graduates and non-graduates six years after completing the program.
• A 1999 follow-up study by the University of Kentucky that found no difference in lifetime, past-year, or past-month use of marijuana among D.A.R.E. graduates and non-graduates 10 years after completing the program.

In fact, over the years so many studies have assailed D.A.R.E.’s effectiveness that by 2001 even its proponents admitted it needed serious revamping.  However, rather than shelving the failed program altogether, D.A.R.E.’s advocates called for expanding its admittedly abysmal curriculum to target middle-school and high-school students—a move that was lauded by many federal officials and peer educators despite a track record that would spell the demise for most any other program.

So why does D.A.R.E. remain so immensely popular with politicians (Both Bush I and Clinton endorsed “National D.A.R.E. Day.”) and school administrators despite its stunning lack of demonstrated efficacy?  Researchers writing in the American Psychological Association’s Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology offer two explanations.

The first is that for many civic leaders, teaching children to refrain from drugs simply “feels good.”  Therefore, advocates of the program perceive any scrutiny of their effectiveness to be overly critical and unnecessary.

The second explanation is that D.A.R.E. and similar youth anti-drug education programs appear to work.  After all, most kids who graduate D.A.R.E. do not enage in drug use beyond the occasional beer or marijuana cigarette.  However, this reality is hardly an endorsement of D.A.R.E., but an acknowledgement of the statistical fact that most teens—even without D.A.R.E.—never engage in any significant drug use.

Of course, those looking for a third explanation could simply follow the money trail.  Even though D.A.R.E. has been a failure at persuading kids to steer away from drugs, it has been a marketing cash cow—filling its coffers with hundreds of millions of dollars in annual federal aid.  (According to the GAO, exact totals are unavailable but outside experts have placed this figure at anywhere from $600 to $750 million per year.)

In addition, police departments spend an additional $215 million yearly on D.A.R.E. to pay for their officers’ participation in the program, according to the New York Times.  But this total may be only the tip of the iceberg.  According to a preliminary economic assessment by Le Moyne College in New York, the total economic costs of officers’ training and participation in D.A.R.E. is potentially closer to $600 million.

Regardless of its ultimate financial cost to taxpayers, there is no doubt that D.A.R.E. has become its own special interest group—aggressively lobbying state and federal governments to maintain its swelling budget.  Like a junkie, D.A.R.E. is addicted to the money, and will do whatever it takes to get it.  Meanwhile, its proponents remain in a state of denial, caring more about political posturing than embracing a youth drug education program that really works.  After 20 years of failure, isn’t it about time someone dares to tell the truth?

After hearing about the case of the six year old that was labeled a threat and suspended from school for having his boyscout utensil with him, almost immediately there is another case of zero-tolerance policies not working.

An Eagle Scout, Matthew Whalen of Troy, New York was suspended for 20 days for keeping a 2-inch pocketknife inside a survival kit in his vehicle. He said that he turned the knife in to an administrator after another student told school officials about the knife.

A hearing by the school board will be held on his case but it is doubtful that his sentence will be lifted. This is a problem for Matthew, as missing so many days of school presents problems for his chances of attending West Point.

This time, a zero-tolerance policy could possibly ruin career opportunities for this guy. A policy is not constructive if it ruins the lives of law abiding people, and it cannot be acceptable. Zero-tolerance policies are promoting a one size fits all policy which does not work. Cases should be judged on a case by case basis.

This is a scary story. The Statesman reported yesterday that Governor Perry is removing Linus Wright, a former Dallas school superintendent, as chair of the board that oversees the $88 billion Teacher Retirement System and will replace him with a current board member who is also a member of Perry’s campaign finance team, Dallas real estate investor R. David Kelly. (Wright succeeded Jim Lee, who was one of three co-chairs of the Perry fundraising apparatus; Lee had resigned in the wake of news reports that he had run up six-figure gambling debts in Las Vegas.)

The removal of Wright occurred just a few days after Perry had announced the death of the Trans-Texas Corridor. The juxtaposition of events reminds me of the old Mark Twain line: “Reports of my death were greatly exaggerated.” The concern is that the governor’s office has installed a crony as chairman who will urge the board to invest retirement system funds in toll roads as a means to pump money into funding-starved TxDOT. Perry appointees who don’t go along–as we have learned in the case of board of regents and the Forensic Science Commission–are likely to find themselves replaced. (more…)

This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.

But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.

And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.

So what on Earth is going on?

Climate change sceptics, who passionately and consistently argue that man’s influence on our climate is overstated, say they saw it coming.

They argue that there are natural cycles, over which we have no control, that dictate how warm the planet is. But what is the evidence for this?

During the last few decades of the 20th Century, our planet did warm quickly.

Recent research has ruled out solar influences on temperature increases

Sceptics argue that the warming we observed was down to the energy from the Sun increasing. After all 98% of the Earth’s warmth comes from the Sun.

But research conducted two years ago, and published by the Royal Society, seemed to rule out solar influences.

The scientists’ main approach was simple: to look at solar output and cosmic ray intensity over the last 30-40 years, and compare those trends with the graph for global average surface temperature.

And the results were clear. “Warming in the last 20 to 40 years can’t have been caused by solar activity,” said Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, a leading contributor to this year’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Article continues at the BBC

Six-year-old Zachary Christie was so excited to become a Cub Scout that he brought his camping utensil to school. The tool serves as a spoon, a fork and a knife, and Zachary wanted to use it at lunch.

What Zachary didn’t know was that the gizmo violated his school’s zero-tolerance policy on weapons. And now the Christina School District in Newark, Del., has suspended the first grader and ordered him to attend the district’s reform school for 45 days.

Zachary’s parents insist their son did not intend to hurt anyone, and they are fighting to overturn the ruling.

“Zachary wears a suit and tie some days to school by his own choice because he takes school so seriously,” Zachary’s mother, Debbie Christie, told the New York Times. “He is not some sort of threat to his classmates.”

The school district, in a statement, said rules are rules and defended its decision to suspend the boy. Continued at Fox News

So it seems that this school is willing to potentially traumatize a six year old boy that is otherwise a great student, all for something that he did not even understand. He didn’t threaten anyone, didn’t think of his utensil as a weapon, but yet he’s a dangerous person. The public school system could very well be coming for your unsuspecting child next. Would you want your otherwise upstanding child to be sent to a school that treats students like prisoners on lock-down? Zero tolerance policies do not work, and are even counter-productive, as evident here.

The Libertarian Longhorns and Young Americans for Liberty at the University of Texas have teamed up with Students For Liberty to host the 2009 Students For Liberty Texas Conference.  The conference will bring together students from all across Texas and leaders of the growing liberty movement to learn from each other how best to advance the cause of liberty on campus.

The conference will be held on October 24th, 2009, at the Thompson Conference Center on the University of Texas at Austin campus.  The conference will begin at 8am and conclude with a dinner at 5:30pm.  Each student attendee will not only benefit from the great speakers but receive free books, t-shirts, pamphlets, and 3 free meals at the conference.  Interested parties can learn more and register at http://libertarianlonghorns.com/sfltc-2009/. (Registration required.)

“The SFL Texas Conference is a great opportunity to reach new young people and introduce them to the ideas of liberty” said Norman Horn, President of the Libertarian Longhorns.  “We are bringing in top-notch speakers from across the county to share their knowledge with young activists from Texas.  Our Keynote Speaker will be renowned libertarian author and Vice President of the Cato Institute Gene Healy, whose insights on the expansion of presidential power will be invaluable to all attendees.”

Other speakers include Anthony Gregory of the Independent Institute and Campaign for Liberty, activist and author Mary Ruwart, Gil Guillory of the Molinari Institute, and Nigel Ashford of the Institute for Humane Studies. A panel discussion on local activism is also planned which will involve some of the most distinguished activist groups in Texas, including representatives from Texans for Accountable Government, the Libertarian Party of Texas, the Texas Public Policy Foundation, Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, and the Institute for Justice.

Norman continued, “The conference is focused on students but is open to everyone interested in the ideas of liberty.  It is an extraordinary opportunity that no libertarian, no matter their age, should miss.”