Saturday Trivia

The answer to yesterday's question is:
The Balearic Islands. (I thought *someone* would have gotten that one.)

Today's question is:
What is the name of the actual castle that is said to have been the setting for Hamlet?

There's a new Theme Week tomorrow. Get excited! :)

Still At It

Two years ago I wrote about our school's Secret Snowman program, and how it was explicitly stated on the Secret Snowman form that "Snowman" was used instead of "Santa" so as not to have a religious connotation--even though the gift-giving itself is based on the gifts to the Christ-child from the three wise men!

Looks like we're using the exact same form this year, with the exact same explanation. (Don't recall if we used this form last year or not.)

PC BS.

Compulsory Public "Option" In Student Loans

From the Wall Street Journal:

There's encouraging news on that other Washington effort to force Americans into a government-run system. The White House plan to drive private lenders out of the market for student loans is igniting a backlash on campus and Capitol Hill.

The typical tale of a free-speech controversy on campus involves administrators landing on some poor undergrad who violates political correctness. But in this story the administrators have been afraid to speak as the Department of Education pressured them to drop private lenders and embrace the department's own Direct Lending (DL) program. The pending bill, which has passed the House but is stalled in the Senate, would ban private lenders from making federally guaranteed loans after July 1, 2010.

Congress has already enacted regulations in recent years to discourage making loans without a federal guarantee. And many lenders have quit the business. Now the White House and Democrats like California Rep. George Miller want to go further and convert students from private loans largely backed by the taxpayer into government loans made and serviced by government and backed by the taxpayer. Think of this as a prelude to how Congress will rig the rules for any public option in health care.

The private lenders have been the most popular choice, while—big surprise—the government's program has a history of shoddy customer service...

Schools got the message. The leader of a large university recently refused to discuss the issue with us on the record, fearful that the feds are taking names.

You'll want to read the whole thing.

I Feel Safer Already

Gotta love press releases like this:

State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell today announced a multiagency effort to distribute millions of protective masks and gloves to schools throughout California to help prevent and mitigate the spread of the H1N1 influenza virus and other influenza outbreaks.

Remember how, during the anthrax scare earlier this decade, people mocked the idea of duct-taping plastic over your windows? Yeah, that.

Oh, but these masks and gloves are only for those who get sick, or those who care for them. Are they expecting millions?

The guidance also recommends the use of personal protective equipment in situations when a student becomes ill while at school. The guidance states that students who appear to have influenza-like illness should be sent to a supervised sick room separate from others until they can leave the school campus. CDC recommends that the ill person wear a surgical mask, if they can tolerate it. The CDC guidance also recommends that school nurses or other school staff who are caring for ill students should wear gloves and a respirator face mask, commonly known as an N95 respirator.

A supervised sick room? School nurses? School nurses? How many schools still provide such services? The school at which I teach has a severely handicapped program, and in that program we have a nurse (not sure if she's there every day or not), so in that regard we're better off than many schools. We certainly don't have a nurse's office, though.

This is a typical bureaucratic non-solution. They can't do much more than this, but this is more theater than real solution. They just want to be seen as doing something.

Inappropriate? Silly? Stupid? "Fireable"?

I link, you decide.

Ryan Haraughty, an eighth grade science teacher made, not really a dirty joke, but a dirty allusion in class -- by accident, it sounds like -- and got fired for it for creating a "sexually hostile environment," after a parent complained.

I've Heard of Child Porn, But...

There are sickos of all kinds in this world, even pedophiles. But honestly, I never even considered that there would exist someone like this:

The image of UC Davis is squeaky clean. But one of the university employees is accused of keeping a dirty and illegal secret...

Last summer, agents served a search warrant on Xiong's home. On his bedroom computer, agents found 14,000 files of images of children engaged in sexually explicit conduct; most of the children ranged in age from newborns to ten years old.

During one chat, the sender of some of the images asked Xiong what age he preferred. Xiong's reply was "All.. Babies too."

"Ewww" doesn't cut it. "OMFG" might be in the ball park.

Friday Trivia

The answer to yesterday's question is:
The United Kingdom, in World War I.


Today's question is:
The islands of Mallorca, Menorca, Ibiza, Formentera, and Cabrera, off the Mediterranean coast of Spain, make up the archipelago known as what?

This Sunday is the start of a new Theme Week. Get ready for the excitement!

So Little Oversight, So Much Time

Doesn't it just make you furious when someone abuses expense accounts, takes lavish vacations on the taxpayer dime, etc? Well, prepare to be furious.

A top official with the CSU Chancellor's Office wasted more than $152,000 on travel, meals and more, according to a new report from the state auditor's office...

The investigation revealed that Ernst was improperly reimbursed for "unnecessary trips, meals that exceeded the university's reimbursement limits, the official's commuter expenses between his home in Northern California and the university's headquarters in Long Beach, living allowances, home office expenses, duplicate payments, and overpayments of claims."

The official's travel was deemed of little benefit or advantage to the university and included trips to Shanghai, Singapore, London, Amsterdam and Australia.

Someone is supposed to be looking out for the taxpayer. In addition to the crook himself, whom do we we hold responsible?

Agency Fee Rebate

Today I received my agency fee rebate from the CTA. The agency fee rebate is the amount of money that the NEA/CTA/local union admit they spent on activities not related to collective bargaining (e.g., politics) and must refund to those of us who are not union members but are still required by state law to pay a union. This is called a "fair share" situation, wherein we non-union types are compelled to pay our "fair share" for union representation that we don't want; other states are considered "right to work" states, wherein employees have a "right to work" free of compulsory union payments.

My rebate check was in excess of $300, or 1/3 of my annual union dues. Yes, I pay about $1000/year for union representation that I do not want.

That $1000 is divvied up among the NEA, the CTA, and my local union. The following are the rebate percentages for each level for this school year:

NEA: 55% rebate (that means that the NEA spends over half of its money on activities not related to employee representation)
CTA and local union: 28.6% rebate

Additionally, most CTA members don't know that they're "voluntarily" donating $20/year to CTA's political action fund, and can opt out of that "donation" if they wish. It's an "opt out" situation, and CTA rightly figures that most teachers won't go through the hassle. CTA thereby gets an additional $20/year per member to spend on far-left-wing political causes. My rebate check includes the $20 "voluntary dues contribution".

Thursday Trivia

The answer to yesterday's question is:
Presbyterian.

Today's question is:
What country invented and fielded the first military tank?

Carnival of Education

This week's is here and includes my balanced and thoughtful post about the 32% increase in University of California fees :-)

Let's support the new Carnival of Education. Contribute a post and link link link.

Wednesday Trivia

The answer to yesterday's question is:
1977.

Today's question is:
Fred Rogers, of Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood, was an ordained minister in which Christian denomination?

I'll Take "False Dichotomies" For 200, Alex

I just can't let this statement from Ole Si Se Puede himself pass without comment:

I remember the way a classroom felt to me before No Child Left Behind (NCLB), when teaching was about encouraging students to learn rather than requiring them to practice rote memorization.

So we either have no standards and get to teach whatever we want, or we have rote memorization of bureaucrat-approved material?

The man's a genius.

Strike that. He's an idiot.

What Does California Educator Magazine Say About The Change In Teacher Evaluation Law?

It says a lot, but I'm reminded of the line from the Simon and Garfunkel song: "people talking without speaking...." Can CTA ever be clear and honest about what's going on?

Last month the governor signed a law that allows what was once forbidden, the tying of student standardized test scores to teacher evaluations. CTA, which long said it would plant its standard on that hill and fight to the death, seemingly ran away from the fight without firing a shot. You might think I'm exaggerating, but let's see the different statements California Educator publishes about this situation:

The first is from Ole Si Se Puede's column:

The final RTTT (Race to the Top) regulations were just released. We certainly still have concerns and are reviewing all the details, but there were some improvements. The final guidelines include multiple measures of gauging student growth and, in turn, teacher effectiveness. They also call for teacher involvement in designing evaluation systems and provide a fourth option of assistance for helping lower-performing schools.

No reference at all to the change in ed code. So we turn to page 13 and read about the bill that effected the change:

Is it now legal to use student assessments as a component of teacher evaluations?
State law already requires the use of student assessment results in the evaluation of teachers, including the use of criterion-referenced tests as determined by local teachers and administrators. Many districts include student assessments as one component of evaluations and are using data to improve instruction, teacher effectiveness and student learning. Those evaluation processes must still be negotiated.

Should I be alarmed about the passage of SB 19?
Deletion of the “state firewall” language regarding student and teacher data systems does not impact state collective bargaining law or local bargaining agreements. The state does not evaluate teachers and this bill doesn’t create a statewide evaluation system.

This is not entirely accurate. Let's see what I wrote in October, quoting the major Sacramento newspaper (the embedded link now resides in the "paid archives"):

Sunday afternoon Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a bill that took away the biggest obstacle to the state winning a share of $4.35 billion in federal Race to the Top funds for education.

Senate Bill 19, authored by Sen. Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto, eliminates a statewide ban against tying student test scores to teacher evaluations.

CTA isn't being entirely honest. Or are they? Because on page 32 they say something else entirely:

The measure, SB 19, by state Sen. Joe Simitian (D-Santa Clara), deletes a sentence in the state's Education Code that forbids using a state education database for purposes of teacher evaluation or pay.

Which sentence was deleted, do you think? CTA doesn't say! For grins, let's see what California Ed Code Section 44662 has to say:

44662. (a) The governing board of each school district shall establish standards of expected pupil achievement at each grade level in each area of study.
(b) The governing board of each school district shall evaluate and assess certificated employee performance as it reasonably relates to:
(1) The progress of pupils toward the standards established pursuant to subdivision (a) and, if applicable, the state adopted academic content standards as measured by state adopted criterion referenced assessments.
(2) The instructional techniques and strategies used by the employee.
(3) The employee's adherence to curricular objectives.
(4) The establishment and maintenance of a suitable learning environment, within the scope of the employee's responsibilities.
(c) The governing board of each school district shall establish and define job responsibilities for certificated noninstructional personnel, including, but not limited to, supervisory and administrative personnel, whose responsibilities cannot be evaluated appropriately under the provisions of subdivision (b) and shall evaluate and assess the performance of those noninstructional certificated employees as it reasonably relates to the fulfillment of those responsibilities.
(d) Results of an employee's participation in the Peer Assistance and Review Program for Teachers established by Article 4.5 (commencing with Section 44500) shall be made available as part of the evaluation conducted pursuant to this section.
(e) The evaluation and assessment of certificated employee performance pursuant to this section shall not include the use of publishers' norms established by standardized tests.
(f) Nothing in this section shall be construed as in any way limiting the authority of school district governing boards to develop and adopt additional evaluation and assessment guidelines or criteria. (boldface mine--Darren)

I admit to having some difficulty understanding how the two boldfaced sections above aren't contradictory. Still, I ask--which sentence has been removed? I've quoted the sections that deal with teacher evaluation.

Turns out SB 19 relates to something else entirely--databases.

(1) Existing law establishes the California Education Information System, which consists of the California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS) and the California Longitudinal Teacher Integrated Data Education System (CALTIDES). Existing law requires that data elements and codes included in the California Education Information System
be maintained in compliance with specified provisions of law...
(2) Existing law prohibits data in CALTIDES from being used either solely or in conjunction with data from CALPADS for purposes of pay, promotion, sanction, or personnel evaluation of an individual teacher or groups of teachers, or any other employment decisions related to individual teachers.
This bill would delete this prohibition.

It might seem that this new law affects Section 44662, but that section deals with district-level teacher evaluations. So how does this new law affect teachers? CTA says it, in effect, doesn't:

CTA legal experts point out that SB 19's deletion of an Education Code sentence regarding the use of CALTIDES data in teacher evaluations "has no direct impact on any evaluation provisions in collective bargaining agreements. It does not supersede, nullify or require any changes to existing language that has been collectively bargained. It does not change existing Education Code provisions regarding evaluation, nor does it mandate making a change in evaluation procedures."

So what, exactly, does this new law do? What did it change? What does it allow now that wasn't allowed before? How will this state data make its way to my district and be used in my evaluation?

The bottom line is that after all this reading, researching, and writing, I know very little more about the impact of this new law than I did when I began. Clearly this law is a big deal, and it makes a lot of federal money available to California. Instead of essentially saying that there's nothing to see here, please move along, perhaps the CTA could explain, in laymen's terms, what its impact is.

But no, that would be too much to ask. Because if you educate the teachers, they might not always agree with you. Better to keep them in the dark and dependent on your paternalistic benevolence. We know best, trust us--right, CTA?

The President's Speech Tonight

Before I state why I was underwhelmed, let me offer my congratulations and thanks to the Corps of Cadets for acquitting themselves marvelously. There were more than polite to their commander-in-chief, a man I understand isn't extremely popular at West Point.

Now, my bullet-point issues with the President's speech:
--The word victory wasn't used once. When you're addressing soldiers, especially when the subject is war, mention winning.
--The President doesn't have a firm grasp of history, especially regarding the Vietnam war. It was not a "popular uprising" by any stretch.
--The President's policy of turning the fight over to the Afghanis, while important, reeks of "vietnamization". We cut off support to the South Vietnamese too soon, and the results speak for themselves. Two words: reeducation camps.
--Timetables don't win wars. Overwhelming force wins wars.
--Based on this president's timetable, General McCrystal has about a year to win the war. I wonder if the "tolly-bahn" will have anything to say about that?
--Can you quit with the digs at your predecessor already?
--You can try to rewrite history, Mr. President, but that doesn't make it so.
--Last spring the president said, "I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaida in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future." If that's the case, why did it take him 3 months to act on his hand-picked general's recommendations? And to say that his 3 month wait didn't have any impact was disingenuous at best.
--"Years of debate over Iraq and terrorism have left our unity on national security issues in tatters, and created a highly polarized and partisan backdrop for this effort." And who is responsible for that? (Hint: it wasn't President Bush.)
--He came across as angry, or at least sternly lecturing.


What wasn't so bad:
--It seems he's begrudgingly come around to the realization that the Surge in Iraq worked, and that Iraq is now a stable country. What was it he said in July 2007? "Here's what we know. The Surge has not worked."
--He laid out a "why we fight" argument.
--He's providing the troops.

I guess we'll see what happens.

Tuesday Trivia

The answer to yesterday's question is:
1848. The first large influx of people were then called '49ers, based on when they arrived.

Today's question is:
In what year did Elvis Presley die?

Affirmative Action In Higher Education

It's been said that affirmative action does nothing more than replace malignant racism with benign racism. This article backs up that statement:

Using the National Study of College Experience (NSCE) — a collection of information from eight anonymous elite colleges — authors Thomas J. Espenshade and Alexandria Walton Radford are able to calculate various applicants’ odds of getting into a school. They discover some mildly interesting trends regarding social class (more on that later), but their results for race are truly stunning. After academic performance and demographic factors have been taken into account, black applicants are more than five times as likely as whites to be accepted at NSCE private schools, and 220 times as likely to be accepted at NSCE public schools. Asian applicants, meanwhile, are only about a third as likely as whites to get big envelopes from private institutions, and one-fifth as likely to gain admission to public ones.

Putting preferences in terms of test scores, at private schools, blacks get an advantage, compared to whites, worth 310 SAT points (out of 1600), Hispanics an advantage of 130, and Asians a disadvantage of 140. At public schools, the authors present the difference in ACT points: blacks 3.8 (out of 36), Hispanics 0.3, Asians –3.4.

If we look at students who actually matriculate, blacks are far more likely than whites to come from the bottom 80 percent of their high-school classes (27 percent versus 12 percent), have high-school GPAs of B+ or below (32 versus 18 percent), and have SAT scores below 1000 (21 versus 2 percent).

The logical conclusion from this mountain of evidence is obvious: Top-of-the-line schools use severe racial preferences. (boldface mine--Darren)

If I were Asian, I'd be more ticked than I already am.

One important thing to bear in mind is that the authors’ sample — the elite schools in the NSCE — is not representative. Without affirmative action, the minority students who failed to get into NSCE schools would likely go to lower-tier schools rather than skipping college entirely. It’s hard to tell what would happen at those lower-tier schools.

For every lesser-qualified kid who gets into a school because of the color of his skin, a more qualified kid is excluded from that school because of the color of his skin. Is that really so benign?

Which Organization Is The Largest Political Spender In America?

Think about it for a moment. Trial lawyers? Wal*Mart? AARP?

Nope:

Since the rise of the Internet, we have been able to more easily track political spending. The Center for Responsive Politics has led the way in documenting and accounting for all the different ways money is spent on federal campaigns. Alas, tracking similar spending at the state level has been more of a hit-or-miss proposition. Disclosure laws vary from state to state, and electronic reporting of results has been sporadic.

Until now. CRP joined forces with the National Institute on Money in State Politics to produce the first comprehensive report of political spending at both the state and national levels. The organizations combined spending on candidates, parties and ballot initiatives to come up with a total for each of the nation's special interest groups. The results should give pause to those who think the biggest political spenders must be Big Oil, Wal-Mart and the pharmaceutical, banking and tobacco industries.

By far the largest political spender for the 2007-08 election cycle was the National Education Association, with more than $56.3 million in contributions. The teachers' union outdistanced the second-place group by more than $12 million...

Just to put this in perspective, America's two teachers' unions outspent AT&T, Goldman Sachs, Wal-Mart, Microsoft, General Electric, Chevron, Pfizer, Morgan Stanley, Lockheed Martin, FedEx, Boeing, Merrill Lynch, Exxon Mobil, Lehman Brothers, and the Walt Disney Corporation, combined.

I'll be sure to mention this the next time some liberal (usually a fellow teacher!) mentions how much money business spends on politics.

My solution to getting PAC money out of politics? Limit government. The only reason people spend on politics is they want the power of the federal government to swing their way; get rid of the power, and there's no reason for people to spend their money that way.

Ceremony at West Point

I received permission from the MOPH Public Relations Director to print this release in full:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Springfield, VA November 24, 2009

National Commander Jim Sims Welcomes Five West Point Cadets into The Military Order of the Purple Heart

On Saturday, November 14, National Commander Jim Sims was invited to attend a football game between the USMA and VMI at West Point. Between quarters, Commander Sims and five Cadets, each of whom was a Purple Heart recipient, were called to the 30 yard line, where he presented each Cadet with a lifetime membership in the MOPH, a Purple Heart commemorative wristwatch, and his personal “Commander’s Challenge Coin.” Amid the thunderous cheers of their fellow cadets, the following cadets were recognized:



Cadet Tyler Gordy, Class of 2010 and First Captain of the Corps of Cadets, is a Purple Heart recipient from Newcastle, California. While on patrol in Mosul, Iraq on September 12, 2003 a thrown hand grenade exploded inside his vehicle, leaving Cadet Gordy with shrapnel wounds to his legs, arm, and face. Despite his injuries, Cadet Gordy returned fire, giving others time to provide medical care and remove his fellow wounded soldiers from further danger.

Cadet Matthew Gilbert, Class of 2011, a Purple Heart recipient from Belgrade, Maine was conducting maneuvers during an engagement in Mosul, Iraq on September 17, 2005. After clearing and securing the first of three houses containing hostile enemy, CDT Gilbert’s squad came under heavy enemy machine gun fire. In the ensuing battle, Cadet Gilbert was struck in the forehead by shrapnel from an RPK round.

Cadet Benjamin Ordiway, Class of 2012, a Purple Heart recipient from Champion, Michigan was clearing a canal road of mines in Turki, Iraq on November 15, 2006, to allow access to set up a hasty patrol base. Cadet Ordiway was providing security for the entry point just as one of the gun trucks passed over an emplaced mine, wounding Cadet Ordiway with debris from the engine block.

Cadet Idi Mallari, Class of 2012, a Purple Heart recipient from Chicago, Illinois was conducting operations at a patrol base in As Sadah, Iraq on April 23, 2007, when two SVBIED’s penetrated their perimeter barriers and exploded, killing 9 and injuring more than 30 of his fellow paratroopers. CDT Mallari himself sustained shrapnel wounds and abrasions from the two blasts.

Cadet Sean Staggs, Class of 2013, a Purple Heart recipient from Alta Loma, California was on a combat patrol in Baghdad, Iraq on October 21, 2007, when his vehicle was struck by an improvised explosive device. The explosion shattered Cadet Staggs’ left ankle.

According to Cadet Mallari a few days later, “Many cadets have come to me and thanked me for my service more than ever, and I think cadets understand the sacrifice Soldiers in the service make every day in combat. They appreciate what Soldiers do. The ceremony was a great opportunity to remind the Corps of Cadets that as cadets, we need to get ready to lead the men in the Army once we graduate USMA.”

The organization now known as the "Military Order of the Purple Heart of the U.S.A. Inc.," (MOPH) was formed in 1932 for the protection and mutual interest of all who have received the decoration. Chartered by the Congress, The MOPH is unique among Veteran Service Organizations in that all its members were wounded in combat. For this sacrifice, they were awarded the Purple Heart Medal. With grants from the MOPH Service Foundation, the MOPH and its Ladies Auxiliary promote Patriotism, Fraternalism, and the Preservation of America's military history. Most importantly, they provide comfort and assistance to all Veterans and their families, especially those requiring claims assistance with the VA, those who are homeless, and those requiring employment assistance. Through the VAVS program, MOPH volunteers provide assistance to hospitalized veterans at VA sites and State Veterans Homes.

For information contact:

National Public Relations Director, John Bircher, 352-753-5535

Email: PublicRelations@Purpleheart.org

MOPH on the Web

MOPH on Facebook

MOPH on Twitter

MOPH on YouTube

(Photo credit: USMA)

Monday Trivia

The answer to yesterday's question is:
Moby Dick.

Today's question is:
In what year was gold discovered at Sutter's Mill in Coloma, igniting the Great California Gold Rush?