Education Issues

[Soon]

Proposed bill may quiet conversation on homosexuality

For most elementary school students, the issue of sexuality may barely register on their radars. But it may be this season's political hot topic.

A proposed bill in the Tennessee Legislature wants to spell out how schools can introduce sexuality - and only heterosexuality - to your child. It's sponsored by State Sen. Stacey Campfield and Rep. Bill Dunn - both Republicans from Knoxville.


At the heart of the bill is a move to prevent children in elementary and middle schools to have classes that discuss sexual orientation other than heterosexuality.

Gay rights activists say it's a ploy to further discriminate against them.
Those who support the bill say it's about having age appropriate curriculum.

"You're looking at legislation that is going to make sure that when you are talking about sexuality with students that it is age appropriate," said Matthew Parsons, a father of seven children and founder of the group "Something Better."

He says he's in favor of the proposed bill that avoids talking about homosexuality to kids so young.

"If we're talking about homosexuality, we are talking about specific acts that are going to be unhealthy for anybody to engage in outside of marriage."

The bill, known as House Bill 229 or Senate Bill 49, says in part: "No public elementary or middle school shall provide any instruction or material that discusses sexual orientation other than heterosexuality."

At least one group says that's anti-gay - and calls it the "Don't Say Gay" bill.

"The Don't Say Gay bill raises all kinds of issues about anti-gay bias, free speech and government overreach," said Ben Byers with the Tennessee Equality Project.

The group recently received $10,000 from the Human Rights Campaign to fight what they consider negative legislation in Tennessee, including HB 229.

"It limits what teachers and students are able to discuss in the classroom," Byers said. "It means they can't talk about gay issues or sexuality even with students who may be gay or have gay family."

Both Byers and Parsons agree it's a parent's job to talk to their children about sex but disagree on if homosexuality should be a part of that conversation.

Sen. Campfield's office released the following statement about the bill:
"It's the family's responsibility and not someone with an agenda - one way or the other. The bill is neutral. We should leave it to families to decide when it is appropriate to talk with children about sexuality - specifically before the eighth grade."

The Tennessee Equality Project says there are ways to discuss human sexuality without politicizing the issue in the classroom.
The group also says there is no curriculum in Tennessee that discusses sexuality in grades K-8 so the bill is not needed.

Both Byers and Parsons say they will be watching how the bill progresses.

[Soon]

I know...he's a celebrity...but, I am glad someone called President Obama out on this. In our Canadian system, schools who perform lower, get MORE funding, smaller class sizes, and other remedial tools to help their lower achieving students (who are, always, from disadvantaged areas).


_________________________


Matt Damon Calls Out President Obama, Education Policy

This is not the man he voted for.

Matt Damon sat down with Piers Morgan for an interview that will air Thursday night, and among other things, talked about his feelings on the first two years of President Obama's administration. During the 2008 Presidential campaign, Damon was a vocal Obama supporter, campaigning for the then-candidate at rallies, promoting him through a MoveOn video contest and attending fundraisers for him.

Now, he's not so enthused about Obama. When asked if he was happy with the way the President is running the country, Damon said, point blank, "no."

"I really think he misinterpreted his mandate. A friend of mine said to me the other day, I thought it was a great line, 'I no longer hope for audacity,'" Damon said. "He's doubled down on a lot of things, going back to education... the idea that we're testing kids and we're tying teachers salaries to how kids are performing on tests, that kind of mechanized thinking has nothing to do with higher order. We're training them, not teaching them.

For the full interview, tune into Damon and the rest of the cast of the new film, "The Adjustment Bureau" on "Piers Morgan Tonight" at 9 PM EST on Thursday.

[Chancie]

I know...he's a celebrity...but, I am glad someone called President Obama out on this. In our Canadian system, schools who perform lower, get MORE funding, smaller class sizes, and other remedial tools to help their lower achieving students (who are, always, from disadvantaged areas).

I think bureaucrats would say that is true here, but my experience is that none of the proferred solutions are what actual teachers and schools need to help their students learn.

Even at my own school, where I have been very happy teaching, the move is towards collecting data, rather than professional development.

In the next very few years, all of the administrators will be 35+ year old men who have very little teaching experience.

[AtLast]

Unfortunately, Obama has traveled the same road as Bush concerning education policy in the US. And now the Tea Party has an edge to bust public emplyee/teacher unions.

I will be honest, as a former classroom teacher, I did see some "dead wood" that needed clearing. But, show me an industry anywhere that doesn't have this happen. The practice of moving a unproductive or just plain lousy teacher around a district has done a lot a damage to the public perception of teachers in the US. But, it is a false assumption to think that this does not happen in private businesses.

There are many things about tenure, I disagree with, yet, I have to think about the dangers without it and things like sexuality. We all have a right to our private lives.

I have never liked the fact that school administrators can simply get a degree in admin and never teach in a classroom, yet run a school or a school district!!! That is just crazy! It has divided school administration and teacher even further.

As I said, I have worked with teachers in the past that took advantage of school districts, which really means students. And I do support changes in tenure policy to keep these kinds of folks from becoming tenured. Not very lefty of me, but it is how I feel.

need to add that teacher salaries need to reflect the professionals they are- everywhere!

[Martina]

from the current issue of NEA Today Magazine, which i get because i am currently a credentialed classroom teacher:

Tenure doesn’t guarantee anyone a job. It guarantees due process: Teachers are told why they are being terminated and given an opportunity to challenge that reason. During the two, three, four, or even more years that a teacher must work before earning tenure, that teacher can be fired for no reason at all. Eliminating tenure would be like a never-ending probationary period.

Tenure laws were created to keep school officials from axing teachers out of prejudice or anger, or just to make room for a politician’s relative. Those who want to get rid of tenure often say it was needed in the olden days, but times have changed. How so? Have we banished prejudice, anger, and politicians’ relatives? Do we really want to jeopardize teachers’ willingness to speak up regarding instructional, curricular, safety, or other issues that affect students and school staff?

If someone doesn’t have what it takes to teach, there’s plenty of time for a principal to tell that person to find a new career before tenure applies. Principals need the skills and the time to evaluate and work with teachers in those first years before tenure. Let’s end “drive-by” evaluations. But eliminating due process is not the way to attract and retain the best and brightest. Stronger professional development, better mentoring, and more useful teacher evaluation-all of which NEA locals are working to strengthen-are better ideas.

In human terms.
Jane Jackson (not her real name) is a special education teacher who received a harsh letter of reprimand charging her with insubordination and threatening “further action.” Why? She told the truth when a child advocate asked whether a student’s individual education plan was being carried out.

Jackson had tenure. She kept her job and her union got the reprimand erased. But what if she had not had due process? She might well have been fired for doing the right thing.

Educators without tenure have been terminated or non-renewed for reporting unsafe conditions to the superintendent, complaining about the mishandling of funds, criticizing the district’s dress code in public, filing a grievance, or being married to a union organizer.

Most administrators are fair-minded. Tenure is to protect you if you run into one who isn’t.

[AtLast]

But eliminating due process is not the way to attract and retain the best and brightest. Stronger professional development, better mentoring, and more useful teacher evaluation-all of which NEA locals are working to strengthen-are better ideas.

Totally agree with this- and every emplyee/worker must have due process- public or private. I have concerns, however, about the deluge of administrators without prior classroom experience evaluating teachers as well as how the process is constructed.

It feels like graduate programs in counseling and psychotherapy that license clinicians from programs in which they are not required to be in therapy themselves for a period of time or are required to process record their work.

To be fair, school administrators are often locked into the politics of districts and end up with very little time spent with their faculty as well as observing them in the classroom.

[blush]

The problem with approaching education "like a business" is we are dealing with children, not "products."

As far as I'm aware, other professions that deal exclusively with humans are not monitored and evaluated based on the performance of their human. Doctors are not hired/fired based on how many people they cure. Psychologists' jobs do not depend solely on the progress of their patients. Yet we, as a nation, are demanding that teachers "fix" students by tying the student's performance to the teacher. And we give less and less and less personal responsibility to the students themselves.

If you (collective you) want to know what teachers do, go sit in a classroom. Walk through a school. See how many teachers have their feet propped up on a desk with the paper while the class runs amuck. Yes, those teachers need to be fired. As should a doctor who is killing patients.

We are not dealing with boxes of Cheerios that need new marketing. We are dealing with children. Children who come to us with all different levels of experiences and backgrounds. Children who sometimes don't have breakfast. Or a bed. Or sometimes have too much breakfast and beds. To expect ANYONE to level that playing field in a year for high stakes testing is ridiculous. Would we expect a disease to be cured after one visit?

Students should be progress monitored using multiple modes of assessments. If a pattern emerges that students in a class are rarely or never making progress, someone should start stopping by the damn classroom and find out what's going on. Not a Dog and Pony Show evaluation, but several unannounced visits. No teacher's success should ever be linked to 1 test on 1 day.

[Soon]

Why Is Arkansas Christian School Harding University Telling Gay Students They Must Turn Straight?

Read more: http://www.queerty.com/why-is-arkans...#ixzz1Fb0ewG6K

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by blush

The problem with approaching education "like a business" is we are dealing with children, not "products."

As far as I'm aware, other professions that deal exclusively with humans are not monitored and evaluated based on the performance of their human. Doctors are not hired/fired based on how many people they cure. Psychologists' jobs do not depend solely on the progress of their patients. Yet we, as a nation, are demanding that teachers "fix" students by tying the student's performance to the teacher. And we give less and less and less personal responsibility to the students themselves.

If you (collective you) want to know what teachers do, go sit in a classroom. Walk through a school. See how many teachers have their feet propped up on a desk with the paper while the class runs amuck. Yes, those teachers need to be fired. As should a doctor who is killing patients.

We are not dealing with boxes of Cheerios that need new marketing. We are dealing with children. Children who come to us with all different levels of experiences and backgrounds. Children who sometimes don't have breakfast. Or a bed. Or sometimes have too much breakfast and beds. To expect ANYONE to level that playing field in a year for high stakes testing is ridiculous. Would we expect a disease to be cured after one visit?

Students should be progress monitored using multiple modes of assessments. If a pattern emerges that students in a class are rarely or never making progress, someone should start stopping by the damn classroom and find out what's going on. Not a Dog and Pony Show evaluation, but several unannounced visits. No teacher's success should ever be linked to 1 test on 1 day.

Thinking of major districts (like DC and NYC) in which the whole "run it like a business" concept was adopted. And in some cases, 100s of teachers were simply fired. All based upon test results. Boards across the US are aiming for this kind of action.

I am and always have been an advocate for public schools. I don't know if my kid were in school, today, if I would move him into a private school- mainly because of testing. Or, I would opt him out of taking these tests. A child is not a robot. Nor are teachers. (Which does not mean I do not want measurable outcomes of learning- but this is not the way).

Frankly, I am glad I taught in a very different era. I actually felt joy teaching. Demanding, but rewarding- and I felt supported by administration and parents. I don't hear this much anymore from teachers.