Whew.

Columbia University has now supplanted its competitors in the upper echelons of higher education as the bellwether of intellectual dishonesty.

In fact, the lead may be insurmountable, unless of course the ghost of Stalin starts to hold vigil on the streets of Cambridge to debate the importance of purges in efficient communistic administration.

By now everyone knows that Columbia has invited Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak on its campus, a Holocaust denier, religious Islamist fundamentalist, and proud advocate of Jewish destruction. Just last year the leadership of Columbia University viewed such positions as less offensive than the United States’ military’s recruitment policies.

In short, Jewish genocide is less offensive than “don’t ask, don’t tell”.

Really?

Apparently. Columbia University might as well start a symposium on the subject and invite Jeremiah Munsen to discuss his views on the inferiority of other races and the proper role of Africa in international relations. It’s just free speech, right?

Which is a trap door. Free speech is not the real issue. Institutions all the time decide that certain opinions are too far outside the acceptable realm of discussion, whether it is the forbidding of ROTC recruitment on campus, or the denial of a former Harvard president to speak to a state university governing board because he dared comment that women simply didn’t like science as much as men do. Do not be fooled that Columbia is acting as a neutral forum. If they found Ahmadinejad’s statements and policies distasteful, he would have already been disinvited. American academia has long snuffed out the torch of free speech on its campuses.

Add to that a Columbia University dean John Coatsworth’s sua sponte admission that Adolf Hitler would have been welcome prior to the beginning of World War II (pre or post the invasion of Sudetenland, we’re not sure), and we have quite the mess. The rationale there, I suppose, is that we wouldn’t have been at war with Germany yet, or more invidious, that anti-Semitism is simply okay (I suppose someone should tell the dean Mein Kampf was published sixteen years before American involvement in the war). The lynch pin according to the dean is that he would have to be subjected to a discussion, which seems more label than substance. There will be no substantive discussion - Ahmadinejad will stick to his genocidal, anti-American talking points like he has in every interview he has conducted.

Either way, we are de facto at war with Iran, and Columbia is playing the perfect patsy, giving Iran’s leader an American platform to crown his well-orchestrated media circus. It is not debatable that Iranian monies and weapons have been provided to the anti-government forces in Iraq. I know at this point it’s too late to demand that our academics reach a pro-American consensus. At the very least one of our top universities could muster enough willpower to stand up to an avowed religiously intolerant, genocidal racist.

One of the undesirable side effects of having the unequalled in wonderfulness job of being a mother is exposure to children’s programming.  I was never a big fan of cartoons when I was a kid, only watching the Saturday morning shows to see the “One to Grow On” and Menudo segments that came on just before the top of the hour. Now, I am learning about the new characters that have sprung onto the toddler landscape.

I have a problem with one feature I have noticed both in the classic Sesame Street and the new program likely created under the influence of hallucinogens called The Wonder Pets.  In both shows, there is a character who speaks with a pronounced speech impediment (Sesame Street features Little Bear and Wonder Pets has, I believe, a baby chick).  For these animals, “serious” becomes “see-we-us” and “bear” becomes “ba-wah”.

I suppose the intention of the shows’ creators is to allow children who struggle with speech impediments to hear others who sound like them and therefore know they aren’t alone (just as it makes sense to feature children of different races and backgrounds).  However, isn’t a primary purpose of these educational shows to teach children about proper language and diction?  Shouldn’t these puppets serve as an example for the kids to model?

I assume that children who have difficulty pronouncing certain sounds will be provided speech therapy in school.  Why continue to reinforce incorrect practices until that point?  I don’t let Catherine watch Wonder Pets anymore and I turn off the sound when Little Bear comes on Sesame Street.  I don’t want her to think that those words are correct as she learns sounds for the first time.

Even though I have not taught high school in four years, I sometimes wake up in the middle of the night terrified that I forgot to prepare lesson plans for the day that would soon be arriving. I lie in bed in a state of half-slumber mentally developing a ninety-minute plan to excite high school seniors about the electoral college. The gnawing pain in my stomach is eventually enough to wake me up fully. I take a deep sigh of relief and realize that I am no longer a public school teacher. I used to have the same 3:00am problem when waiting tables at Chilis. I would actually put on my fabulous burgandy polo and navy blue apron before coming to my senses and reminding myself that I did not leave a customer there without his turkey sandwich.

Anyway, my latest night sweats over teaching led me to think about a specific incident that caused quite the stir. When I began my employment with the school system that hired me, we were told that our email accounts were to be used for professional reasons only (correspondence with parents, planning with other teachers, subscribing to daily updates from E! Online, etc). I used my school email account for its intended purpose and maintained great communication with parents about upcoming exams, the distribution of grades and other tidbits that the students did not want mom and dad to know. However, there were many other teachers in the system who I believed were abusing the email access. Not a day went by that I did not receive several forwards with cute teddy bears, enlightening stories about how the gruff businessman learned his job wasn’t nearly as hard as that of a teacher or advertisements for used trucks. I even got quite a few prayer chains with pictures of Jesus.

If these teachers wanted to share a favorite forward of a dancing penguin with other friends on the faculty who would be receptive, then I would support their desire to email to their heart’s content. But, these people were sending nonsense to every teacher in the county!

After a particularly bad afternoon of deleting annoying emails, I decided to take action. I sent my own email to the entire county, and I included the administration in the recipient list. I wrote that our email should be used for professional purposes only and that I did not want to receive an email with “Jingle Bells” rewritten about the harried life of teachers. We are fighting to be taken seriously as a profession on par with others that require certification (such as medicine and law), but I can’t imagine a doctor sending out an email letting every other doctor in a hospital know what her favorite color says about her personality.

The responses were about three to one against me. One woman wrote to me to let me know she would be praying for me because I was obvious unhappy and bitter. Another teacher told me that she couldn’t get through her crazy day without funny forwards to cheer her up (which I found quite unfortunate). Others were happy that someone finally spoke up and assured me that I had plenty of support.

There were parts of being a teacher that I loved, and I took the education of my students seriously. I tried to share my passion for government with them every day. I spent hours grading and commenting on papers (I made them write A LOT) and planning creative ways to teach new concepts. Occasionally, through email, I would pass along an amusing story to my friends on the staff. However, I did not impose spinning smiley faces on several hundred teachers who I assumed were as busy as me. That is just plain unprofessional.

Our state legislature is considering a bill to lower the GPA needed to earn a HOPE Scholarship from a 3.0 to a 2.75. I hope this attempt at lowering expectations does not succeed for three reasons.

First, why should the state pay for a student to attend college when he has not shown he can succeed in high school? If a student is even minimally interested in his studies, earning a 3.0 GPA is not difficult. With grade inflation, such marks are barely above passing.

Second, there are already too many people going to college. I believe that colleges and universities should be for men and women who are interested in learning. Instead, the most apathetic teenager who cannot stand studying and sitting in a classroom is still expected to apply to college. Why allow that person to take up space in a classroom for four more years? I am not going to force Catherine to go to college. I hope that she will choose to attend college, as that time was a wonderful experience for me. She is growing up in a home with two parents who enjoy learning (I loved school … studying late at night, writing essays, final exams … loved it!), so I hope she develops a joy for knowledge whether she gets that through school or another one of life’s avenues.

Third, the state already spends enough money subsidizing higher education. Tuition at our state schools is quite low when you consider the actual cost. Lowering the GPA requirements would cost the state another $36 million, which may not be entirely covered by the lottery. Let’s stop lowering the expectations we hold for our students and instead reward those who have proven that they are serious about succeeding.

And, by the way, I would like to thank Senator Henry for giving a shout-out to my home state of Maryland:

“If this was Maryland or Delaware or some such place, I wouldn’t have any trouble saying, ‘yes, let’s stick with 3.0,’” Henry said. “But in Tennessee, exposure to college work is so rare and some knowledge of the great world is more and more necessary to people who want to get anywhere in life.”

Who knew that the Chesapeake Bay area held the standard for “exposure to college work”? Way to go, Terps and Fighting Blue Hens!

Today, The Washington Times has the headline “College Veer Left for ‘07 Speakers”.

Commencement addresses at the nation’s top colleges and universities this year mostly were given by left-leaning or Democratic speakers with few conservatives snagging the honor, according to a report released yesterday by the Young America’s Foundation.

The conservative group conducts the review each year using the U.S. News & World Report ranking of top schools. This year, it found left-leaning speakers outnumbered conservatives by a ratio of 8-to-1.

First of all … is this news? Does The Times think that it is breaking some great unknown scandal regarding the dominant leaning of university administrations? Second of all … I don’t think there was any veering that occurred. This year’s speakers are merely a continuation of the same trend.

When I graduated from the University of Maryland, the commencement speaker was former Senator Bill Bradley. Wow, do I wish that Red Bull had been around in those days! The year before that, the speaker was First Lady (at that time) Hillary Clinton. I continued to attend graduation ceremonies in the years that followed, as I worked on campus. Our treat in 1998 was Secretary of State Madeline Allbright and 1999 brought us a dual performace by Carville and Matalin (Carville is clearly the stronger speaker and more of the true believer between the two).

I was an officer with the College Democrats during my wayward youth and I was amused with my friend who was the president of the College Republicans (his name was Nathan … must be something about that name and being a Republican … I wonder if the guy who made the hot dogs was a conservative) as he wrote angry letters to the campus newspaper about the bias in speakers. Now I get it. Despite the example provided by our current president, there are well-spoken conservatives who would make engaging commencement speakers.

I will say that YAF got a little overenthusiastic when looking to label speakers with the “liberal” tag. While Brian Williams and Bill Gates may very well carry pocket copies of The Communist Manifesto and have a swimsuit photo of Hillary Clinton hanging over their beds, they are professionals who I don’t consider primarily political in nature. But, the overall conclusion made by YAF, that college speakers are overwhelmingly liberal in ideology, cannot be denied.

I support the Standard School Attire guidelines that were recently passed by the Metro School Board.  I believe that children should view school as a serious responsibility (increasingly so as they move into higher grades) and a place where a certain level of decorum is expected.  I think the cries of “you’re stomping on our freedom of expression” is a ridiculous one.  First, can’t students find another way to express themselves other than through a t-shirt slogan?  Besides, there are plenty of hours outside of the schoolhouse that kids can express to their heart’s content.  Second, how diverse is the attire chosen by kids?  Are we really ruining “individual” expression with a dress code?  Teenagers have already established their own standard attire from which serious deviation is discouraged.
What statement are you making by wearing flip-flops all year long?  You have a strong constitution and can handle the cold wind blowing on your toes?

What are you expressing by wearing jeans that come halfway down your thighs?  Are you telling us that belts are a symbol of oppression by the man and that appearing to have taken a dump in your drawers shows that you are at one with nature?

How about those low-rise jeans that expose a colorful thong coupled with a tight shirt that just can’t seem to reach your waist?  What powerful expression of self are you making with that ensemble?

When the SSA is implemented this fall, I do not want the punishment for offenders to be a day of in-school suspension.  That takes kids out of the classroom and creates a hassle for teachers.  Instead, I advocate a two-part plan:

1. The school office should have a few boxes of khakis and shirts in various sizes that fit dress code requirements.  The offending student must wear an outfit supplied by the office for the remainder of the day.

2. The student should have to come in for an hour of detention before or after school the next day.  This inconveniences the parents and irritates the student.

Say you are running for the top post in a local education union. Then consider that the school board asks you to share your vision with them, to demonstrate what the school system could be under your leadership.  What do you do?

If you’re running for presidency of the Metro Nashville Education Association, you blow them off, of course.

[School Board Chairman Marsha] Warden said she was hoping to allow teachers across the district the opportunity to hear from the candidates on television because the school board meetings are televised on Nashville’s public access channel.

“In my mind this was a public service to our board, because whomever is elected, we’re going to have a working relationship with them,” Warden said. “I would like to hear their vision on collaboration around public education needs. Many of our teachers who may not ever have an opportunity to hear either one of these individuals speak; many of these teachers who are MNEA members would have an opportunity to have heard their comments on our community access channel.”

Two invitations were sent. Erick Huth, current vice president of the MNEA, refused to attend, originally citing he thought it would have been illegal to address the board, but then in an apparent state of confusion figuring out it was not illegal, then more perplexedly, proving delinquent on the matter entirely by not showing for the meeting.

Huth, who is currently MNEA vice president, declined to appear originally citing Warden’s invitation as a violation of state law.

“My initial thought on the subject was the board was attempting to get involved with something that really was not any of its affair,” Huth said. “I reviewed the bargaining act and I actually sought legal advice on the matter. I was assured since the board had provided the invitation to both of us, they did not violate the [law].”

Jane Walling, the other candidate for MNEA head, was present, but was not allowed to speak because Huth wasn’t there. By vote, the board allowed a confused and altogether ill informed candidate sink its only chance to hear and broadcast the ideas and goals of that candidate’s opposition. Perversely, the only winner was the no-show.

As any regular reader knows, and putting it mildly, I harbor significant doubts as to the usefulness of unions in our present-day economy. As working conditions and child exploitation are effectively regulated in excruciating detail by both the central government and the states, the raison d’etre for organized labor has long ago faded away. As the Detroit auto industry can attest, unbridled unionism coupled with poor innovation eventually results in the slow-cooked death of the proverbial golden goose. I am no fan of the MNEA - in fact, as with most educators’ unions, I find its very existence an impediment to good education. That aside, they are the legitimate bargaining arm of the school district’s teachers. For the welfare of the children whom the school system exists to serve, the board has a vested interest in hearing and knowing where the union leadership may be taking the system.

It is despicable that the board refused to hear anyone, despite a good faith effort to hear everyone.  Huth made a mockery of a more open election, and the school board by its inexplicable vote showed itself the organizational invertebrate we have come to expect. If there was a question who has the upper hand in running the school system, it has been answered.

UPDATE TO ORIGINAL POST BELOW: If my daughter is taped to her chair one day in school, my first question will be, “Catherine, what did you do that led to this consequence?”  Right or wrong on the teacher’s part, my children will be expected to act in a way that doesn’t require such discipline. 

It’s also time for a clarification.  I am not advocating the taping down of misbehaving students.  This incident, as I mentioned, shows a teacher who has no sense of discipline over her students.  A teacher who controlled her classroom wouldn’t have to resort to such tactics.  

Am I in favor of some forms of “physical” discipline?  Sure.  I’ve taken away a student’s chair and made him stand for an entire class because he wouldn’t take his feet off the desk.  I had students who were chewing gum stick it on their nose.  That’s as physical as I ever got.  A man with whom I taught took a backtalking high school student and held him against a locker with force while sharing some verbal niceties.  I have no problem with that.  A female teacher across the hall from me shoved a kid into his seat, grabbed his collar and yelled in his face.  Again, no problem here.  

I taught high seniors, not fourth graders.  I never dealt with teenagers who would run wild around a classroom.  My issues were less physical in nature.  Notes were taken and trashed.  Cell phones were confiscated.  Sleeping students had their desks and chairs removed.   

Now, to the original post …

A substitute teacher in Alabama has been informed that she can no longer work in the district after taping several fourth graders to their chairs. While there is dispute over whether the act was serious or a joke, two of the students have claimed “distress” over the incident.

Maybe these kids shouldn’t have repeatedly gotten out of their seats in direct disobedience of the teacher’s orders. I’m so sorry that they felt distressed after being discplined (OK … admittedly in a rough way). They were probably “humiliated” as well, as that is a popular emotion worthy of a lawsuit these days. The teacher certainly had no effective control over these ruffians if she had to resort to such measures and perhaps she lacks the skills to continue in her professional capacity. But, I’m not crying too many tears for the restrained youngsters.

I can’t count the number of times Lance Ewing (name hasn’t been changed because what does it really matter) was tied to a chair with a jumprope by my seventh grade social studies teacher and then placed onto the deck outside of the classroom. That boy must have logged in at least fifteen hours over the course of the school year bound to his seat by some non-voluntary means. I loved that class … never a dull moment!

I’m a fan of creative discipline in the classroom. Not abuse … just actions or words to keep the kids off-guard. I’m not saying I agree with the case mentioned above. I would have to be a witness to the situation and see how things evolved. But, well-placed sarcastic wit or infliction of mild physical discomfort has its place.

A majority of U.S. high school students say they get bored in class every day, and more than one out of five has considered dropping out, according to a survey released Wednesday.The survey of 81,000 students in 26 states found two-thirds of high school students complain of boredom, usually because the subject matter was irrelevant or their teachers didn’t seem to care about them.

OK, I’m not saying that I’m the bees’ knees of teaching, but these poor students never had the pleasure of enjoying my Constitution dance on Constitution Day each September that I performed while wearing my polyester bicentennial dress from 1976.  Neither did they witness my one-man, three-act play reenacting the events that led to the Supreme Court case of Marbury v. Madison.  Those were some good times in the 12th grade classroom.  I challenge you to be bored while I’m making such a fantastic fool of myself!

Admittedly, some of the teachers in our schools are just bad.  There’s only so long worksheets and movies can keep a student motivated.  But, there are also great teachers who can make subjects like physics and economics come alive.  Many students still get bored, however, because they can’t immediately see how these subjects are relevant to their grand life plans.  I didn’t get how Calculus fit into my aspirations, but I still found it fascinating (didn’t help me from getting any better than a “D” in the course my senior year, but my senior year choices weren’t too kind to my GPA).  I don’t remember ever being bored in class … it was too challenging.

I’m not sure how I feel about the “my teacher doesn’t care about me” part.  I cared for my students and wanted them to get excited about American Government (I met with mixed results here), but what is the students’ definition about caring?  Is it that the teacher isn’t sympathetic if a homework assignment isn’t done because a girl is torn up about a recent breakup?  Or that the teacher just “doesn’t get” an adolescent’s need to wear baggy jeans that share underwear preferences?  Is it possible the student is frustrated that the teacher took away her cell phone and she subsequently got grounded?   Teachers certainly must care about their students, but teenagers also have a flair for the dramatic.

The story ends this way:

Yet, three of four students surveyed said they expected to earn a high school diploma and go on to college.

“Students may not be doing the work to get them to that point,” Yazzie-Mintz said.

You think?

We have students who aren’t learning (through their fault or the fault of the teacher) and who are apathetic towards their education but, by all means, they certainly should sign up for another four years (or more) in the classroom.  And the value of a college degree drops yet another notch.

Every month, there is a new book waiting in the mailbox for Catherine courtesy of the Imagination Library. This great program, started by Dolly Parton and strongly supported by Governor Bredesen, provides free books for every kid in the state (if the parents choose to take care of the enrollment) from birth to age five.

Last month, Catherine received a book in which Carlos teaches his friend to count to ten in Spanish. Today she got a new story in the mail, the title of this selection being Te amo, sol. Te amo, luna (I Love You, Sun. I Love You, Moon.). Every page of the book is written first in Spanish, then English. The English comes second! I don’t think that’s an accident.

What kind of propaganda is Ms. Parton trying to push on us? I expect my child’s books to be in English only! Don’t you see what is happening here? They are trying to go after the youngest and most vulnerable of our population. Make Spanish seem normal now and they’ll never know any different!

Does Eric Crafton know about this? How about Phil Valentine?

I actually am surprised that no one has complained about these books, considering that thousands of kids across the state are receiving them and some parents are likely to be genuinely upset. In reality, I think they are great. Not because I support illegal immigration (which I don’t, in case there was doubt), but because I think that having a working knowledge of a second language is an incredibly valuable skill. Spanish will be important given the reality of our population trend and Mandarin will be a great asset in terms of world economics and translation needs. I don’t expect Dolly to send any Mandarin to English books, so I’ll worry about that one later.

There has been a small flurry of postings on the pros and cons of abstinence education  (both in schools and our homes) recently, and the debate has me thinking about my own position.  I come to the readers of this blog today with a few questions — not with the intent of bashing one side or the other, but to clarify some of my own indecision.

First, I agree with teaching abstinence to kids.  It is the only 100% effective method of not getting pregnant and staying free of sexually transmitted diseases.  However, isn’t the reality that some kids (no matter how wonderful and strong the parenting) aren’t going to listen?  Is there something to be said for giving kids the information needed to make safer choices?

Second, abstinence education means nothing if it isn’t reinforced in the home.  What should a kid think when he is told in school to save sex for marriage but then comes home and sees his mom bringing home boyfriends?  Or, how about when there is rarely a parent home at all?  Children get a lot of bad information from their friends.  I recently spoke with a friend about her experiences working with inner-city teens who had crisis pregnancies.  One girl thought she could just take a few of her sister’s birth control pills after having sex and everything would be fine.  Another girl named her daughter Gonorrhea (pronounced guh-NOR-ee-ah) because she saw the word on a pamphlet and thought it sounded pretty.

Third, I have no doubt that there is some hypocrisy at play by those who push for abstinence-only education.  Though it’s none of my business to know, I do wonder how many abstinence advocates were virgins on their wedding night.  Those “youthful indiscretions” have been left behind in favor of an older and wiser soul.  That’s understandable.  Sure, there’s the argument of not wanting our kids to make the same mistakes we did, but how often does that work?  As parents talking to our kids about sex, should we be honest with them if we had sex before marriage?  Kids have no filter and they will ask that question — I asked my parents (I was eight then … now I can’t imagine wanting that information).  I get so frustrated by Dr. Laura when she calls women tramps and hussies for having sex outside of marriage since it was revealed that she had some wild and crazy times in her twenties.  So, I do wonder about the approach.

Catherine will learn that the expectation in our home is for our children to wait until they are married to have sex.  However, in thinking through the teaching of abstinence on a broader policy level, I am just stuck on the questions I have now shared with you.  I am hoping that some of you who have more experience, both with parenting and policy analysis, will be able to help me out.  So, please take this post as it’s intended … an honest request for information and opinions.

I’m glad that I have pretty thick hair, because I read a Letter to the Editor in The Tennessean today that forced me to pull out some of my own blonde locks.

Hope Cook, the author of the honored 3-star letter of the day, argues that the GPA standards for maintaining the HOPE Scholarship are too high and that consideration must be given to students who must work full-time while going to school. Excerpts are as follows:

It’s ridiculous to require a 2.75 average at the end of a freshman year, then 3.0 afterward. Do lawmakers remember how hard it is to raise a GPA once it has fallen below 3.0? How much harder is it when you work full-time just to eat, and pay for housing while going to school?

Instead of giving surplus money to other projects, why not lower the GPA requirements to 2.5? Or give students enough money to cover food and housing so they can concentrate on schoolwork instead of where their next meal is coming from?

First of all, how many of these students find themselves unable to focus on their Psychology 101 textbooks because they can’t stop thinking about how they are going to afford dinner that night? I doubt the percentage is too high. Come on … you get can Ramen noodles six for $1.00 at Kroger. I still enjoy the Oriental flavor (in the blue packaging) when I want to reminiscence about my days as a Terp.

Second, earning a 2.75 and then a 3.0 GPA is hardly asking too much of our college students in return for nearly-free tuition at a state school. Ms. Cook is correct … it is difficult to get your GPA over a 3.0 GPA once it falls below this mark. Tough. These students need to take responsibility for their decisions. If they are not going to make school a top priority, then the money needs to go to someone who will value the opportunity more.

Third, I don’t think students should work full-time while going to college. Going to class and studying combine to be your primary job. If you need money to pay for living expenses, as many college students do, then grab a FAFSA and apply for a student loan. I am tired of student loans being seen as a nasty yoke on our college graduates. “I don’t want my child to graduate with debt,” the parents cry. Stafford loans and others of their ilk are investments. I know no one strives to be in debt, but I’ll take student loan payments over credit card or car payments any day (although I currently take all three).

Now I must head out to the hair extension kiosk at Opry Mills to find some matching strands that will cover my bald spots of frustration.

Bravo to The Tennessean for covering news about the HOPE Scholarship that broke a week ago.  Make sure you open up your copy of this fine paper on Monday, February 12, to read a detailed analysis of the Superbowl!

The paper reports that only 25% of the first group of students to receive the scholarship will graduate next year still receiving the money.   One proposed change to the scholarship is to lower the standards so that more students are able to retain the money.  Yes, let’s continue to fund students who have proven that they are not prepared to get average grades in college.  Sounds like a fantastic investment to me!  Let us proclaim, “Silly us for holding you to a reasonable level of expectation.  We’ll lower the bar to a point at which you feel comfortable.  Please let us continue to coddle you as we did throughout your high school years.”

Getting a 3.0 GPA in high school does not indicate likely success in college.  With grade inflation and lower standards, a 3.0 should be considered average at best.  Instead of finding a way to fund even more students who are destined never to graduate, why don’t we refocus our efforts on improving high schools that are forcing students to master important math, writing, geography, history, etc. skills?  And, let’s crack down on the absurd level of grade inflation.  An “A” in a course should really mean that a student displayed mastery of the content, not just that he completed some crossword puzzles for extra credit or quickly copied his buddy’s homework every morning.

The overall state of higher education is depressing.  Major state universities are accepting students whose GPA barely cracks the Mendoza line just to keep up enrollment numbers (I’m talking to you, MTSU).  The level of coursework has diminished in its expectation for critical thinking, writing and individual accountability.   And, too many students who have no real interest in learning are taking up space and oxygen in the classrooms.  The value of the piece of paper coming from most colleges and universities has greatly diminished.

Today’s Tennessean has a front-page article about the problem of text message language finding its way into high school English papers. As if our kids’ writing wasn’t already bad enough (reading the papers of my high school and college students sometimes made me cry), now we have to deal with “tht bk wuz cool” as an offered analysis of The Grapes of Wrath.

As I have mentioned many times on this blog, I fear the impact that some gadgets are having on our ability to communicate. People hardly need phone manners anymore because so much business is done via email or Blackberry (I still don’t know what this technological fruit thing is, but the students had them in the Tennessean story). Proper grammar and punctuation use is already on life support since students no longer diagram sentences and drill sentence structure. Our students must be forced to maintain proper use of the English language through harsh penalties for “Web slanguage” in submitted assignments. At the very least, each instance of text message slang should be a one-point deduction. That could add up quickly, don’t u knw? If a student gets caught using a cell phone in class, take it away until a parent can come to the school to retrieve it. Maybe a few days away from the thumb-spraining device will remind the student what a capital letter looks like.

Mark my words now — Catherine will not have a cell phone until she leaves for college and chooses to get one for herself. If I want her to have a way to get in touch with me during a date or other excursion, she can borrow mine. I don’t need her to text her friends dozens of times every day or call someone just to engage in sparkling conversation like, “I’m parking at the mall … Now I’m walking into the mall … Now I’m walking by the food court … What are you doing tonight? … School sucks … Jason’s in The Gap, should I go in there? … What are you watching? … I can’t find my keys!”

I would like to join the chorus of bloggers who are writing about the overemphasis on a college education today, perhaps spawned by the news report about the Hope Scholarship flunkies.  As has been reported in the KnoxNews, 64% of students who started college with the Hope Scholarship had lost the funding two years later.  I am not at all surprised.  You do not need to be a whiz kid to get a 3.0 GPA in your high school coursework or a 21 on your ACT, and just one of these two qualifications will get you the Hope money.  With grade inflation being the norm in today’s classroom, a “B” indicates average understanding of the course material at best.  The fact that some recipients of the scholarship still need to take remedial math and/or reading courses once they arrive on a college campus speaks volumes.  These students have proven that they aren’t ready for college-level material before even taking their first exam!  (And, by the way, remedial courses have no place at a four-year school.  I’m glad that the responsibility for these courses is shifting entirely to the community colleges where they belong.)

The scholarship recipients need to maintain a 2.75 GPA during their freshman year to keep the money.  Come on!  You can get a few Cs over the course of the year and still earn that grade point average.  The state is not asking very much here.  With a little effort and focus, you can get those grades at Vanderbilt.  Answer the extra credit question “What is today’s date?” on your MTSU midterm and you’re golden!

I agree with the bloggers included in the link above — the main problem is that too many people are going to college these days.  It makes me sad that a college degree has replaced the high school diploma as the baseline requirement for a decent job.  If you don’t enjoy learning … if you don’t care to think critically and be challenged … stop taking up space in the lecture hall.  College should not be the next stage in life simply because you don’t want to move out of your parents’ house or get a job.  I hope to instill a passion for books and learning in my children.  But, I only want them to go to college if they are ready to make the most of the experience and they have shown a genuine interest in school.

As a high school teacher, I was frustrated by the students who showed no interest in learning and were barely getting the 69.5% needed to pass required courses but still intended to start college in the fall.  Why??

Kay Brooks, though defeated last week in her bid to win election to the school board, is still taking the job seriously, giving the public a completely clear window into all board proceedings.

Curiously, no other board member has done this, and I seriously doubt Gracie Porter, who defeated Brooks, will be starting a blog to keep the public informed. Though, of course, I could be wrong.

Kay Brooks went down in defeat last night. A cadre of macabre local bloggers then proceeded to put the Zippedy Do Dah LP on and dance on her political grave. John Hutcheson weighs in

Now that Kay has lost her legitimate bid for our school board, I’d like to suggest a new challenge for Kay. I’m thinking that the next time a vestry seat opens at St. Ann’s Episcopal she should manipulate her way into office. The mere fact that she does not actually attend St. Ann’s should be a mere trifle to Kay.

Yeah, right. And then our favorite bad boy with the bad attitude, S-Town Mike frolicks as follows

District 5 appears to have struck back at Council member Michael Craddock’s backroom attempts–in cahoots with the Davidson County Republican Party–to misrepresent their interests on the Board of Education. The 17 Council members who voted with Michael Craddock may not have listened to District 5 voters back in May; but they sure as hell ought to be able to hear them in August.

Misrepresent their interests? Backroom attempts? Sigh. The sore losers have won a local victory - let there be great glee in the streets of failed educational policy. You’ve now got one in Kay’s place who knows the problems backward and forward, and knows how to make sure they stay front and center.

Kay Brooks notes her experience speaking to voters on the first day of early voting. S-Town Mike responds Brooks Seems to Lack Grace Under Fire.

Grace? Let’s add class, too, and fully make that house out of the thinnest glass, Mr. Mike.