The following article appeared on CNN and was produced by the AP. To view all the pictures and highlights go to CNN.com. To view more on the subject we suggest the series Hidden Violations by Scott Reeder.
(AP) -- Heeding a steady drumbeat of sexual misconduct cases involving teachers, at least 15 states are now considering stronger oversight and tougher punishment for educators who take advantage of their students.
Lawmakers say they are concerned about an increasingly well-documented phenomenon: While the vast majority of America's teachers are committed professionals, there also is a persistent problem with sexual misconduct in U.S. schools.
When abuse happens, administrators too often fail to let others know about it, and too many legal loopholes let offenders stay in the classroom.
Advocates include governors, education superintendents and legislative leaders.
"We've got to be on a bully pulpit with our school districts," said Missouri state Rep. Jane Cunningham.
Cunningham's legislation would eliminate statutes of limitation for sexual misconduct, allowing victims to come forward and bring charges against abusers no matter how many years had passed since the crime.
The ideas emerging in state capitals come at a time when U.S. media have been reporting steadily on individual cases, along with more in-depth examinations of the problem.
A nationwide Associated Press investigation published in October found 2,570 educators whose teaching credentials were revoked, denied, surrendered or sanctioned from 2001 through 2005 following allegations of sexual misconduct. Experts who track sexual abuse say those cases are representative of a much deeper problem because of underreporting.
There are roughly 3 million public school teachers nationwide.
In New York, Gov. Eliot Spitzer supports automatic suspension of teachers convicted of sex crimes, which now requires lengthy hearings. In Maine, Gov. John Baldacci hopes to share the names of abusive teachers with other states, which a 1913 confidentiality law there prohibits.
In Florida, Gov. Charlie Crist endorsed federal legislation proposed by U.S. Rep. Adam Putnam, a Florida Republican, to create a national databank of abusive teachers, a hot line for complaints and federal funds for state investigators.
Some states are looking to increase penalties, expand background checks or broaden their ability to police charter schools for abuse, like Indiana, Massachusetts and Utah. Kentucky and South Carolina are considering making it illegal for teachers to have sex with older students.
Several states are tackling a major problem -- the loopholes that allow problem teachers to move from one school district to another, or from one state to another.
The AP investigation found that what education officials commonly call "passing the trash" happens when districts allow a teacher to quietly leave a school, or fail to report problems to state authorities, or fail to check with state authorities before hiring a teacher, among other glitches.
In eight states, legislators are pursuing changes to close those gaps, including California, Colorado, Florida, Minnesota, Missouri, Virginia, Washington state and West Virginia.
"Despite acts of misconduct that were threatening and dangerous in schools, there is a track record of people going on to another school district and finding employment," said Missouri state Senate President Pro Tem Michael Gibbons. "The new school district may get the truth, but they don't get the whole truth about this person's background.
They may find out the dates of service, they may find out this person was dismissed, but there really is no other information forthcoming."
His legislation aims to get school employees and districts to share all information about job-hunting teachers, including whether those educators sexually abused their students, by granting administrators civil immunity from lawsuits.
Other states approach the same problem differently. A Colorado measure being drafted would penalize school districts and state officials that fail to report problem teachers, while a West Virginia proposal would open school officials themselves to punishment. Florida would bar any confidentiality agreement between districts and teachers, and require districts to report every firing to the state.
In California, one proposal would close a loophole that bars the teacher credentialing commission from revealing the reason teachers lose their licenses if they plead no contest to an offense.
Under no contest pleas, defendants are punished as if they pleaded guilty, but retain the right to challenge the charges against them in lawsuits and other proceedings. Such deals have meant public records were unclear about why educator licenses were sanctioned in dozens of cases, the AP found.
"You should not be able to plead no contest to a sex offense just so you can continue teaching," said state Sen. Bob Margett. The measure means teachers who plead no contest would immediately lose their license, and the reason for the revocation would be public record.
Some say the latest legislation is just the beginning.
South Carolina has created a new committee of parents, teachers, social workers and prosecutors to study the problem and come back with new ideas.
Though small statistically, the number of abusive teachers is too high, South Carolina Education Superintendent Jim Rex wrote after reading the AP report.
"I am nonetheless outraged by any incident in which an adult entrusted with the care of one of South Carolina's students violates that student. The ramifications for that student, his or her family, and the community as a whole are painful and long lasting," he wrote.
In Utah, the numbers of abuses flat-out shocked state Rep. Carl Wimmer. "These things happen a lot more often than parents would think," he said. "It seems we do have an unacceptable high amount of children who get violated in the classroom. One is too many."
Monday, January 28, 2008
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Superintendents grow scarce
Superintendent shortage?!? Hardly! Maybe if we didn't use three times the number we need, this "shortage" wouldn't exist. Sounds like the Stuporintendents have taken a recipe from the NEA Taxpayer Fleecing Cookbook: Create ridiculous overdemand through state mandate, add a dash of empty credentials to weed out qualified candidates, then bake taxpayers by demanding higher compensation.
There are more than enough qualified individuals, but not to meet the combination of inflated demand plus bureaucratic paper requirements. Many Superintendents couldn't run a lemonade stand in the private sector, which is why they often remain government employees/pensioners for life.
Don't buy for a minute that there's a danger of the private sector funneling these candidates off. The private sector doesn't want them.
The above was in response to the article below that was published in the Union Leader
.
Superintendents grow scarce
By JOHN WHITSON
New Hampshire Union Leader Staff
School districts are shopping long and hard for superintendents, as the pool of qualified candidates has dwindled in recent years.
"It's an extremely difficult job," said Ted Comstock, executive director of the New Hampshire School Boards Association.
"Many people who have the skills to manage a large district and a large budget also would have the skill set required for a job in the corporate world with greater remuneration," he said.
There are eight districts throughout the state searching for a superintendent. Most started the process in the fall and a few are expected to make offers soon.
"It's kind of a long process," said Hollis/Brookline Cooperative School Board member Webb Scales, whose district is narrowing its search. "It's a tough market."
Mark Joyce, executive director of the New Hampshire School Administrators Association, said the average tenure nationally of a superintendent is less than three years.
"One of the reasons for that is the tremendous complexity of that role and the many different bosses -- that legitimately are bosses -- of that job," said Joyce.
A former superintendent himself, Joyce said it used to be common for someone to remain in a school district 20 years, but he can't imagine that now.
Hollis/Brookline's search committee for SAU 41 plans to interview four finalists Thursday and Friday, bringing closure to a process that began in October.
"A number of years ago, we would have expected 40 applicants," said Scales. "I think we got 19, but the good news is from that we got nine or so candidates that we felt were qualified.
"We hope to have our choice by the end of next week," he said yesterday.
Manchester is late to the search party due to former Superintendent Michael Ludwell's unexpected resignation in mid-November.
One search committee disbanded this week and a replacement panel was named.
Paul DeMinico, the NHSBA consultant working with Manchester, told the school board he hopes to have 20 applicants before next Thursday's deadline.
City board members, however, are still trying to define qualities they hope to find in the next superintendent as other districts are poised to make job offers.
Three finalists for the SAU 16 job in Exeter will interview Monday, and board members say they could make an offer that night.
Raymond School District got a two-month jump on Manchester and will begin interviewing semifinalists next month.
Board chairman John Harman wouldn't disclose how many people applied for the SAU 33 job, but said he's happy with their qualifications.
He said a winnowing process to get to three finalists starts next week.
"The intent is we will complete the process and name a superintendent by our March elections," said Harmon.
Every job search NHSBA conducts is at least national in scope. "We have found candidates internationally sometimes," said Comstock.
A wide net is needed, he said, because baby boomer superintendents are retiring and a strong corps of replacements doesn't exist.
"The pool of candidates is much slimmer than it was even four or five years ago," he said. "There are fewer people who are looking to superintendency as a career."
SAUs also often find themselves competing with sister districts throughout New England, because candidates interested in moving here will shop several of the geographically small states.
"It does make it more difficult," said Comstock. "We tend to draw from the same pool."
Litchfield recently started its superintendent search, and school board members were told it could take five months to complete.
Mascenic, Sunapee and Wilton-Lyndeborough are also in the midst of school superintendent searches.
Quote of the Day - "The economic miracle that has been the United States was not produced by socialized enterprises, by government-union-industry cartels or by centralized economic planning. It was produced by private enterprises in a profit-and-loss system. And losses were at least as important in weeding out failures as profits in fostering successes. Let government succor failures, and we shall be headed for stagnation and decline."
Milton Friedman
There are more than enough qualified individuals, but not to meet the combination of inflated demand plus bureaucratic paper requirements. Many Superintendents couldn't run a lemonade stand in the private sector, which is why they often remain government employees/pensioners for life.
Don't buy for a minute that there's a danger of the private sector funneling these candidates off. The private sector doesn't want them.
The above was in response to the article below that was published in the Union Leader
.
Superintendents grow scarce
By JOHN WHITSON
New Hampshire Union Leader Staff
School districts are shopping long and hard for superintendents, as the pool of qualified candidates has dwindled in recent years.
"It's an extremely difficult job," said Ted Comstock, executive director of the New Hampshire School Boards Association.
"Many people who have the skills to manage a large district and a large budget also would have the skill set required for a job in the corporate world with greater remuneration," he said.
There are eight districts throughout the state searching for a superintendent. Most started the process in the fall and a few are expected to make offers soon.
"It's kind of a long process," said Hollis/Brookline Cooperative School Board member Webb Scales, whose district is narrowing its search. "It's a tough market."
Mark Joyce, executive director of the New Hampshire School Administrators Association, said the average tenure nationally of a superintendent is less than three years.
"One of the reasons for that is the tremendous complexity of that role and the many different bosses -- that legitimately are bosses -- of that job," said Joyce.
A former superintendent himself, Joyce said it used to be common for someone to remain in a school district 20 years, but he can't imagine that now.
Hollis/Brookline's search committee for SAU 41 plans to interview four finalists Thursday and Friday, bringing closure to a process that began in October.
"A number of years ago, we would have expected 40 applicants," said Scales. "I think we got 19, but the good news is from that we got nine or so candidates that we felt were qualified.
"We hope to have our choice by the end of next week," he said yesterday.
Manchester is late to the search party due to former Superintendent Michael Ludwell's unexpected resignation in mid-November.
One search committee disbanded this week and a replacement panel was named.
Paul DeMinico, the NHSBA consultant working with Manchester, told the school board he hopes to have 20 applicants before next Thursday's deadline.
City board members, however, are still trying to define qualities they hope to find in the next superintendent as other districts are poised to make job offers.
Three finalists for the SAU 16 job in Exeter will interview Monday, and board members say they could make an offer that night.
Raymond School District got a two-month jump on Manchester and will begin interviewing semifinalists next month.
Board chairman John Harman wouldn't disclose how many people applied for the SAU 33 job, but said he's happy with their qualifications.
He said a winnowing process to get to three finalists starts next week.
"The intent is we will complete the process and name a superintendent by our March elections," said Harmon.
Every job search NHSBA conducts is at least national in scope. "We have found candidates internationally sometimes," said Comstock.
A wide net is needed, he said, because baby boomer superintendents are retiring and a strong corps of replacements doesn't exist.
"The pool of candidates is much slimmer than it was even four or five years ago," he said. "There are fewer people who are looking to superintendency as a career."
SAUs also often find themselves competing with sister districts throughout New England, because candidates interested in moving here will shop several of the geographically small states.
"It does make it more difficult," said Comstock. "We tend to draw from the same pool."
Litchfield recently started its superintendent search, and school board members were told it could take five months to complete.
Mascenic, Sunapee and Wilton-Lyndeborough are also in the midst of school superintendent searches.
Quote of the Day - "The economic miracle that has been the United States was not produced by socialized enterprises, by government-union-industry cartels or by centralized economic planning. It was produced by private enterprises in a profit-and-loss system. And losses were at least as important in weeding out failures as profits in fostering successes. Let government succor failures, and we shall be headed for stagnation and decline."
Milton Friedman
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Expert Comment: ACLU Challenges Arizona Education Tax Credits, Again
The following media advisory was put out by the HEARTLAND INSTITUTE.
Expert Comment: ACLU Challenges Arizona Education Tax Credits, Again
(Chicago, Illinois - January 25, 2008) On Thursday, January 24, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in a case challenging Arizona's 10-year-old tuition tax-credit program--the first time a federal appellate court has heard such a case since the U.S. Supreme Court declared Cleveland's citywide school voucher program constitutional in 2002.
The case–Winn v. Garriot--was originally filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona in February 2000; that court dismissed the challenge and upheld the law in March 2005. A previous challenge to the program, Kotterman v. Killian, was dismissed by the Arizona Supreme Court in January 1999 and by the U.S. Supreme Court in October 1999, when both found it to be legal under the U.S. Constitution. Nonetheless, the American Civil Liberties Union is again questioning the program's validity on First Amendment grounds, alleging it violates the Establishment Clause.
Approximately 25,000 children in Arizona currently receive scholarships to attend the schools of their parents' choosing through the tax-credit program. Florida, Iowa, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island operate similar programs, which give individuals and corporations credits on their state taxes for private donations made to scholarship-granting organizations.
The Institute for Justice (IJ), a civil liberties defense group based in Washington, DC, argued the case on behalf of several Arizona families using the tax-credit program to help their children attend the schools that best meet their needs, as well as the Arizona School Choice Trust, the scholarship-granting organization in the state.
Experts contacted by The Heartland Institute offered the following comments about the hearing. You may quote from this statement or contact the experts directly at the phone numbers and email addresses provided below. IJ can put reporters in touch with families using the scholarship tax credit program. Contact IJ directly at 703/682-9320.
Another educational choice expert willing to speak to reporters for this story is:
Dr. Howard Fuller
Founder and Director
The Institute for the Transformation of Learning
Marquette University
414/ 288-5774 phone
"For nearly 10 years, Arizona's scholarship tax credit has given tens of thousand of families the freedom to choose a school that best suits their children's needs. For the sake of the thousands of children relying on this program, the court should side with well-established precedent and reject this attack on school choice."
Tim Keller
Executive Director
Institute for Justice - Arizona Chapter
703/682-9320
"The important facts have not changed since the Arizona Supreme Court found the Arizona scholarship tax program just fine nearly a decade ago.
"The Arizona scholarship tax credit program is not the sort of thing you would expect Chief Justice Roberts and Milton Friedman to have any real disagreement about, save for whether tax credits or vouchers are more suited for the job."
Don Soifer
Education Policy Analyst
The Lexington Institute
soifer@lexingtoninstitute.org
703/522-5828
"Instead of recognizing the tremendous educational opportunities that Arizona's school choice programs have created for thousands of children, the Arizona Civil Liberties Union just continues its misguided quest to force those children back into the public schools that failed them.
"Both the Arizona Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of the United States have already rejected the arguments the plaintiffs are pushing. Arizona's Supreme Court held that it's no constitutional violation for governments to allow people to use their own money to help kids attend better schools. Likewise, the U.S. Supreme Court clearly ruled that the Constitution does not forbid parents from choosing to use scholarships at religious schools.
"Courts should never interfere when the government gives people an opportunity to use their own hard-earned money to make life better for someone else.
"As the Arizona Supreme Court has already held in this case, nothing in the Constitution prevents parents from using privately funded scholarships to send their children to the best available schools--even if those schools happen to be operated by religious groups.
"This case is about far more than the survival of Arizona's Tax Credit Scholarship programs. If the Ninth Circuit somehow accepts the plaintiffs' absurd logic, its decision could threaten to cut off the educational lifeline these scholarships have provided for tens of thousands of disadvantaged children nationwide."
Dave Roland
Education and Legal Policy Analyst
The Show-Me Institute
dave.roland@showmeinstitute.org
314/726-5655
"The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has heard oral arguments in the ACLU's quixotic First Amendment challenge to Arizona's popular donation tax-credit program that supports school choice for thousands of children.
"After eight years and numerous losses in court the outcome is certain; tax credits will be upheld as constitutional.
"Tax credits have been upheld in numerous state court cases and by the U.S. Supreme Court in Mueller v. Allen.
"In the 2002 Zelman v. Simmons-Harris decision, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a more credible challenge to the Milwaukee voucher program made on similar First Amendment grounds. The case against tax credits is astonishingly flimsy. "This latest suit is a sad act of desperation by the ACLU, which should devote its resources to issues more worthy than denying children the opportunity to attend good schools."
Adam B. Schaeffer
Education Policy Analyst
Cato Institute
aschaeffer@cato.or g
202/789-5200
"The Alliance for School Choice strongly believes that the court should side with Arizona's families in reaffirming the constitutionality of the state's popular, effective Individual School Tuition Tax Credit Program. It would be an outrage for the court to force thousands of disadvantaged children from their schools.
"The fact that establishment special interests have spent eight years and untold hundreds of thousands of dollars in an attempt to destroy the hopes and opportunities of so many families is indeed revealing. It's time to end the stream of frivolous special-interest litigation, which only serves to frighten parents into thinking that the dreams they hold for their children might be snatched away."
Charles R. Hokanson
President
Alliance for School Choice
ACampanella@allianceforschoolchoice.org
202/280-1985
For more information about The Heartland Institute, please contact Harriette Johnson, media relations manager, at hjohnson@heartland.org or 312/377-4000.
19 South LaSalle Street #903 * Chicago, IL 60603
312/377-4000 phone * 312/377-5000 fax * http://www.heartland.org
Expert Comment: ACLU Challenges Arizona Education Tax Credits, Again
(Chicago, Illinois - January 25, 2008) On Thursday, January 24, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in a case challenging Arizona's 10-year-old tuition tax-credit program--the first time a federal appellate court has heard such a case since the U.S. Supreme Court declared Cleveland's citywide school voucher program constitutional in 2002.
The case–Winn v. Garriot--was originally filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona in February 2000; that court dismissed the challenge and upheld the law in March 2005. A previous challenge to the program, Kotterman v. Killian, was dismissed by the Arizona Supreme Court in January 1999 and by the U.S. Supreme Court in October 1999, when both found it to be legal under the U.S. Constitution. Nonetheless, the American Civil Liberties Union is again questioning the program's validity on First Amendment grounds, alleging it violates the Establishment Clause.
Approximately 25,000 children in Arizona currently receive scholarships to attend the schools of their parents' choosing through the tax-credit program. Florida, Iowa, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island operate similar programs, which give individuals and corporations credits on their state taxes for private donations made to scholarship-granting organizations.
The Institute for Justice (IJ), a civil liberties defense group based in Washington, DC, argued the case on behalf of several Arizona families using the tax-credit program to help their children attend the schools that best meet their needs, as well as the Arizona School Choice Trust, the scholarship-granting organization in the state.
Experts contacted by The Heartland Institute offered the following comments about the hearing. You may quote from this statement or contact the experts directly at the phone numbers and email addresses provided below. IJ can put reporters in touch with families using the scholarship tax credit program. Contact IJ directly at 703/682-9320.
Another educational choice expert willing to speak to reporters for this story is:
Dr. Howard Fuller
Founder and Director
The Institute for the Transformation of Learning
Marquette University
414/ 288-5774 phone
"For nearly 10 years, Arizona's scholarship tax credit has given tens of thousand of families the freedom to choose a school that best suits their children's needs. For the sake of the thousands of children relying on this program, the court should side with well-established precedent and reject this attack on school choice."
Tim Keller
Executive Director
Institute for Justice - Arizona Chapter
703/682-9320
"The important facts have not changed since the Arizona Supreme Court found the Arizona scholarship tax program just fine nearly a decade ago.
"The Arizona scholarship tax credit program is not the sort of thing you would expect Chief Justice Roberts and Milton Friedman to have any real disagreement about, save for whether tax credits or vouchers are more suited for the job."
Don Soifer
Education Policy Analyst
The Lexington Institute
soifer@lexingtoninstitute.org
703/522-5828
"Instead of recognizing the tremendous educational opportunities that Arizona's school choice programs have created for thousands of children, the Arizona Civil Liberties Union just continues its misguided quest to force those children back into the public schools that failed them.
"Both the Arizona Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of the United States have already rejected the arguments the plaintiffs are pushing. Arizona's Supreme Court held that it's no constitutional violation for governments to allow people to use their own money to help kids attend better schools. Likewise, the U.S. Supreme Court clearly ruled that the Constitution does not forbid parents from choosing to use scholarships at religious schools.
"Courts should never interfere when the government gives people an opportunity to use their own hard-earned money to make life better for someone else.
"As the Arizona Supreme Court has already held in this case, nothing in the Constitution prevents parents from using privately funded scholarships to send their children to the best available schools--even if those schools happen to be operated by religious groups.
"This case is about far more than the survival of Arizona's Tax Credit Scholarship programs. If the Ninth Circuit somehow accepts the plaintiffs' absurd logic, its decision could threaten to cut off the educational lifeline these scholarships have provided for tens of thousands of disadvantaged children nationwide."
Dave Roland
Education and Legal Policy Analyst
The Show-Me Institute
dave.roland@showmeinstitute.org
314/726-5655
"The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has heard oral arguments in the ACLU's quixotic First Amendment challenge to Arizona's popular donation tax-credit program that supports school choice for thousands of children.
"After eight years and numerous losses in court the outcome is certain; tax credits will be upheld as constitutional.
"Tax credits have been upheld in numerous state court cases and by the U.S. Supreme Court in Mueller v. Allen.
"In the 2002 Zelman v. Simmons-Harris decision, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a more credible challenge to the Milwaukee voucher program made on similar First Amendment grounds. The case against tax credits is astonishingly flimsy. "This latest suit is a sad act of desperation by the ACLU, which should devote its resources to issues more worthy than denying children the opportunity to attend good schools."
Adam B. Schaeffer
Education Policy Analyst
Cato Institute
aschaeffer@cato.or g
202/789-5200
"The Alliance for School Choice strongly believes that the court should side with Arizona's families in reaffirming the constitutionality of the state's popular, effective Individual School Tuition Tax Credit Program. It would be an outrage for the court to force thousands of disadvantaged children from their schools.
"The fact that establishment special interests have spent eight years and untold hundreds of thousands of dollars in an attempt to destroy the hopes and opportunities of so many families is indeed revealing. It's time to end the stream of frivolous special-interest litigation, which only serves to frighten parents into thinking that the dreams they hold for their children might be snatched away."
Charles R. Hokanson
President
Alliance for School Choice
ACampanella@allianceforschoolchoice.org
202/280-1985
For more information about The Heartland Institute, please contact Harriette Johnson, media relations manager, at hjohnson@heartland.org or 312/377-4000.
19 South LaSalle Street #903 * Chicago, IL 60603
312/377-4000 phone * 312/377-5000 fax * http://www.heartland.org
Friday, January 25, 2008
ADHD and Drugs.
One of the major contributing costs in education is special education. The following article was sent to us by a school board member that should be of interest to all.
I recently made a short presentation to our board and admin about “behavioral disorders”, such as ADHD, and
the drugs used to treat such conditions. I took the D-26 specific stuff out and put the presentation
here
. What drove this was a review of our policy on staff development (5:100 for IASB PRESS subscribers), which by law requires government school certified staff be trained as amateur pharmacists every two years (105 ILCS 5/10-20.36).
I checked out the training our teachers received two years ago, and found a slide that said (among other things), “Evidence that medications work, and that they are not dangerous, is overwhelming.” They were talking about Ritalin, Adderall, and other drugs the DEA categorizes in Schedule II (along with cocaine and morphine). The statement is a lie, the evidence is not overwhelming, and is closer to the opposite.
Our Special Services Director was receptive to my concerns. Check out what your district does about “behavioral disorders”, whether your district pushes drugs, and what your employees are being told about behavioral disorders (and global warming, and any other controversial issues). A year and a half ago, my daughter after one of her first days in 5th grade and
told me that global warming was real (her teacher told her so).
We discussed my presentation at a recent Policy committee meeting. The result was that we modified our policy on Staff Development to say that staff training in controversial issues would be treated with the same guidelines used when our students are taught about controversial issues. Now all we have to do is monitor it for compliance. Our updated policy is here
. Our Special Services Director also agreed with my assessment of the 2006 training noted above, and is developing a more balanced presentation for our teachers on ADHD and drugs for this year.
Regards/
-- Chris
I recently made a short presentation to our board and admin about “behavioral disorders”, such as ADHD, and
the drugs used to treat such conditions. I took the D-26 specific stuff out and put the presentation
here
. What drove this was a review of our policy on staff development (5:100 for IASB PRESS subscribers), which by law requires government school certified staff be trained as amateur pharmacists every two years (105 ILCS 5/10-20.36).
I checked out the training our teachers received two years ago, and found a slide that said (among other things), “Evidence that medications work, and that they are not dangerous, is overwhelming.” They were talking about Ritalin, Adderall, and other drugs the DEA categorizes in Schedule II (along with cocaine and morphine). The statement is a lie, the evidence is not overwhelming, and is closer to the opposite.
Our Special Services Director was receptive to my concerns. Check out what your district does about “behavioral disorders”, whether your district pushes drugs, and what your employees are being told about behavioral disorders (and global warming, and any other controversial issues). A year and a half ago, my daughter after one of her first days in 5th grade and
told me that global warming was real (her teacher told her so).
We discussed my presentation at a recent Policy committee meeting. The result was that we modified our policy on Staff Development to say that staff training in controversial issues would be treated with the same guidelines used when our students are taught about controversial issues. Now all we have to do is monitor it for compliance. Our updated policy is here
. Our Special Services Director also agreed with my assessment of the 2006 training noted above, and is developing a more balanced presentation for our teachers on ADHD and drugs for this year.
Regards/
-- Chris
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Where Does The Time Go?
It has been over two months since I last posted on the BLOG. Before having children we were very involved in fighting for education spending reform and education reform. We so often were annoyed as to how little parents were involved in fighting for reform. Now with a 6 month old who is still not sleeping through the night, a three and a half year old who is wise beyond her years and a big house we have a little more compassion for those parents.
Daily I look for education, tax and legislation information that would be interesting for the BLOG but it seems by the end of the day I just don't have time to post as I would have hoped. Although I don't have time to post I do keep up on the issues so I will be well informed at polling time.
Daily I look for education, tax and legislation information that would be interesting for the BLOG but it seems by the end of the day I just don't have time to post as I would have hoped. Although I don't have time to post I do keep up on the issues so I will be well informed at polling time.
Monday, December 31, 2007
Addition to our family.
Our son was born July 6th and has kept us busy the past six weeks along with the care of our three year old daughter. We hope to resume posting on a regular basis as time permits.
Citizens for Reasonable And Fair Taxes (CRAFT) was a group that we started in December 2002 to fight the spending problem in our schools in Illinois. CRAFT quickly grow to over 600 supporters and active members. CRAFT eventually networked many groups statewide to fight for education reform and education spending reform.
When we moved to New Hampshire we decided to start a group here in Croydon and for people residing within SAU 43. We are looking for individuals to join our efforts. People can do as little as being a recipient of our emails and spreading that information to friends and neighbors to becoming active in helping us reduce our tax rates by encouraging reduced spending in our schools at the same time encouraging improved educational results in both Croydon and SAU 43.
Please email us if you would like to become involved in controlling the spending therefore our tax rates within our school district and improving the quality of education our students receive. There is no cost involved in joining our efforts.
New posts appear below this post.
Citizens for Reasonable And Fair Taxes (CRAFT) was a group that we started in December 2002 to fight the spending problem in our schools in Illinois. CRAFT quickly grow to over 600 supporters and active members. CRAFT eventually networked many groups statewide to fight for education reform and education spending reform.
When we moved to New Hampshire we decided to start a group here in Croydon and for people residing within SAU 43. We are looking for individuals to join our efforts. People can do as little as being a recipient of our emails and spreading that information to friends and neighbors to becoming active in helping us reduce our tax rates by encouraging reduced spending in our schools at the same time encouraging improved educational results in both Croydon and SAU 43.
Please email us if you would like to become involved in controlling the spending therefore our tax rates within our school district and improving the quality of education our students receive. There is no cost involved in joining our efforts.
New posts appear below this post.
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Another reason not to vote for Hillary
The following Letter to the Editor appeared in the Union Leader.
Another reason not to vote for Hillary
To the Editors: As if we didn't have enough reason not to support Hillary Clinton, the New Hampshire chapter of the National Education Association recently gave her its endorsement. This largest union in America doesn't endorse candidates based on their service to the public.
The NEA continually strives to force every taxpayer to send as much money as possible into their hands through frivolous lawsuits and legislative edicts. To this end, the NEA supports candidates committed to using the power of government to suit their financial, not educational goals.
From its perspective, the NEA chose wisely, for all evidence suggests Hillary Clinton would be delighted to send our money to the NEA in exchange for political influence. Its the true reason she earned their endorsement, and the reason she must not have the public's endorsement in January.
Whether you're a Democrat, Republican or independent, one thing is clear. Hillary Clinton has neither the integrity nor competence to serve as President. Hillary Clinton stands for Hillary Clinton, nothing more.
-- Jim Peschke, Croydon
Another reason not to vote for Hillary
To the Editors: As if we didn't have enough reason not to support Hillary Clinton, the New Hampshire chapter of the National Education Association recently gave her its endorsement. This largest union in America doesn't endorse candidates based on their service to the public.
The NEA continually strives to force every taxpayer to send as much money as possible into their hands through frivolous lawsuits and legislative edicts. To this end, the NEA supports candidates committed to using the power of government to suit their financial, not educational goals.
From its perspective, the NEA chose wisely, for all evidence suggests Hillary Clinton would be delighted to send our money to the NEA in exchange for political influence. Its the true reason she earned their endorsement, and the reason she must not have the public's endorsement in January.
Whether you're a Democrat, Republican or independent, one thing is clear. Hillary Clinton has neither the integrity nor competence to serve as President. Hillary Clinton stands for Hillary Clinton, nothing more.
-- Jim Peschke, Croydon
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)