Conservative teens say school is biased against them

Soft-spoken and casually dressed, Chris Bowler does not look the part of a political firebrand. But his new conservative club has ignited considerable controversy at Hudson High School. To advertise the club's first meeting in December, Bowler put up a poster that included the website of a national organization for high school conservative clubs. The page includes links to videos of beheadings by Iraqi insurgents, saying the links are meant to show what terrorists can do. The posters immediately drew administrators' ire. Within a few hours, the posters were removed and access to the Web page was blocked on school computers. An attempt to display the posters last month was also squelched. "The material was way beyond what I believe the school should be advertising," said principal John Stapelfeld. "It seemed to be supporting violence more than supporting the conservative message."

Bowler and his supporters believe the response stems from a political bias in the school against conservatism. To them, it's ironic that students should be censored in a school that has won praise for innovative civics and community service programs. "They pride themselves on giving everyone a chance to say what they feel, up until this," said Bowler, a senior at the school. "We just want people to hear both sides."

Mark Goodman, executive director of the Student Press Law Center in Arlington, Va., said schools in the United States can legally curb speech only if it will create a "substantial disruption" in the school. In this case, he said, the students appear to have the law on their side. "That's not an easy standard to meet," he said. Goodman said Massachusetts law provides even greater free speech protection for public school students than does the First Amendment.

Stapelfeld said his decision to limit student access to the site had nothing to do with the club's political views. He said he was initially "thrilled" about the idea of a conservative club to spark political discussions. But Stapelfeld said the brutal images implicitly condoned violence as a way of "solving problems" and did not reflect "mainstream conservatism." "There are limits [to free speech] and there are clearly limits in the schoolhouse," he said. He added that showing terrorist murders did not address the more central problem of growing anti-Americanism abroad. "Unfortunately, we really haven't dealt with the fact that we're not well received in the world anywhere," he said. "That's the issue."

Bowler said Stapelfeld's comment typifies what he sees as the school's pervasive liberal bias. He and other club members say teachers have urged them to attend war protests, have confronted conservative students, and have inserted their liberal political views into discussions of both current and historical events. Several club members said one social studies teacher hung in her classroom a poster of George W. Bush with a foolish expression and a comment he made in jest in 2000: "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."

Club members said they hoped that by banding together they could feel more free to express conservative views. "I think the teachers have tried to intimidate us," said James Melillo, a senior. "But it's had the opposite effect."

Stapelfeld said he wants the faculty to discuss divisive political and social issues frankly, but he acknowledged he had spoken with some teachers about injecting their personal views.

Tim Bueler, the 17-year-old founder of the High School Conservative Clubs of America, which he said has about a dozen chapters nationwide, said he was angered but not surprised by the Hudson decision to take down the posters that gave a link to his website. "This kind of reaction is typical," he said. "Public schools play by a different set of rules when it comes to the First Amendment." Bueler generated widespread controversy when he started a similar club two years ago at his Rohnert Park, Calif., high school and posted fliers attacking "liberal traitors" and illegal immigrants.

Stapelfeld said he believes the conservative club will ultimately provide a worthwhile alternative to the majority political outlook. On that point, the conservative students agreed, saying their club is a necessary counterweight. "We already feel we are getting the liberal side in class," said junior club member Sarah Berube

Source




GOVERNMENT MAKES EDUCATION DEARER, NOT CHEAPER

"We must open the doors of college to all Americans," declared the president in his State of the Union message. "To do that, I propose . . . The largest increase in Pell grant scholarships in 20 years." Do you remember hearing George W. Bush say that last week? Actually, you don't. Those words are from President Clinton's State of the Union address in 1997. But if you tuned in to Bush's speech on Feb. 2, you heard him say something quite similar: "We will make it easier for Americans to afford a college education by increasing the size of Pell grants." The new budget he unveiled this week would gradually raise the maximum annual grant to $4,550, an increase of $500.

Presidents come and go, but laments about the high price of higher education are eternal -- and so are calls for ever more federal aid to mitigate it. For 60 years, the federal government has been shoveling money into programs meant to make college more affordable -- yet a college degree today is more unaffordable than ever. Rarely has Washington so comprehensively worsened a problem it was determined to solve.

Beginning with the GI Bill in 1944, federal tuition aid has metastasized into a dizzying array of subsidies, most of which are now encompassed in the Higher Education Act. In addition to Pell grants, there are Federal Supplemental Education Opportunity grants and Federal Work-Study jobs, as well as Perkins Loans, Family Education Loans, Direct Student Loans, and Stafford (or Guaranteed) Student Loans. In 2005, these will account for more than $73 billion in overall federal financial aid to college students. Then there are the billions of dollars' worth of tuition credits and deductions written into the tax code -- the Hope Tax Credit, the Lifetime Learning Tax Credit, the higher education expense deduction, the student loan interest deduction, and the tax-exempt Qualified Tuition Plans, known as "529s."

And the result of this energetic government campaign to hold down the cost of a college education? The cost of a college education is skyrocketing -- and has been for years. Tuition and fees were up 10.5 percent at state colleges and universities last year. The year before that, they were up 14 percent. Every year for nearly a quarter-century -- since before most of today's college students were born -- higher education costs have raced ahead of inflation. And far from slowing this runaway train, government aid serves only to stoke the engine.

How could it do otherwise? Every dollar that Washington generates in student aid is another dollar that colleges and universities have an incentive to harvest, either by raising their sticker price or reducing the financial aid they offer from their own funds. Higher Education Act funds "are seen by colleges and universities as money that is there for the taking," observes Peter Wood, an anthropology professor at Boston University. "Tuition is set high enough to capture those funds and whatever else we think can be extracted from parents. Perhaps there are college administrators who don't see federal student aid in quite this way, but I haven't met them." In 10 years of attending committee meetings on the university's annual tuition adjustment, says Wood, "the only real question was, 'How much can we get away with?'"

It's an old story. City University of New York began charging admission in 1976, ending a century-old tradition of free tuition. As New York's deputy commissioner of education later explained, that decision was eased considerably by the knowledge that students would qualify for government aid. The anecdotal evidence is backed up by scholarship. In a new monograph for the Cato Institute, political scientist Gary Wolfram surveys the literature on the effect of financial aid. "The empirical evidence is consistent," he finds, in showing that "federal loans, Pell grants, and other assistance programs result in higher tuition for students at our nation's colleges and universities."

The cat has been out of the bag for a long time. In a 1987 New York Times column titled "Our greedy colleges," Ronald Reagan's education secretary, William Bennett, rebuked colleges and universities for repeatedly jacking up tuition far beyond any reasonable adjustment for inflation. "Increases in financial aid in recent years have enabled colleges and universities blithely to raise their tuitions," Bennett charged, "confident that federal loan subsidies would help cushion the increase."

Isn't it time to stop pouring fuel on this fire? Instead of renewing the Higher Education Act, Congress should phase it out, thereby forcing colleges and universities to compete on price. That would leave financial aid to the private sector, which can target it far more effectively -- and where it should have been left all along.

Source






MORE CHOICE -- BUT NOT FOR THOSE PESKY PRIVATE SCHOOLS

Under a socialist Australian State government

The 133-year-old notion of free and secular public education could be ditched in a radical plan to rewrite Victoria's education laws. Also on the table are raising the school leaving age of 15, giving parents a greater choice of public schools and tough new standards for private schools - including banning corporal punishment. A new regulatory body to govern all schools is also proposed, charged with maintaining education quality. The State Government has thrown open for public debate the guiding principles of education in Victoria as it prepares to rewrite the Education Act of 1872.

Releasing a discussion paper, Education Minister Lynne Kosky said the time had come for a "wholesale remaking of the act". "I believe we now need an Education Act that underpins our aspirations and hopes for education in 2005 and beyond," she said.

The review was welcomed by teacher, principal, parent and private school groups as an opportunity to shape and debate education in Victoria - although they differed on key issues such as school accountability, voluntary levies and punishment. The State Opposition accused the Government of being able to find money for the review while children with disabilities were unable to get help and schools were falling apart.

The 1872 legislation commits to free and secular education. The Government has suggested the principles could be modified to reflect school realities. Controversy has raged about whether state education is actually free, with schools charging parents "voluntary" levies that are often viewed as compulsory. Ms Kosky said that even the original act included charges beyond core subject areas. "I just think we need to have a proper discussion about that," she said. "Is that notion of free - when clearly there are voluntary levies provided - is that notion correct any more? Or is there better wording acknowledging that that's what does take place?" Ms Kosky said she doubted that the voluntary nature of levies would change, "but we might as well be more honest, I think, than even the original act was".

The legislative ban on religious education in government schools is also up for review. This is because schools now offer optional religious education. "If you followed the act, probably every school around the state's doing the wrong thing" she said. The state was also funding private schools that were clearly non-secular. Another key area is the minimum school leaving age, now 15. The debate will be over raising the leaving age as a way of keeping students at school longer, or what appears to be a preferred option of committing the state to proving an entitlement to 13 years of schooling.

The review is also looking at enshrining the right to choose among government schools, moving away from the idea that students automatically go to their neighbourhood school. One of the most contentious proposals is tough new standards for private schools, which receive state money. The Age reported last year Ms Kosky was planning new regulations demanding private schools meet minimum standards in literacy, numeracy and other curriculum areas. The discussion paper proposes the same minimum standards for government and private schools. It proposes an expert body to ensure quality in all schools.

Source

***************************

For greatest efficiency, lowest cost and maximum choice, ALL schools should be privately owned and run -- with government-paid vouchers for the poor and minimal regulation.

Comments? Email me here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site (viewable even in China!) here

***************************