Sunday, July 03, 2005

AS THE STUDENTS SEE IT

'Just pretend to be some environmental freak and post random rants'

Summertime, and the learnin' is easy... or so one would think if one encountered North Carolina State students discussing their distance-learning "Multidisciplinary Studies" course in "Environmental Ethics":

MDS 201: Environmental Ethics
Interdisciplinary consideration of ways in which field of study coupled with personal/cultural values contribute towards either solving or compounding environmental problems; provides framework for process of making ethical decisions.


Recently, a student turned to her peers on the "Study Hall" forum of the "Wolf Web" (not affiliated with NCSU) seeking reassurance about the class. Her concern was that "the reading is killer," so she wanted to know if anyone had either taken the course and could offer some advice "or have printed out their quizzes w/the answers??!!" (All quotations, sic.)

Reassurance was swift. The first respondent, also in the class, noted that "Google helps." This would be a recurring theme. Other respondent starts discussing the merits of taking the class through Distance Education. For example, one stated:

if any of you are taking it distance ed, DO NOT DO THE READINGS. trust me, i failed EVERY QUIZ during the 10 week class and still got an A+ . If you post 5-6 times a week in the discussions, you will automatically receive an A+, no questions asked. Just pretend to be some environmental freak and post random rants (even if they dont make sense) and respond to other people's questions.

Just in case his main point was buried in all that mangled syntax, he repeated: "EVERYONE GETS AN A+."

Another student affirmed that narrative, adding "I never read, and just used Google on all the quizzes to get B-Cs. Discussed like crazy, bam, A+."

The originating student was encouraged, but she still sounded incredulous: "yeah the quizes are killing me so i was thinking about droping it but i do post like crazy. so those of you who yook it did not make 90's and up on all your quizes and still got a A+?? and yeah the reading is killer." Nevertheless, she reported feeling "MUCH BETTER" - especially because she does take the online course.

Another offered his take on the course message boards:

I feel those message boards are full of bs and people must write just to get the A+ because most of the stuff doesn't make sense and is the same thing over and over again. Geez if you get an A+ for posting, I better start now!

That reaction was followed by a student confessing, "man i just scan the reading while taking the quiz, get decent enuf grades."

One student, however, was rather rude in his comments about the class and the overarching "Multidisciplinary Studies" discipline. In a profanity-laden response, he said it was "A [profanity] MDS CLASS. THE ENTIRE [profanity] THING IS BASED ON PERSONAL OPINION HOW SIMPLER DO YOU WANT IT TO BE?"

Another student volunteered that she took the once-a-week session of the class, which was the "easiest A ever." One who took the distance-ed version reported that he "used google for finding the answers," "got at least a B on all my quizzes" (except one, which he was "allowed to submit again"), "gave up on the reading after a few weaks," "did only 2 posts a week (some late too)," "didn't do any of the extra credit papers," and "still got an A- in the class."

Finally, someone summed it all up for the concerned topic-starter:

Yes, there were a lot of readings, but all you really have to do is read the first and last sentence in each paragraph and take notes on the general ideas of each reading. Then...before a test, study for, say, about an hour and bam, A+! I took me 15 min to do the mid term and 20 min to the do final. It was the easiest class I ever took in college.

As this student pointed out, however, it's not just students' GPAs that benefit from this course. Mama Earth does, too: "hey, you get to learn a little bit about major environmental events in recent history, so yay for Earth."

Post lifted from here





PUBLIC SCHOOLS TRY TO KEEP PARENTS IN THE DARK

"How often does your 6th-grade daughter have oral sex?" If the question offends you, then talk to the school officials at Shrewsbury, Mass. But don't expect a sympathetic response. When Mark Fisher protested quizzing his 12-year-old daughter about oral sex (among other topics), the school authorities asserted their right to gather such information without his consent.

The questionnaire is not limited to Massachusetts; it is nationwide. And the 'problem' is not the gathering of information but the denial of parental rights and reasonable concerns. The Shrewsbury questionnaire is part of The Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS) that was established in 1990 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to monitor youth behaviors that influence health. The CDC website offers a 22-page version of the YRBS, which consists of 87 questions. Seven questions address sexual behavior. For example, the posted questionnaire asks, "How old were you when you had sexual intercourse for the first time?" And, was a condom used?

Past this point, the facts become confused. For one thing, there is no mention of oral sex on the CDC site. Nevertheless, each school district selected to participate in the YRBS is able to add or subtract questions. Given that Shrewsbury has refused to release its version of the questionnaire, parents quite reasonably suspect the worst. Without disclosure of the survey to parents or the public, Fisher's claim that students are asked to identify themselves as heterosexual, gay or bisexual stands.

For another thing, the national YRBS claims to report upon student in the 9th through 12th grades. Fisher's daughter is in the 6th grade, where students are typically 11 or 12-years-old. However, other reports -- from Planned Parenthood, for example -- to confirm that 6th graders are being surveyed. In Shrewsbury students in grades 6, 8, 9 and 11 took part. Without parental oversight and with school authorities unwilling to disclose questionnaires, no one really knows what information is being gathered. Or rather, from the posted form, some things are clear. School authorities wish to know if parents have committed an illegal action.

Question 10: "During the past 30 days, how many times did you ride in a car or other vehicle driven by someone who had been drinking alcohol?"

Authorities also wish to know if your child has committed an illegal act.

Question 45: "How old were you when you tried marijuana for the first time?"

The posted form admonishes, "DO NOT write your name on this survey. The answers you give will be kept private." But government information is notoriously non-private and teachers are easily able to identify respondents. Moreover, confidentiality tends to erode easily when issues of child endangerment and criminal conduct are raised. (Does anyone believe that a child who circles "6 or more times" for Question 14 -- "During the past 30 days, on how many days did you carry a weapon such as a gun, knife, or club on school property?" -- will not have his or her file tagged?)

Nevertheless, the crux of the matter is not whether information on 11-year-olds will be kept private. It is: Does the government have a right to side-step parental consent and collect such information about children of any age without parental permission? (By "such information" I mean highly personal data and/or data that could possibly lead to criminal prosecution.) That is what Fisher is demanding of the Massachusetts' Department of Education: active parental involvement. At this point, state law requires parents to explicitly exempt their children from programs involving sexuality. Fisher is fighting for a bill that requires parental permission before children are included. Explicit permission is particularly important in situations where parents seem to be -- in Fisher's words -- "kept in the dark."

School committee President Deborah Peeples reportedly explained that parents are permitted to view the survey but they are not allowed to take a copy home. Why? "It might be misinterpreted or misunderstood or they could use it to direct their children's responses," Peeples said. In short, parents might discuss the sexual (and other) topics with their children. Clearly, the school does not think such discussion is appropriate; conversation about the sexual survey is not appropriate between parent and children but should remain between government and child.

More here







Public schools failing to combat predatory employees: "Julia Haich had been misled by the school she trusted to protect her, and now another girl was suffering. On March 20, Steven Ostrin, a 51-year-old history teacher at New York's prestigious Brooklyn Tech, was arrested for allegedly groping and kissing a 15-year-old student. It was not his first offense. Haich, now 19, said Ostrin molested her in 2002 -- but when she reported the assaults to school officials, they persuaded her not to press charges, promising Ostrin would retire at the end of the academic year. Haich believed them. 'I thought if I spoke up about what happened, it would never happen again,' she told the New York Daily News for a March 29 story. 'I was wrong.'"

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

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.

The NEA and similar unions worldwide believe that children should be thoroughly indoctrinated with Green/Left, feminist/homosexual ideology but the "3 R's" are something that kids should just be allowed to "discover"


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

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

No comments: