About time: Universities to dock pay of British professors who boycott exam duties

These underworked elitists show no concern for the students they are being paid to teach

University vice-chancellors are to cut the pay of lecturers who refuse to set, invigilate or mark students' exams and coursework. The move came as Alan Johnson, the new Education Secretary, called on academics to end their boycott, which threatens to disrupt the graduation of up to 300,000 students this summer. Many students are due to start exams next week. Lecturers, led by the Association of University Teachers (AUT) and its sister union Natfhe, are calling for a 23 per cent pay rise over three years. They have refused the latest 12.6 per cent offer. More than 20 universities have told the Universities and College Employers Association (UCEA) that they will dock staff pay by between 10 and 100 per cent.

Michael Sterling, the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Birmingham, said: "The employer has to send a letter asking staff to inform him when they are starting the action. From that point on, the employer will deduct different amounts from their pay according to the university's point of view." Professor Sterling, who chairs the Russell Group of universities, informed his staff of the proposed action in January. He is docking 10 per cent and says that 150 of Birmingham's academics are taking industrial action, fewer than 5 per cent of the whole. Birmingham, where exams are taken earlier, will award degrees to students on the basis of exams sat and papers marked. A "no-detriment clause" means that degree results will only be revised up, not down. At Northumbria University, staff will find their pay cut completely until they return to working full-time. Salaries will also be cut or withheld at Sunderland, Coventry and Strathclyde universities.

The dispute worsened this week after the AUT and Natfhe rejected the universities' 12.6 per cent rise over three years as falling far short of the increase sought. AUT delegates meeting in Scarborough yesterday voted to continue their boycott. The unions have so far refused to put the offer to members. This week, AUT members at St Andrews voted to accept a local 12.5 per cent deal over three years offered by the university, but they were overruled by AUT Scotland.

Intervening for the first time, Mr Johnson urged lecturers to accept the "very generous" deal and end their action. He added that it would be "incredible" if union leaders did not put the 12.6 per cent pay offer to their members. "The employers have made a very decent offer, actually a very generous offer, but I hope the unions now put it to their members," he said. "I think if they do it will be accepted. For the unions not to put that to the members would be incredible."

Boris Johnson, the Shadow Minister for Higher Education, said that the strike had gone on long enough and he called on the unions to put the offer to members. "Lecturers have a legitimate grievance," he said, "but it is not right that students across the country should be penalised and potentially robbed of their degrees by this action. I join with the Secretary of State in urging the unions to put the latest deal to their members for them to decide."

Alan Johnson, who was the Higher Education Minister who pushed through tuition fees, said that it was not for him to "step in" and resolve the dispute, but he emphasised the significance of the latest offer. He was speaking as AUT delegates discussed the dispute at the union's annual council meeting. Sally Hunt, the AUT general secretary, said that the row must be resolved soon to avoid "meltdown" at universities this summer. She said that members had been debating the pay issue since arriving in Scarborough. "They gave a clear democratic mandate in a unanimous vote to reject the offer and continue with the assessment boycott," she said. "What is clear is that this dispute will end when, and only when, there is a decent and credible offer on the table."

Source






BIBLE COMEBACK IN U.S. SCHOOLS?

The long-dormant idea of teaching public school students about the literary and historic importance of the Bible is getting a fresh look this year from state legislatures and local school boards - though with political bickering and questions about what should be included. The buzz results mostly from "The Bible and Its Influence," a glossy high-school textbook with substantial interfaith and academic endorsements. It's available for the coming school year, and some 800 high schools are currently considering the course. The publisher, the Bible Literacy Project of Front Royal, Va., will issue a teacher's edition next month and is providing online teacher training through Oregon's Concordia University. The group expects no legal problems, but is promising school districts worried about lawsuits that Washington's Becket Fund for Religious Liberty will supply attorneys without charge.

Bible Literacy isn't alone in the field. Its older rival, the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools of Greensboro, N.C., is backed by numerous conservative Protestant activists and says 36 new clients have adopted its program this year, compared with just a couple per month in 2005. Overall, the group says school districts in 37 states with 1,250 high schools use its curriculum. The National Council believes the Bible should be students' only textbook. It offers teachers a course outline, "The Bible in History and Literature," and a CD-ROM of "The Bible Reader," a 1969 anthology of texts and commentary. The outline follows the King James Version and recommends the conservative Protestant Ryrie Study Bible for further background.

Both efforts pursue an opening created by the U.S. Supreme Court. In a notable 1963 ruling, the court banned ceremonial Bible readings in public schools but allowed "objective" study of the text in a manner divorced from belief. "The Bible is worthy of study for its literary and historic qualities," the court said.

Last month, Georgia's Gov. Sonny Perdue signed a law that sanctions but doesn't require Bible courses, and directs the state education department to pick a curriculum by February. Legislators are mulling similar proposals in Missouri, Tennessee and Alabama. In Alabama, Republicans have killed a Democratic proposal specifying use of Bible Literacy's textbook after conservatives complained to Republicans about its pluralistic approach. "To some extent, this is about Democrats trying to get religion, and certain Republicans trying to spread religion," says Mark Chancey of Southern Methodist University.

Representing the Campaign to Defend the Constitution, Duke University law professor Erwin Chemerinsky charges that Georgia is "clearly violating" the First Amendment with "state-sponsored religious promotion" both through Bible classes and another law allowing Ten Commandments displays. At Americans United for Separation of Church and State, a spokesman finds it "deeply worrisome" that a "religious pressure group" like Bible Literacy is promoting coursework.

Americans United cites religious activities of Bible Literacy Chairman Chuck Stetson, an Episcopalian and New York entrepreneur, who co-edited the textbook. The National Council's course outline is anonymous, and President Elizabeth Ridenour declines to state her religious affiliation. The National Council's Web site features attacks on Bible Literacy from conservatives, including megachurch pastors John Hagee of San Antonio and D. James Kennedy of Fort Lauderdale, Fla. Hagee calls the new textbook "a masterful work of deception, distortion and outright falsehoods" that would leave pupils "greatly damaged." Kennedy says it would be "a tremendous mistake to impose such very anti-biblical material."

Other conservatives disagree. Bible Literacy won endorsements from a lineup of evangelical scholars and leaders including Charles Colson, who says, "I do not see how any of its content would work to undermine one's faith." The National Council also faces attacks, particularly a scathing 32-page report last year by SMU's Chancey that was sponsored by the liberal Texas Freedom Network and endorsed by 187 religion professors. Chancey branded the National Council version he examined "a sectarian document" that promoted primarily conservative Protestant views, lacked input from scholars in other faith traditions and is inappropriate for public schools. The class outline has since been revised somewhat. The National Council notes in response that its "Bible Reader" was compiled by two Protestants, a Roman Catholic priest and a rabbi, and cites support from several Catholics and an Orthodox rabbi.

Bible Literacy's textbook tries to sidestep sectarian disputes. Its textbook is designed to fit with a 1999 agreement it helped broker on coursework and other issues regarding the Bible in schools. That pact was endorsed by, among others, seven major public school organizations, four Jewish and three evangelical groups and the National Council of Churches. Asked to answer the barbs from the National Council, Bible Literacy spokeswoman Sheila Weber said: "With 8 percent of the nation's schools offering coverage of the Bible, there's plenty of room for different kinds of projects."

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.

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. My home page is here

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