Friday, September 21, 2007

Uneducated students

Students don't know much about history, and colleges aren't adding enough to their civic literacy, says a report out today. The study from the non-profit Intercollegiate Studies Institute shows that less than half of college seniors knew that Yorktown was the battle that ended the American Revolution or that NATO was formed to resist Soviet expansion. Overall, freshmen averaged 50.4% on a wide-ranging civic literacy test; seniors averaged 54.2%, both failing scores if translated to grades.

"One of the things our research demonstrates conclusively is that an increase in what we call civic knowledge almost invariably leads to a use of that knowledge in a beneficial way," says Josiah Bunting, chairman of ISI's National Civic Literacy Board. "This is useful knowledge we are talking about."

Failing Our Students, Failing America: Holding Colleges Accountable for Teaching America's History and Institutions analyzes scores of a test given to 14,419 freshmen and seniors at 50 U.S. colleges last fall on American history, government, international relations and market economy. Freshman and senior scores at the schools, 25 selective and 25 randomly chosen, were compared to gauge civic learning. The report generally echoes the results of a similar study done last fall by the ISI, which promotes civics in higher education. This year:

* Average scores for the 25 selective colleges - chosen for type, geographic location and U.S. News & World Report ranking - were much higher than the 25 randomly selected schools for both freshmen (56.6% vs. 43.7%) and seniors (59.4% vs. 48.4%), but the elite schools didn't add as much civic knowledge between the freshman and senior years. At elite schools, the seniors averaged 2.8 points higher than the freshmen vs. 4.7 points for the randomly selected schools.

* Harvard seniors had the highest average at 69.6%, 5.97 points higher than its freshmen but still a D+. A Harvard senior posted the only perfect score.

* In general, the better a college's U.S. News & World Report ranking, the less its civic literacy gain. Yale, with the highest-scoring freshmen (68.94%), along with Princeton, Duke and Cornell, were among eight schools with freshmen outscoring seniors.

* The average senior had taken four college courses in history, economics or political science and scored 3.8 points higher than the average freshman, a civic knowledge gain of about one point per course.

* Raw scores did not correlate to voting or civic participation, but the more seniors outscored their school's freshman average, the more likely they were to vote and be involved in civic activities.

"Several of the colleges at the lower end of our survey are some of the most prestigious in the country, with average tuition, room and board somewhere north of $40,000 a year," Bunting says. "These are the schools, although their stated mission is to help prepare active citizens, that are the most derelict in their responsibility." While freshmen at elite colleges tended to score higher to start with, there is not much of a "ceiling effect" in which gains get harder to make closer to the top, as their scores are still not that high, says Kenneth Dautrich of the University of Connecticut's Department of Public Policy, which administered the study.

Still, "in many cases, these students are coming from high schools where the subject matter has already been covered," notes Tony Pals of the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities. "It would be a waste of their tuition dollars to sit through the courses again."

To William Galston, Brookings Institution senior fellow of governance studies, the distinctions between schools aren't as clear as the general decline in the civic mission of high schools and colleges. More students are getting more formal education than students 50 years ago, he says, but today's students have fewer civics requirements as the value of higher education is more often defined in economic terms. "Less is being expected of secondary and post-secondary education in the way of civic education, and because less is expected, less is achieved," he says.

No one would argue that college students know enough about history or the world, but a civics test may not be the best measure of civic engagement, says Debra Humphreys of the Association of American Colleges & Universities, which promotes liberal education. Other studies have shown that college students are much more likely to vote and be civically engaged than non-students, she adds. Says Humphreys: "It would be wrong to conclude from this study that the leadership of these selective schools is not committed to educating their students about these subjects."

Source





Teacher Asks Kids: Renounce Citizenship

One often hears that government schools in totalitarian nations brainwash their children to love the government. People in free nations decry that as oppressing the free will of innocent children, and rightly so. In American schools, however, just the opposite is true as with the case of an anti-American teacher in a public school in Chico, California who hates this country so much that he sent a letter home to his student's parents urging them to renounce their citizenship in the U.S. as he announced he was so doing.

Since the troubling work of the so-called progressives led by John Dewey that has resulted in the near destruction of our institutes of higher learning, American schools have been steadily undermining this country. For a long time, at least, it was isolated mostly in the Universities safely removed from our youngest and most vulnerable students. Now, this pernicious and self-loathing force is commonly seen in even our elementary and high schools all too often. Supposed "teachers" who so hate the United States, its culture, history and ideals that they are willing to cast aside any pretense of teaching and are going straight for political indoctrination of their own hate filled ideology appear everywhere you turn.

This is the case of yet another American hater, another Ward Churchillesque propagandist infesting an American public school, one paid for by public funds, who is advocating the destruction of the United States by teaching things antithetical to our nation.

"Teacher" Mike Brooks is teaching his 14-year-old, middle school children that the U.S. tortures people and that it is better to be a member of "the global community" than to be an American. He is so filled with hate against the U.S.A. that he even sent a letter home to his student's parents asking them to renounce their citizenship in the U.S.

Worse than this, the school's principal is so mindless that she is sticking up for this enemy to our country by saying she is sure Brooks "has no political agenda to advance." Clearly he does with his advocacy that his students turn against their own country.

Parent Michael Hill of Chico tells reporters, "The lesson being taught in class was that the U.S. kidnaps innocent people and takes them to Cuba, where they are kept indefinitely and tortured." Hill went on to say that his daughter, "broke into tears when she talked about Brooks mentioning illegal wiretaps and other surveillance directed against innocent people."

The letter this propagandist for unAmerican ideologies sent out re-imagined the Declaration of Independence in "modern language" and ended with the teacher's postscript renouncing his citizenship in the U.S. "After careful consideration of the facts of our current situation, I have decided to announce to everyone that I am no longer a citizen of the United States, but a free and independent member of the global community," it read. Then he insisted that parents sign this letter so that his children may return it to his classroom. Many of the children felt pressured into having their parents sign it, though this purported teacher claims he meant only to start a "discussion."

I would suggest to the Chico, California schools system that they allow this "independent member of the global community" to go find a job in a Madrassa somewhere where his hate-America ideology will be welcomed with open arms and where he will not have his truly wasted salary paid for by the tax payers of the country he so hates.

This story can be added to another recent and outrageous one from Sampson County, North Carolina. There a local High School banned the U.S. flag from being displayed on articles of clothing. In true, mindless "zero tolerance" style, the U.S. flag was banned along with that of any other nation because too many Mexican kids were wearing Mexican flag items to school.

Not only are schools anti-American, but they are filled with gutless and stupid administrators, as well. Here the U.S. flag was banned so that administrators who "didn't want to be forced to pick and choose which flags should be permissible," could get away from having to make a decision.

That one would have been easy for a true American. Ban ALL but the U.S. flag. This IS America, after all. Fortunately, the ban was later rescinded but the only thing that changed the minds of the weak spined administrators in North Carolina was the monumentally bad publicity the story raised for them. If no one had reported on this one, the ban would still be in place and our own children would not be able to show their love for the flag of the very country in which they live.

Sadly, stories like this are not isolated and few. They happen every day throughout the country. Our government schools are failures through and through and should be dismantled. Instead of places of learning, they have become dens of the unAmerican left skulking around and undermining the very nature of these United States by teaching our children to hate their country. Parents should make themselves very aware of the indoctrination being foisted upon our children and stories like this sound a clarion call for change.

Vouchers are a start, but the elimination of the teacher's unions is about the only thing that will begin to fix this problem. Add to that the elimination of Federal funding and a return to local control and we may yet refashion our schools into places to which we would no longer be afraid to send our children.

Source






Hypocrisy thriving in academe

By Dan Walters

Southern California political, media and legal circles have been in a dither over the selection of liberal law professor Erwin Chemerinsky as dean of UC Irvine's new law school, his de-selection after protests by conservative groups and his re-selection on Monday. Setting aside the demonstrable fact that California needs another public law school like it needs another drought, it has been an unseemly situation at best, raising all sorts of questions about academic freedom.

Conservatives complained that Chemerinsky's initial hiring by UC Irvine Chancellor Michael Drake was an affront, citing his years of legal and political activism on the left. Even Ronald George, chief justice of the state Supreme Court, became entangled in the uproar, with anti-Chemerinsky forces citing George's pointed criticism of his treatise on death penalty law. Conservative Los Angeles County Supervisor Mike Antonovich, who had clashed with Chemerinsky in the past, sent an e-mail to Drake that, his spokesman said, "expressed his dismay with the choice for the dean of the law school and suggested that this was the wrong decision and it should be changed."

Drake then canceled the appointment but insisted -- to wide disbelief -- that it had nothing to do with the backlash. "His exact words were, 'You've proven too politically controversial for this to work,' " Chemerinsky told the New York Times. Predictably, there was a counter-backlash of pro-Chemerinsky sentiment. Hundreds of UC Irvine professors and students signed an open letter to Drake last Friday demanding a reversal of the decision. "You have failed to defend the integrity of the university, its recruitment process and the sanctity of academic freedom," the letter said. Chemerinsky fed the furor himself with an article in the Los Angeles Times, saying, "The whole point of academic freedom is that professors -- and yes, even deans -- should be able to speak out on important issues."

As the counter-pressure mounted Friday, Drake met with Chemerinsky. On Monday, they jointly announced that Chemerinsky will come to Irvine after all. "Our new law school will be founded on the bedrock principle of academic freedom," said their joint statement. "The chancellor reiterated his lifelong, unqualified commitment to academic freedom, which extends to every faculty member, including deans and other senior administrators."

A victory for academic freedom? Seemingly so, but it would appear that among UC faculty members the principle should be applied only to those on the political left, judging by what was happening simultaneously a few hundred miles to the north at another University of California campus.

Lawrence Summers, the former president of Harvard University, had been invited by UC Regent Richard Blum (husband of U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein) to address a private Board of Regents dinner at UC Davis. When faculty members objected, Summers was disinvited. Summers, former secretary of the treasury, resigned from Harvard last year after a lengthy clash with its faculty over his remarks about the suitability of women for careers in engineering and other technical fields. Summers said his remarks were misinterpreted and apologized, but was forced out of the presidency anyway.

"I was appalled and stunned that someone like Summers would even be invited to speak to the regents," Professor Maureen Stanton, an organizer of the protest, told the San Francisco Chronicle. The hypocrisy is self-evident. Liberal UC faculty members believe in academic freedom for liberals, but someone deemed to be politically incorrect should be barred from even speaking to a private dinner. And in both cases, those running the university ran for cover.

Source

No comments: