Independent Women's Forum - Research Areas > Education

Score one for transparency proponents!

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Mon, 05 May 2008 10:44:00 EDT

A U.S. District Court judge has ruled federal financial transparency laws apply to certain public-sector unions, traditionally exempt from such regulations.

If it stands, the decision will allow workers across the country to have increased access to records of their unions' financial dealings.

The case, Alabama Education Association v. Chao, has worked its way up and down the court system for several years. The most recent decision, issued in late March, requires state-level public-sector unions to disclose their finances to the federal government if those unions are affiliated with a national union that must comply with the federal reporting laws.

While the case deals directly with affiliates of the National Education Association, the same principle applies to other public-sector unions, including the American Federation of County, State, and Municipal Employees and Service Employees International Union.

More here. (Hat tip: The Union Label)

Interesting Strategy

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Fri, 02 May 2008 11:38:00 EDT

New York is paying teachers not to work.

Details here.

D.C. Schools Look for Hundreds of Children

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 10:00:00 EDT

Here's the scoop from the Washington Examiner:

A city investigation spurred by the deaths of four young girls earlier this year found that the D.C. school system can't account for hundreds of students who were cut from attendance rolls late last year, The Examiner has learned.
E-mails obtained under the Freedom of Information Act show that 745 children withdrew or were deleted from their schools' rolls between Nov. 15 and Dec. 15.

Officials weren't sure what happened to the children, and are scrambling to find them, according to the e-mails and city sources who spoke on condition of anonymity.

More info here. I think District Councilwoman Mary Cheh sums it up nicely: "It's emblematic of the disarray of our record keeping in those schools," she said. "It's beyond shocking."

Are Public Schools Really Underfunded?

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 11:59:00 EDT

In yesterday's Washington Post, Andrew Coulson points to some staggering numbers about the cost of public education in Washington, DC:

We're often told that public schools are underfunded. In the District, the spending figure cited most commonly is $8,322 per child, but total spending is close to $25,000 per child -- on par with tuition at Sidwell Friends, the private school Chelsea Clinton attended in the 1990s.

What accounts for the nearly threefold difference in these numbers? The commonly cited figure counts only part of the local operating budget. To calculate total spending, we have to add up all sources of funding for education from kindergarten through 12th grade, excluding spending on charter schools and higher education. For the current school year, the local operating budget is $831 million, including relevant expenses such as the teacher retirement fund. The capital budget is $218 million. The District receives about $85.5 million in federal funding. And the D.C. Council contributes an extra $81 million. Divide all that by the 49,422 students enrolled (for the 2007-08 year) and you end up with about $24,600 per child.

For comparison, total per pupil spending at D.C. area private schools -- among the most upscale in the nation -- averages about $10,000 less. For most private schools, the difference is even greater.

More here.

Home Schooling and the Constitution

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 11:39:00 EDT

The right of California parents to homeschool their children is in jeapordy. A Court recently ruled that they found no right to homeschool in the state constitution, and, as John Stossel writes today, there is legitimate worry than any legislative action taken to protect homeschoolers will end up seriously restricting the practice since so many of the policymakers take marching orders for unions.

There is plenty of evidence that homeschoolers come away with better educations than their peers taught in government-run public schools. But that should really be beside the point in this question. The real issue is that parents shouldn't have to send their kids to be indoctrinated in government schools if they don't want to and are willing to educate them themselves. Stossel makes the further point that this is really about how we consider what is legal in a free society:

I think the state court is looking at the state Constitution upside down. The court finds no constitutional right to homeschool one's children. But in a free country, people are free to do anything not expressly prohibited by law. If the Constitution is silent about homeschooling, then the right is reserved to the people. That's how the Framers of the U.S. Constitution said things are supposed to work.

Teachers Unions Exposed

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 12:09:00 EDT

IWF recently partnered with The Center for Union Facts for a new campaign to highlight the stranglehold that teachers unions have on the education system in America, and all the ill effects that go along with that. Naturally, teachers unions haven't been too happy about the campaign and have tried to paint the campaign as "anti-teacher." But there is an important difference between being anti-teacher and anti-teachers unions. The campaign aims to show how the unions are damaging America's public schools by blocking reform and protecting bad teachers. There is nothing anti-teacher about that.

As IWF President Michelle Bernard states in this article, our concern with this issue is that students will not be able to compete in the 21st century workforce:

"The only ones who are suffering are the kids who graduate--if they graduate: They will not be able to compete in the 21st Century," Bernard said.

I encourage everyone to check out www.teachersunionsexposed.com/ and learn more about the campaign, including the Ten Worst Union-Protected Teachers contest. Also check out Michelle Bernard talking about the campaign (and the need for merit pay for teachers) on Fox News here.

Obama's Speech

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 13:40:00 EDT

People have had very different reactions to Senator Barrack Obama's speech on religion. Many thought it was cynical (for example, in equating the virulent bigotry and anti-Americanism of Pastor Wright's statements with the misguided prejudices of his own grandmother) while others thought it was a masterful and important step in creating greater racial understanding.
I doubt that the speech will undo all of the political damage done by the Wright episode, but I tend to agree with Abigal Thernstrom who wrote today on NRO about the speech as a powerful, persuasive and important look at race relations in America. She wrote:

I guess I'm not supposed to like Senator Barack Obama's Philadelphia speech - at least if I want to keep my conservative credentials intact. But I did - and join Charles Murray in celebrating its subtlety, seriousness, and patriotism. What other prominent contemporary black politician could or would have given such a speech?

Yes, Rev. Jeremiah Wright is full of hateful, anti-American rhetoric, but his views are clearly not those of the Illinois senator. Indeed, the Philadelphia speech had something of Martin Luther King Jr.'s belief in what Obama called his "the decency and generosity of the American people." As King did, Obama appealed to our better angels, asking Americans to join him in continuing the "long march . . . for a more just, more equal, more free, more caring, and more prosperous America." And he distanced himself from those who, like Wright, depicted a "profoundly distorted view of this country - a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that is right with America. . . . "

I agree that Senator Obama's thoughtful observations about the roots of racial tension were enlightening and even useful in generating greater empathy across groups. I don't know that it completely put to rest lingering feelings that Senator Obama, like many on the Left, don't fully embrace America as the greatest country on Earth. Senator Obama said that he profoundly loves the country, and I am sure he does, but his willingness to sit through and be associated with someone expressing such anti-American sentiments-coupled with Michelle Obama's statements of not having felt proud of her country until her husband's presidential run--makes that love seem more qualified or grudgingly given than many of us.

But mostly, where Dr. Thernstorm leaves off --"Does "moving beyond" mean massive new government programs unlikely to solve the basic race-related problems? Probably, but that is a topic for another day." --is where I want to pick up, because while I found Senator Obama's commentary and observations on race compelling, his suggestion that embracing his policy prescription of big government liberalism was the sole path to racial healing was not only wrongheaded, but offensive. He said:

In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination - and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past - are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds - by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations....

As his speech continues, it becomes clear that the "deeds" that he demands as the path to a more perfect union is bigger government, more spending on schools, socialized medicine, protectionism, and essentially classic tax-and-spend liberalism. Each of these policy items could be dissect on its own to show how it would be bad for America (for example, protectionism leading to higher prices and less growth both at home and overseas, particularly in developing countries that those on the Left always claim to care about), but I'll just quickly touch on one.

Education spending. The idea that what we can fix the miserable public schools that plague our inner cities by "investing" more, or in other words dumping more public money into the system, should by now be wholly discredited. Education spending has gone through the roof in recent decades and that hasn't changed test scores one bit. Increasingly policymakers from across the political spectrum are recognizing that we have to change the dynamic, by put power in the hands of parents through school choice programs as the best way to get schools to improve. Senator Obama has been basically mute about school choice, almost certainly because he doesn't want to offend teachers unions who loath any measure that would give kids options other than the government-run schools. That's to be expected I suppose, but to suggest that those who don't embrace classic tax-and-spend liberalism aren't "addressing the legacy of discrimination" is insulting.

The Hug Police

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 12:17:00 EST

IWF recently highlighted the shenanigans that often come along with sexual harassment policies on campus. Two news stories today, indicate similar problems exist on the K-12 level.

First, from Illinois:

A 13-year-old junior high school student was given two days of detention after school officials spotted her hugging friends after school last Friday.
Megan Coulter, an eighth-grade student at Mascoutah Middle School, was hugging her friends goodbye after school Friday when vice principal, Randy Blakely, saw her and told her she would receive two after-school detentions.

Then, from Alabama:

The debate of public displays of affection in school is hitting home in Alabama. The mother of a student in Autauga County says her daughter was disciplined for simply hugging a friend....
She says the hug wasn't meant to be sexual. She says her daughter was consoling a male friend who recently lost a parent.

The goal of a harassment policy isn't to be the hug police, it is to stop legitimate harassment. When schools include activities such as hugging in these policies, they are trivializing harassment and doing a disservice to their students.

The Coming Academic Title Wave

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 10:56:00 EDT

Originally published by Townhall.com

If the October 17^th House hearing is any indication, a full-scale assault on the academy is coming. The target: STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) fields. The charge: wide scale discrimination against women.

Witnesses, Congressmen, and a crowd of over 100 people gathered last Wednesday on Capitol Hill for a hearing on women in academic science and engineering. No Committee Member or panelist challenged the presumption behind the hearing-that discrimination is the primary cause of women's underrepresentation among science and engineering academics-they turned right to consideration of government-mandated solutions to the perceived problem.

Several panelists, including former Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala, spoke of the need for massive "institutional transformation." Chairman Brian Baird (D-WA) asked what sort of "hammer" the government could use to enforce this transformation. A popular answer was Title IX.

Normally associated with gender equity in athletics, Title IX (and the strict gender quotas that come along with it) could also be used to increase female participation in STEM fields. Rep. Vernon Ehlers (R-MI), the ranking Republican on the subcommittee, went so far as to joke that the sciences should be designated as a sport. This would have two advantages: "NCAA rules would apply" and the sciences would "share in the football revenues."

Shalala complained that, as a university president, she hears from a variety of government agencies and organizations about gender equity in sports, but rarely hears anything about gender equity in science. She went on to stress the need for an organization similar to the NCAA to hold schools accountable for Title IX enforcement.

Another way to force change is pulling Congressional purse strings. The message from panelists was loud and clear: money talks and the government should leverage its funds to "ensure results."

Gretchen Ritter from the University of Texas at Austin also envisioned university provosts holding STEM department chairs accountable for their hiring practices with strict financial consequences, such as a year-long hiring freeze. Translation: hire more women or else.

But before Congress or universities embrace drastic measures to attempt to increase the percentage of women in these fields, they should begin with an unbiased look at the root causes.

A National Academies of Sciences report detailing bias in academic science is taken as gospel, but critics allege that the NAS report glosses over contrary findings and downplays alternative explanations for the discrepancies.

Unfortunately, in many circles, including the academy and apparently now Congressional committees, the topic is too taboo to challenge. You'll recall that not long ago, Harvard President Lawrence Summers was swiftly kicked out the door for asking if innate biological differences between the sexes might be a factor in the disproportional representation in the STEM disciplines.

Shalala may confidently conclude, "women opt out of careers in academic science because of the hostile environment," but what if Summers is right and other factors are at play? Leading experts go back and forth on the issue of innate differences between the sexes and the significance of stereotype threat as they relate to women and science. There is a very real possibility that biology, personality, ability, and several other factors are at play here. All of these deserve honest exploration.

Universities and colleges should examine their practices and consider ways that they can encourage talented women to explore and remain engaged in these fields. But they should do so not in a desire to reach some government quota, but because women have much to offer in terms of research and other contributions. We shouldn't assume that the optimal make up of any department or field will be equal numbers of men and women: our goal should be to ensure that men and women both are welcomed to pursue study and careers in any area they choose.

The October 17^th hearing was the first in a series. Hopefully the upcoming hearings will show more of a commitment to honest debate. It's foolhardy to jump straight to solutions without considering first if there's a problem and its nature. Let's hope that Congress gets back to the basics and takes a fresh, unbiased look at the subject at hand.

Allison Kasic is director of the R. Gaull Silberman Center for Collegiate Studies at the Independent Women's Forum.

How can they learn to love America?

info@iwf.org (Charlotte Hays) — Thu, 03 May 2007 07:47:00 EDT

Several Democratic hopefuls have expressed the touching belief that pouring billions of dollars into Third World countries to build schools would help reduce anti-Americanism. John McWhorter says this is the wrong therapy:

"[Anti-Americanism] is a gut impulse. None of these people acquired their sentiments from a blackboard, nor could anything on it teach them to reverse their thinking. Indeed, recent actions by America have reinforced anti-Americanism abroad. But that sentiment was already there- it is as typical as a David vs. Goliath underdog orientation, sparked by events much less polarizing than Iraq and blazing out of proportion.
"To the extent that a sentiment so deeply wired can be undercut at all, school will be of little help. Students spend most of their lives outside of the classroom. It would seem that more promising strategies would be ones in which America helps to improve the daily lives of poor Third Worlders.
"How about- take a deep breath- eliminating the subsidies to American farmers that keep Third World farmers from being able to make a living selling their products? Or, how about admitting that Rachel Carson was wrong about DDT and restoring its use in African countries to help beat back the malaria epidemic? Then, a targeted effort to resolve the Darfur conflict would be crucial, especially given that, of late, there are small signs of hope there."

Our Children and the V. Tech Massacre

Mon, 30 Apr 2007 10:46:00 EDT

Writing in Opinion Journal, Peggy Noonan convincingly makes the case that "We're Scaring Our Children to Death," among many other instances, with respect to the nationwide, primetime airing of tapes mailed to NBC by the Virginia Tech slaughterer.

Noonan's point leaves one heavy of heart: "We are not giving the children of our country a stable platform. We are instead giving them a soul-shaking sense that life is unsafe, incoherent, full of random dread."

No excuses here - no punches pulled. Says Noonan: "[F]or all our protestations about how sensitive we are, how interested in justice, how interested in the children, we are not. We are interested in politics. We are interested in money. We are interested in ourselves."

There is much truth, I fear, in Noonan's commentary. But, for example, with respect to the airing of the shooter's tapes, the adult public also has a right to be privy to even appalling information about life-threatening persons. To know how the latter think and behave, and what motivates them, can help citizens to recognize such madness and better defend themselves against it.

We must preserve the right and need for adults to know about these terrible matters while finding ways to protect children from psychological harm because of premature exposure to them.

CNN's Paula Zahn Now: Should Muslim veils be banned in US schools, the sub-prime mortgage, a pastor hosting discussions on sex

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 16:25:00 EDT

IWF President and CEO, Michelle D. Bernard, was a guest on the CNN program, Paula Zahn Now. Michelle discussed whether Muslim veils should be banned in American schools; the sub-prime mortgage increases affecting many homeowners; and, a controversial pastor hosting a six-week discussion series on sex.

A New Day for No Child Left Behind

Thu, 15 Mar 2007 08:14:00 EDT

The Washington Post has a front page article today on the widespread dissatisfaction of many legislators--including Republicans-- with No Child Left Behind. The Post reports:

"More than 50 GOP members of the House and Senate -- including the House’s second-ranking Republican -- will introduce legislation today that could severely undercut President Bush’s signature domestic achievement, the No Child Left Behind Act, by allowing states to opt out of its testing mandates."

The article tends to characterize conservative efforts to reform NCLB as a big repudiation of the President and a political war, but I think that Senator Jim Demint (R-SC) has the right sentiment: "Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) said that advocates do not intend to repeal the No Child Left Behind Act. Instead, they want to give states more flexibility to meet the president’s goals of education achievement, he said."

What the legislation would is free states from federal mandates of how to use funds, but still hold them accountable for results, requiring that they still test and report results. But regardless of the politics, this is the right direction for education policy, which clearly is a matter that is best left to states and localities instead of Washington.

Are teachers underpaid?

info@iwf.org (Charlotte Hays) — Fri, 02 Feb 2007 10:00:00 EST

One of my pet peeves is the conventional wisdom that what's needed to save our public schools is more money. Here is a counterintuitive piece on teacher pay in today's Wall Street Journal:

"Who, on average, is better paid--public school teachers or architects? How about teachers or economists? You might be surprised to learn that public school teachers are better paid than these and many other professionals. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, public school teachers earned $34.06 per hour in 2005, 36% more than the hourly wage of the average white-collar worker and 11% more than the average professional specialty or technical worker."

The piece does note that teachers who make higher salaries tend to get results in terms of class test scores - so, yes, the market works, even in education. We should throw the non-achieving bums out and pay those who do well.

FOX's Live Desk with Martha MacCullum: Sen. John Kerry's recent comments in Switzerland; Hezbollah leader Nasrallah's attacks on President Bush; and, random alcohol testing at school events.

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Tue, 30 Jan 2007 16:37:00 EST

IWF Director of Campus Programs, Allison Kasic, joined the FOX News program, Live Desk with Martha MacCullum. Allison joined the roundtable discussion to weigh in on Sen. John Kerry's recent comments in Switzerland; Hezbollah leader Nasrallah's attacks on President Bush; and, random alcohol testing at school events.

Leave No Lousy Teacher Behind!

info@iwf.org (Charlotte Hays) — Fri, 19 Jan 2007 08:52:00 EST

That should be the motto of the teachers union. Inability to fire lousy teachers and reward good ones are two of the biggest problems in public education (there are other big problems, of course). Daniel Henninger writes today about a program in Little Rock, Ark., that rewards teachers who produce good results. Needless to say, the union is not pleased. But a study by Gary Ritter shows that the program works:

"The Ritter study also summarized the expansion and refinement of the incentive program since its inception. At Wakefield (and the three newest schools), the bonuses are awarded for the average growth in test scores of each teacher's class, rather than per-student achievement as at Meadowcliff. At the fall start of Wakefield's first year in the program, its students tested in the 16th percentile; at year's end they were in the 29th percentile. Its teachers got $228,300 in bonuses. Meadowcliff's second-year bonuses totaled $200,926.

"For consistency, the study looked at results on a standardized math test given at Wakefield School the past three years to each student, ending in the fourth and fifth grades. The school's teachers were covered by the bonus program last year. The students' math grades improved by a standard measure (called NCE) of 3.5 points, while those in three Little Rock comparison schools declined. That 3.5 point gain equals about one-sixth of the normally cited national average gap in math scores between black students and white students. If compounded for six years, the gap would close.

"Too hopeful?

"It seems to be for the Little Rock teachers' union. A man versed in the downward slope of many such good intentions warned me last year to watch for the counteroffensive from either Little Rock's bureaucrats or its teachers' union. The union has made its move. In last fall's school-board election, the union ran a slate of candidates and gained control of four of the board's seven seats. It hopes to capture one more school-board seat this September. By June, however, Little Rock will have five grade schools inside the merit-bonus program. If standardized test scores rise in these three new schools as well, it would take a special brand of community self-destruction to throw out the bonus program at the union's behest."

New IWF Podcast!

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Tue, 16 Jan 2007 10:56:00 EST

Be sure to check out the IWF podcast page for our newest interview. This time around I talked to Heritage Foundation education analyst Dan Lips about education policy -- a very important topic to us here at IWF. Why are school choice programs so important? Can No Child Left Behind be saved through meaningful reform? What will education policy look like under the new Democratic Congress? What is the future of school choice in Washington, DC? Find out the answers to those questions and much more in the podcast.

Check out the interview here.

No Child Left Behind

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Thu, 04 Jan 2007 10:39:00 EST

Education policy is very important to us here at the Independent Women's Forum. Last month, IWF's Carrie Lukas critiqued No Child Left Behind, which I linked to here on Inkwell.

Our friends at the Heritage Foundation will delve further into the issue on Monday morning with an event featuring Senators Cornyn and DeMint.

Here's a description of the event:

Forty-two years after the enactment of the original Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), Washington's educational involvement has done little to improve student achievement. What's worse, federal program applications and reporting requirements have distorted the focus of state education leadership by increasing bureaucracy. Schools should be answering to parents, not to Washington, D.C.

On the fifth anniversary of No Child Left Behind, Senators John Cornyn (R-TX) and Jim DeMint (R-SC) will outline their alternative for restoring state and local ownership of education policymaking while ensuring transparency about results and accountability to the real authorities -- parents and taxpayers. Regaining respect for federalism, they argue, could be the key to unlocking promising education reforms and improved achievement across the country.

The event will be held Monday, January 8th at 11 AM in Heritage's Lehrman Auditorium. More details and RSVP information is available here.

Leave "No Child Left Behind" Behind

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 10:21:00 EST

Over at National Review Online this morning, IWF's Carrie Lukas explains the shift in Republican attitudes toward education policy over the years:

"In the heyday of modern conservatism, Republicans were committed to abolishing the Department of Education and restoring state and local control. Since education isn't mentioned in the Constitution, they correctly argued, the federal government has no legitimate role in education policy. And, besides, decades of federal education programs had proved Washington was inept at improving student learning.

"Yet, by 2001, congressional Republicans abandoned this principle for the chance at a photo-op with Ted Kennedy. They backed the Bush administration's No Child Left Behind act (NCLB) -- the largest expansion of the federal role in education since 1965. NCLB imposed new federal dictates on states and localities, including annual student-testing and teacher-certification policies. States were also required to impose various penalties and reforms on schools that failed to meet benchmarks. In return for these mandates, Congress increased spending on federal-education programs by more than 25 percent. The party of Reagan and Gingrich thus embraced Bush/Hastert big-governmentism with alarming gusto."

Oh, how times have changed:

"Five years later, NCLB has reaffirmed the folly of federal meddling in local schools. Most notably, NCLB hasn't significantly improved academic achievement across the nation. By the Bush administration's own figures, millions of children remain in schools that fail to meet state benchmarks. At best, the law helps only a small minority escape these inadequate schools."

But there is hope on the horizon:

"In a recent report, Heritage Foundation analysts outlined one promising approach: allowing states to enter into a contractual or 'charter' agreement with the federal government. Under the agreement, the states would control and direct their share of federal-education funding on state initiatives. They no longer would have to spend all federal-education aid on federally mandated programs and jump through the current maze of bureaucratic hoops. In exchange for this freedom, states would be accountable for results. They would have to present a plan for measuring student performance, monitor student progress, and make the results available to parents.

"The Heritage plan would transfer much of the control of America's schools from Congress and federal bureaucrats back to localities. It would empower governors, state legislators, and state school boards to implement school reforms they believe have the most promise to help local students. Disgruntled parents and teachers wouldn't have to travel farther than their state capitol building to voice their opinions about what's best for their children's schools.

"This federalist system would encourage states to use their resources efficiently while promoting innovation and competition. States naturally would pursue different reform programs. Some might embrace school choice while others would focus on traditional fixes like reducing class sizes or more teacher training. Local officials would see the results in their neighboring states and could adopt the best practices from across the country. Conservatives should welcome that dynamic as a vast improvement over the status quo. They already have the most compelling vision for education -- parental choice and a marketplace in learning -- and reducing Washington's role is a prerequisite to achieving this goal."

Read the whole article here.

Let's Give Junior a Diane von Furstenberg for Christmas

info@iwf.org (Charlotte Allen) — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 11:40:00 EST

Here's the latest parental-permissiveness fad, practiced (says the New York Times -- discovered via Hugh Hewitt) mostly -- actually probably only -- in "tolerant" parts of the country such as the San Francisco Bay: letting your little boy be a little girl if he wants to (and vice versa):

"At the Park Day School in Oakland, teachers are taught a gender-neutral vocabulary and are urged to line up students by sneaker color rather than by gender. 'We are careful not to create a situation where students are being boxed in,' said Tom Little, the school's director. 'We allow them to move back and forth until something feels right.'...

"En route to a mall with her son, Ms. B. had an epiphany: 'It just clicked in me. I said, 'You really want to wear a dress, don't you?'

"Thus began what the B.'s, who asked their full names not be used to protect their son's privacy, call 'the reluctant path,' a behind-closed-doors struggle to come to terms with a gender-variant child -- a spirited 5-year-old boy who, at least for now, strongly identifies as a girl, requests to be called 'she' and asks to wear pigtails and pink jumpers to school."

The ironic thing is that Little Miss Gender Variant is likely to be the only "she" in the class wearing a jumper, in pink or any other color. Most little girls who are the real thing dress in more practical pants for the rough and tumble of school.

Parents and teachers might think that they are being oh-so-progressive in indulging the cross-dressing fantasies of 5-year-olds, but a lot of child professionals think otherwise:

"...Dr. Kenneth Zucker, a psychologist and head of the gender-identity service at the Center for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto, disagrees with the 'free to be' approach with young children and cross-dressing in public. Over the past 30 years, Dr. Zucker has treated about 500 preadolescent gender-variant children. In his studies, 80 percent grow out of the behavior, but 15 percent to 20 percent continue to be distressed about their gender and may ultimately change their sex.

"Dr. Zucker tries to 'help these kids be more content in their biological gender' until they are older and can determine their sexual identity -- accomplished, he said, by encouraging same-sex friendships and activities like board games that move beyond strict gender roles."

Yes, what if Junior turns out to be one of the 80 percent and grows up to conclude that his mom and dad are weird old hippies who sent him to a really strange progressive school?

The Secret Message of "Goodnight Moon": Oppression of Children

info@iwf.org (Charlotte Allen) — Wed, 29 Nov 2006 12:22:00 EST

If you're a mom, or even if you're only an occasional babysitter, you've probably read "Goodnight Moon" to a sleepy youngster at bedtime. You probably find charming Margaret Brown's classic illustrated story about a bunny who spends an hour saying good night to everything in the house and sky before finally falling asleep. Or how about Maurice Sendak's "Where the Wild Things Are," in which little Max in his footed sleeper suit wanders through a nightime dreamland of daunting but gentle monsters? Delightful, no?

Well, no -- if you're an intellectually elite parent like New Yorker staff writer Elizabeth Kolbert, the only person I have ever met in person or in print to describe "Goodnight Moon" as "brutal." Yes, that's the word Kolbert uses (she also informs us that Brown was a part-time lesbian who hated children -- or maybe didn't exactly hate them, but merely expected them to behave themselves in the presence of adults, an idea that is clearly anathema to Elizabeth Kolberrt).

Here is how Kolbert's article on children's picture books opens:

"A book read to a toddler who, after running around the house all day, has had to be stuffed, quite literally, into his pajamas, may traffic in imaginative freedom and wonder, but it is still an instrument of control. I will read this to you, and then you will go to sleep. End of story.

"The tension, or, if you prefer, bad faith implicit in this arrangement...."

Bad faith? Is there something wrong with putting your child to bed a night so both of you can get some much-needed sleep? In the world of Elizabeth Kolbert, children are noble savages -- the littlest noble savages, and there is something deeply wrong with efforts by their parents to socialize them, civilize them, or instill in them habits of orderliness, including the simple concept that day is day and night is night and we do different things during each of those times. Such parental efforts inhibits children's freedom, which is bad.

Kolbert thus divides children's literature into two categories. The first is "protectionist" literature, which means anything that evokes a world of beauty, innocence, nobility, and moral order -- all of which are a parental illusion that masks what life is really all about, which is, in Kolbert's view, "control." I take it that the protectionist category would include everything from "Snow White" through "Time Out for Ducklings" through "The Lord of the Rings." And in Kolbert's view, kids don't really like protectionist literature, but adults think they ought to, so they foist it on them.

Then there's what Kolbert calls the "permissive" category. That's the stuff kids really go for, Kolbert assures us, because it's most like what kids are really like: mocking, irreverent, and cruel, with a taste for the scatalogical and the physically disgusting. The ur-permissive book? The best-selling "Walter the Farting Dog." So Kolbert writes admiringly of these two entries in the permissive category:

"On the cover of Terry Pratchett's "Where's My Cow?" (HarperCollins; $16.95) is an anatomically correct Holstein, seen from behind. Inside, a father reads to his son from a cutesy, pastel-colored picture book called "Where's My Cow?," by an author named Terry Pratchett. As this arrangement suggests, Pratchett's story is a postmodern fable all about the protectionist/permissive conflict. Halfway through, the father has an epiphany. Why is his son learning about 'moo-cows and baa-lambs?' he wonders. 'He is growing up in a city. He will only see them on a plate! They go sizzle!?' At this point, the fluffy farm animals are replaced by hardened criminals, tubercular beggars, and peddlers pushing adulterated meats. Even so, the book ends with the boy sleeping soundly in his little blue crib.

"Lane Smith, who illustrated the by now canonical "The Stinky Cheese Man and Other Fairly Stupid Tales," caters to kids' desire to make fun of everything, including, naturally enough, stories for kids. His latest work, "John, Paul, George & Ben" (Hyperion; $16.99), a freewheeling parody of the patriotic children's books that once made America great, is a portrait of the Founding Fathers as young brats. To create its faux-antiquarian effect, Smith makes use of parchment paper, Colonial typefaces, and portraits by John Singleton Copley and Gilbert Stuart. Ben is Benjamin Franklin, who even as a child 'considered it his duty to provide frequent, free advice.' Smith includes some genuine Franklinian aphorisms -- 'Three can keep a secret if two of them are dead' -- then allows the lad's neighbors to deliver a saying especially for Ben: 'Please shut your big yap!'"

Well, that's nice: turn your children into snide, sarcastic little monsters who mock animals and patriotism. And of course it's true that children can often be (and often are) nasty, cynical, ruthless, lazy, and rude -- but isn't it the job of adults to prod youngsters to see that such traits constitute the least attractive aspect of human nature, and that children ought perhaps to aspire to transcend what is easiest for all of us, being cruel instead of kind, selfish instead of selfless, ill-mannered instead of polite?

Furthermore, why is Kolbert so certain that children prefer "fairly stupid tales" to fairy tales and farting dogs to dogs who swim vast distances to save people's lives? When I was a child, I was no saint, but I loathed the gross and ugly, and that included bathroom humor. I liked pretty things: flowers and princesses. My favorite book was "Anne of Green Gables."

And there's one more thing: How can Kolbert be so certain that books like "Goodnight Moon" are no more than "instruments of control?" Has it ever occurred to her that most young children find nighttime genuinely frightening, with is darkness and silence broken only by unfamiliar noises? They crave reassurances -- that everything from the clock to the moon is in its famiiar place, and that their parents are sleeping just a few rooms away. Children, let's face it, crave adult-supplied order. It's reassuring, and one of the things of which it reassures them is that they, too, will be able eventually to take their place in the world of adults.

But of course, if you're an intellectually elite parent like Elizabeth Kolbert, adulthood is a stifling prison. It's "control." And that's why, in your mind, an enduring and beloved children's classic such as "Goodnight Moon" is, in your words, "brutal."

Education Spending

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Tue, 21 Nov 2006 10:52:00 EST

As much as I kick and scream about the massive spending by the recently kicked out Republican Congress, Democrats want to spend even more. One area that often gets calls for increased funding is education. On the 2006 campaign trail you undoubtedly heard calls for more funding for public schools and subsidies for college tuition. But as Dan Lips points out over at Human Events Online, today increasing federal funding for education is not the answer. If it were, we should have seen better results by now.

Take K-12 education spending:

"Annual U.S. Department of Education spending on elementary and secondary education has increased from $27.3 billion in 2001 to $38 billion in 2006, up by nearly 40 percent. According to the department, annual spending on the Title I program to assist disadvantaged children grew by 45 percent between 2001 and 2006. In 2007, the department will spend 59 percent more on special education programs than it did in 2001.

"Unfortunately, there's little reason to believe even these dramatic funding increases will lead to improvements in student learning in American schools. Since the early 1970s, inflation-adjusted federal spending per pupil has doubled. Over that period, student performance has not markedly improved, according to the long-term National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), which is designed to measure historical trends."

Things aren't any better in higher education:

"Under a Republican-controlled Congress, federal spending on higher education has increased almost as dramatically as K-12 spending over the past six years. For example, annual Department of Education spending on federal Pell Grants grew from $8.7 billion in 2001 to $13 billion in 2006, nearly 50 percent growth. The federal government spends considerably more on higher education today than it did during the Clinton administration. According to the College Board, federal funding for higher education in 2004-2005 totaled $90 billion, a real increase of 103 percent over ten years.

"An increasing number of students receive federal subsidies for higher education. For example, 5.3 million students received federal Pell Grants in 2005, an increase of 44 percent over ten years. In all, in 2006 more than 10 million Americans will receive various federal subsidies for higher education.

"Unfortunately, as with K-12 spending, there's little evidence that federal spending on higher education is achieving its objective. Quite simply, college tuition is becoming more expensive each year. According to the College Board, the total cost of tuition and fees at four-year private and public colleges increased by 5.9 percent and 7.1 percent, respectively, during the 2005-06 school year."

Worse, increased federal spending might be the cause of higher tuition:

"According to economist Richard Vedder, college tuition costs increased by 295 percent between 1982 and 2003, a growth rate higher than health care costs (195 percent), housing (84 percent), and all items (83 percent). In his book, 'Going Broke By Degree: Why College Costs Too Much,' Dr. Vedder argues that increased federal spending on higher education has contributed to rising tuition costs. In other words, federal subsidies are not making higher education more affordable because colleges and universities simply consume this additional source of revenue."

Read the whole article here.

New IWF Commentary

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Fri, 03 Nov 2006 12:21:00 EST

IWF's Carrie Lukas has two stellar pieces out this week. First, over at Townhall.com Carrie examines Social Security as an election issue. Not only is Social Security an election issue, it's a women's issue! Read the article to find out why.

Then, over at Human Events, Carrie tackles the recent controversy over single-sex educational opportunities in public schools. Carrie refutes some of the myths that surround optional single-sex education, especially the charge that such programs are equivalent to segregation. To the contrary, these programs provide more choices and opportunities for children and place more power with parents instead of government bureaucrats. Check out the article here.

Coulter on our Education Woes

Wed, 27 Sep 2006 10:18:00 EDT

When Ann Coulter's book, Godless, appeared, the media obsessed about her criticism of the four widows of 9/11 victims from New Jersey. Coulter's book, in fact, has much more to relate about a number of other issues, including education.

As Accuracy in Academia's Julia A. Seymour notes, Coulter (in chapter 6: "The Liberal Priesthood: Spare the Rod, Spoil the Teacher") Coulter lambastes teacher indoctrination, pay, qualifications, and crime. For example, she asserts that:

· Teachers are "inculcating students in the precepts of the Socialist Party of America-as understood by retarded people" - citing Jay Bennish, the high school teacher caught on tape comparing Bush to Hitler and saying the U.S. is the single most violent nation on planet Earth."

· Numerous schools ban references to the Christian, while requiring students to participate in activities of other faiths.

· Government-monopoly schools fail and fail, yet legislators mandate more and more of government schooling. Coulter asks,"Is student achievement inversely proportional to time spent in U.S. public schools, or is there a correlation between poor student achievement and time spent in U.S. public schools?" And, "Remember how factories in the old Soviet Union stayed open year after year even though half the products they turned out were defective? U.S. public schools have become like that...."

· Re the constant refrain that teachers are underpaid: "Weekly pay for teachers in 2001 was about the same...as for accountants, biological...scientists, registered nurses, and editors..., while teachers earned significantly more than social workers and artists." Teachers also get considerable time off from work - thus "it appears that the only people who get better compensation than teachers for nine months' work are professional baseball players." In addition, teachers receive "more generous pensions than other professional workers" and have "absolute job security."

· There are many criminals in the ranks of teachers. "In addition to grand theft, disorderly conduct, weapons charges, and attempted murder, there were also 180 claims of sexual abuse by New York City public school teachers in 2005-all before May," writes Coulter. She cites data estimating "that between 1991-2000, roughly 290,000 students were subjected to physical sexual abuse by teachers or other school personnel."

· Concerning those who enter the teaching profession: Those who major in education score lower on the SAT and ACT than other students, and the lower the quality of the undergraduate college a student attends, the more likely he or she will enter the teaching profession.

Coulter's prescription? "Less unionization and more competition." Moreover, she exhorts conservative women to enter teaching in order to truly have an effect on society.

Godless addresses serious issues and proposes serious solutions. It does not deserve to be dismissed as mere vitriol.