Assault on education

[Long n Left]

1 minute ago, Destino said:

So nothing specific is discussed at all. It’s just a chance to do homework?

You did homework in homeroom?

 

[Destino]

5 minutes ago, Long n Left said:

You did homework in homeroom?

 

It sure as hell wasn’t going to get done at home. lol I also rarely ever had an official “home room”. 

[Renegade7]

 

8 minutes ago, Destino said:

It sure as hell wasn’t going to get done at home. lol I also rarely ever had an official “home room”. 

 

Or you could jus, you know, not do it and show up to homeroom high every morning pretending to be tired.

 

Follow me for more life tips you wouldn't give your kids until AFTER they graduate...

 

 

[China]

University of Florida eliminates all DEI positions due to new state rules

 

The University of Florida has eliminated all diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) positions at the university, according to an administrative memo that was released Friday.

 

The memo cites a recent state ban on the use of public funds for diversity, equity and inclusion programs, activities and policies -- as well as activities for "political or social activism" -- in the public college system. The Florida Board of Governors passed this restriction in January, shortly after the Florida Board of Education passed a similar ban.

 

The University of Florida has closed the Office of the Chief Diversity Officer, "eliminated DEI positions and administrative appointments, and halted DEI-focused contracts with outside vendors," the memo states.

 

The Board of Governors defines DEI as "any program, campus activity, or policy that classifies individuals on the basis of race, color, sex, national origin, gender identity, or sexual orientation and promotes differential or preferential treatment of individuals on the basis of such classification."

 

DEI, as defined by DEI professionals, is aimed at correcting inequities within an organization -- this could include implementing accessibility measures for people with disabilities, correcting discriminatory hiring practices, addressing gender and racial pay inequities, anti-bias training, and more.

 

DEI practices have their roots in the anti-discrimination legislative movement of the 1960s of which the Civil Rights Act and Age Discrimination in Employment Act were born, according to ABC News' past interviews with DEI professionals.

 

The Board of Governors restriction also defines political or social activism as "any activity organized with a purpose of effecting or preventing change to a government policy, action, or function, or any activity intended to achieve a desired result related to social issues, where the university endorses or promotes a position in communications, advertisements, programs, or campus activities."

 

The United Faculty of Florida union's president Andrew Gothard criticized DeSantis' anti-DEI legislation, calling it "censorship and exclusion" in an interview with local news outlet WLRN.

 

"This is all about silencing students," Gothard said. "It's about silencing faculty. It's about withholding funding from individuals who have beliefs, speak ideas, or take actions that would disagree with the politics of elected leaders."

 

National Association of Diversity in Higher Education (NADOHE) President and CEO Paulette Granbury Russell told ABC News in a statement Saturday that students "will suffer" from the dismantling of and loss of jobs within the DEI department at the University of Florida.

 

"Let's be clear: Legislation barring efforts to support students based on race, gender, color, national origin, and sexuality is arcane and intended to further marginalize groups that have historically been marginalized in this country," Granbury Russell said in the statement, adding, "NADOHE will continue to speak out forcefully against these attacks and in defense of its members, as it has since this recent wave of activism first infested our campuses."

 

Click on the link for the full article

 

 

[dfitzo53]

On 2/27/2024 at 9:44 PM, Destino said:

https://www.fcps.edu/family-resources/student-safety-and-wellness/social-and-emotional-learning-sel
 

got this off the FCPS page, link above, can anyone tell me what exactly “Responsive Advisory Meetings” are? The definition provided by FCPS reads as being intentionally unspecific. Seriously, “a time for building meaningful connections and developing respectful and trusting relationships” could be anything.
 

Anyone know what is discussed, specifically?

Typically they are a class period where a teacher has a smaller group of students than normal. Exactly how it's implemented varies from school to school and teacher to teacher. 

 

Studies have shown over and over that two of the key measures of whether a  student will stay in and succeed in school through high school is whether the student has a sense of belonging at the school, and whether they have at least one adult they trust. Part of the goal of advisories is to provide students with those two things. 

 

Responsive Advisory Meetings, if they are done properly, help students build a lot of important skills. For example, students learn how to bring up something that is bothering them to the group respectfully and productively. They learn how to advocate for themselves in terms of their education (and by extension, in other facets of their lives). They learn how to speak positively about their peers, celebrate successes, work through failures, empathize with others, and set personal goals. 

 

Meetings also give teachers a chance to see their students in another light and vice versa. Sometimes there are games or team-building activities. Sometimes, as mentioned above, teachers can help students with their homework. (If that becomes the default activity though, it's not really a Responsive Advisory Meeting.) 

 

When done well, they're one of the most important things schools have started doing in the last 20 years. When done poorly or lazily, or when the teacher gives the students the impression they don't care about the session, they're worthless or counterproductive. (But that's true of most classes.)

[philibusters]

18 hours ago, China said:

University of Florida eliminates all DEI positions due to new state rules

 

The University of Florida has eliminated all diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) positions at the university, according to an administrative memo that was released Friday.

 

The memo cites a recent state ban on the use of public funds for diversity, equity and inclusion programs, activities and policies -- as well as activities for "political or social activism" -- in the public college system. The Florida Board of Governors passed this restriction in January, shortly after the Florida Board of Education passed a similar ban.

 

 

Click on the link for the full article

 

 

 

My instinct and I may be wrong is that eliminating all DEI positions is probably a net positive rather than net negative.  Admittedly I don't think Florida has overdone DEI in the same way that some of the top schools have.  For example, the University of Michigan has 241 DEI staffers and is spending 30 million a year on the DEI department.  Cal Berkeley is spending 36 million per year on their DEI department of about 200 staffers.  So this is a lot of money and this is tax payer money and the schools are not getting much return on investment.  For example Texas A&M is spending 12 million per year on DEI and their black students self reported sense of belonging declined from  82% in 2015 to 55% in 2024.  Sometimes having separate spaces for minority students can be nice for them in the short term, but can decrease their sense of belonging in the long term.  People complain about the cost of education going up and up and a lot of it not being due to paying professors more, but due to the increase of administrative staffing and DEI is the number 1 driver of that in the last 10 years.  If it was a game changer for minority students then I think it would be worth it, but in general minority students sense of belonging has decreased since the spending on DEI has gone up.

 

That is not to say none of these DEI programs are accomplishing anything.   I am sure some are doing very productive work and others are accomplishing very little.  Like a lot of things, probably the leadership at the top of these departments sets the tone and goes a long way in determining how productive these departments are.

 

I also don't think Florida's policy of eliminating all DEI positions is necessarily a smart policy.  Perhaps they was a way to just fund less of these positions.  I feel like these scenarios should not be an all or nothing:  Spend 36 million at one school like Cal Berkeley or spend nothing like Florida.  Probably the best bang for the buck lies somewhere in the middle ground (though perhaps closer to Florida's position).

 

Finally it is important to realize there is a political dynamic.  Conservatives are going to dislike these departments because they are going to strongly lean left.   And these departments can in some cases lean very left (say at some California schools) where there are a lot of left wing activists in the DEI departments.  That doesn't mean the departments are not accomplishing anything, but in does mean conservatives will have a bullseyes on them in the same way leftists are going to really hate institutions that provide a lot of jobs and patronage to conservative activists.

[tshile]

On 2/27/2024 at 10:36 PM, Renegade7 said:

Or you could jus, you know, not do it and show up to homeroom high every morning pretending to be tired

 

 

this. This was the correct way to do it. Sorry for those that missed out. 

[PeterMP]

3 hours ago, philibusters said:

My instinct and I may be wrong is that eliminating all DEI positions is probably a net positive rather than net negative.  Admittedly I don't thi

For example Texas A&M is spending 12 million per year on DEI and their black students self reported sense of belonging declined from  82% in 2015 to 55% in 2024.

 

is not to say none of these DEI programs are accomplishing anything.   I am sure some are doing very productive work and others are accomplishing very little.  Like a lot of things, probably the leadership at the top of these departments sets the tone and goes a long way in determining how productive these departments are.

 

I'm not sure a DEI program can make people feel belonged.  But where I work a lot of the work of people in DEI is directed at retention/academic support.

 

Things like early academic intervention, extra (free) tutoring, and getting involved in research (which requires money) all can help minority retention and success.  And where I work a lot of that comes from work/funds/ from DEI staff/programs.

 

Texas A&M's graduating 72.1% of their African Americans in 2020 and have been pretty flat since 2016 (after 6 years).  Over that same time period whites have gone up from 83% to 87.5% and looks like a real increase.  So at Texas A&M African Americans are falling further and further behind whites.

 

Meanwhile UM's African American graduate rate has gone from the upper-70s to over 86%.  The values for whites were pretty high to start with (91.9%) so it is hard to say if they've gone up (to 93.7%), but African Americans are at least keeping pace if not gaining.

 

I suspect we'll see 2 things happen in FL:

1.  There will be fewer African Americans in the state going to college (especially in state).

2.  The ones that will stay will have a lower graduation rate.

 

Obviously, spending money on something that people aren't really committed to doesn't make sense, so I guess if you and your colleges aren't committed to DEI, then cutting DEI programs probably makes sense.  But I think as a state, you might be hurting yourself.

 

Those two things will hurt the FL economy.  Highly qualified African Americans that can get into other schools where there are DEI programs will leave FL and then are less likely to go back than people that stay.  Ones that stay will be less likely to finish and so less likely to have college degrees and will be saddled with debt that they can't really pay back creating a drag on the FL economy (compared to somebody that finished college).

 

And from there, the cost of recruiting students is expensive for colleges so not retaining students is actually bad business.  Also, people look at graduation rates when they are selecting a school so lower graduation rates make it that much harder to recruit (good) students.  And endowments (which mostly come from wealthy/successful alumni) are an important part of many colleges budgets having less grads and less successful grads negatively impacts the colleges ability to raise an endowment.  It isn't unreasonable that you might get in a situation that a good DEI program might actually be saving you money (though I don't know of a study that shows that, just seems possible).

 

Certainly at the state level, but even at the university level, it might make sense to spend another $18 million/year to graduate another 14% of your minority students.

 

I suspect as a state long term FL is costing themselves money.

 

(Many people think about college budgets in terms of tuition in vs. money spent.  But that isn't really the case.  Like any business, money spent can be an investment that makes it easier for you keep a current customer and obtain future customers.  And universities have this odd thing where previous customers will sometimes "pay" even when they are no longer customers.  Spending money to build long term relationships and put out people that will be successful can actually make you money.  It isn't very common for people to donate money to a university that they dropped or were failed out of.  And then for state institutions it is even more complex because graduating people that are successful and in state will increase the tax base and can impact your funding in the future.  You get into well are we going to keep more of our more successful students in the state if we do X.)

Edited March 4 by PeterMP

[philibusters]

8 hours ago, PeterMP said:

(Many people think about college budgets in terms of tuition in vs. money spent.  But that isn't really the case.  Like any business, money spent can be an investment that makes it easier for you keep a current customer and obtain future customers.  And universities have this odd thing where previous customers will sometimes "pay" even when they are no longer customers.  Spending money to build long term relationships and put out people that will be successful can actually make you money.  It isn't very common for people to donate money to a university that they dropped or were failed out of.  And then for state institutions it is even more complex because graduating people that are successful and in state will increase the tax base and can impact your funding in the future.  You get into well are we going to keep more of our more successful students in the state if we do X.)

 

You make a lot of good points. 

 

Without knowing the numbers, there is going to be some speculation involved, but I think most of the more expensive DEI programs don't justify their costs.   As an example, lets say flagship state university spends 10 million on its DEI department (which is probably a fairly normal number, though some like Cal Berkley will drop 36 million on it and others probably spend 2 or 3 million on it).  Lets say every class there are 2000 minority students the program is designed to help.  If it produces a 10% graduation rate in that population, that is an additional 200 minority students the college is graduating that year.  10 million divided 200 equals $50,000.  That is a lot of money to spend to get a student to graduation.  

 

I do think in the coming years we will see minorities graduation rates go up.  I think some of it is likely due to DEI programs.  I also think some of that will be due to the recent Supreme Court decision regarding affirmative action.  I think minority students will be slightly better matched academically to the schools they attend which will create slightly better graduation rates.  I think both sides will claim credit for it and I think both sides will be partially correct.

 

In regards to DEI programs making people feel like they belong...I think that is a goal at the most expensive DEI programs.  I think state flagships spending 4 or 5 million on DEI are probably focused on fairly practically goals like making sure minority students get the support they need to graduate.  I think some of the elite universities that have money to spend (Cal Berkeley 36 million, Michigan 30 million) are spending that money hoping for more.  They are essentially trying to create support groups for their minority students, giving them safe places and events for only minorities.  I think is likely where you see money getting the least bang for the buck. 

 

I do think you are right that there likely are DEI programs that are decent investments from the university's perspective, but they are probably the less expensive (say 4 or 5 million dollar per year programs ) that are focused on practical results.  I think DEI programs have the same problem that administrative staffs in general have and that is they tend to protect their own interests.  Even before DEI, college administrative staffs were growing at an alarming record and we hear of the same problem in other settings where the business can push some costs to consumers (such as at hospitals who people feel have administrative staffs that are too large to give you much bang for your buck).  So I kind of see the DEI debate within that bigger debate to some degree.

[PeterMP]

3 hours ago, philibusters said:

I do think you are right that there likely are DEI programs that are decent investments from the university's perspective, but they are probably the less expensive (say 4 or 5 million dollar per year programs ) that are focused on practical results.  I think DEI programs have the same problem that administrative staffs in general have and that is they tend to protect their own interests.  Even before DEI, college administrative staffs were growing at an alarming record and we hear of the same problem in other settings where the business can push some costs to consumers (such as at hospitals who people feel have administrative staffs that are too large to give you much bang for your buck).  So I kind of see the DEI debate within that bigger debate to some degree.

 

Events and things like you describe are about helping students build a support network (of friends), which then helps people graduate.  I'm sure places would like to see people feel belong, but that's much harder to do.  But having friends that are nearby, going through the same process(es), and can offer emotional and physical support when you need it, help people graduate.  (At some level, colleges are fighting social media and the general lack of personal social connections that are declining throughout society.  It's great that you've stayed connected to your high school friends, but that high school friend doesn't do you any good when you've been in a car accident at 1:00 am, and they live 2 hours away.  You need connections nearby.  Over the last 20 years, many colleges/departments have ramped out activities to build connections for all students.)  Even at the faculty level, I think most people would be surprised about how much time we spend talking about how do we build more/better community among the students in our majors.  Because when we have better community, it helps our students do better, and realistically, it helps us because they then lean on each other more for academic support.

 

Considering the average college graduate makes over 50% more than a high school diploma, people that only have a high school diploma are more likely to cost the state in others ways (e.g. end up in prison), etc. I think $50,000 isn't actually that much.

 

Prior to the Supreme Court decision there was good data and studies that show how to increase minority graduation rates.  There are non-affirmative action reasons a place like UM is seeing increased rates of minority graduation and a place like Texas A&M isn't.  Anybody that wants to argue that eliminating affirmative action increases graduation rates is going to need real data to back that up vs. people are doing the things they were doing before the Supreme Court decision that are well supported in the education literature as increasing minority graduation rates.

 

I know less about hospitals, but college administrations have pretty much grown directly as a result of government, law, accreditation, technology requirements, and understanding of how they make money.

 

The ADA, Title IX, EPA requirements, computer/wireless/ infrastructure, changes in society, generally just creating an environment that is more equitable, and raising money all have created more college non-teaching roles that get counted as increased administration.  Accrediting agencies decided, they wanted to see more effort put into assessment.  Where I work, we went out and hired somebody to over see assessment. That's an administrative cost, but it was clear that if we didn't there could be an issue with accreditation next cycle.   Universities offer mental health/counseling services to students, that go with the increase in mental health problems in young people in society.  Similarly, with the number of students that get some sort of accommodation (the ADA) have gone way up.  But then you need staff to deal with those increases.  That's an administration cost.

 

In my career, support for writing grants is way up.  That's because universities have decided it makes sense to offer that support because they can bring more money back from the federal government, help in terms of recruiting students, and alumni donations (students that do research are more likely to donate money back later).  Having staff that help get grants shows up as an increase in administration, but there's good reason to think that it actually ends up helping the college financially.

 

College President pay is the one thing where to me things have gone up and maybe they didn't need to.  But that mirrors increases in CEO pay across society.  If you want a top level executive, it is hard to not then have to pay more.  And in some cases there have been issues with what is essentially government corruption at public universities that have caused increase administration costs.  But Harvard is as bad as anywhere in terms of increased administration costs, and their private.

Edited March 4 by PeterMP

[Destino]

I’m eager to see what happens without DEI on some college campuses. They haven’t been around long enough to be considered essential in my mind, but have expanded fast despite this. I want to see it proven that universities without massive DEI departments descend into racist chaos. Now that some states have done away with them we will get a chance to see the predicted calamity unfold. Or not.

 

[China]

‘60 Minutes’ Confronts Moms for Liberty Co-Founders on Book Bans

 

A 60 Minutes segment on the growing trend of right-wing book bans featured an interview with two women who co-founded the “parental rights” group Moms for Liberty, during which correspondent Scott Pelley chided them for dodging questions with “talking points” and avoiding his repeated questions about the group’s attacks on LGBTQ+ Americans.

 

Pelley opened the report by interviewing a school board member from Beaufort, South Carolina, named Dick Geier, a Republican who nonetheless has seen his life upended by conservatives in his community who have begun to complain in droves about books and curriculum used in the district.

 

In the past, these sorts of issues would be solved via parental opt-out forms issued through school libraries restricting what books certain students can check out, Geier said. But following the viral success of groups like Moms for Liberty—which has been labeled an extremist group by the Southern Poverty Law Center—in galvanizing complaints that have the power to overwhelm schools’ bureaucracies, everything has changed for local administrators tasked with handling the backlash.

 

“Parents have the right to determine what their children are taught and what they’re allowed to read, no doubt about it,” he told Pelley. “But what we’re having a problem with is parents that want to determine what other parents’ rights are for their children to read what they want.”

 

When asked about these issues, Moms for Liberty co-founders Tiffany Justice and Tina Descovich repeatedly skirted Pelley’s questions, forcing him to at one point exasperatedly point out the obvious: “You’re being evasive.”

 

“Parents send their children to school to be educated, not indoctrinated into ideology,” Justice agreed.

 

But when pressed on what, exactly, that ideology is, neither of the women had answers—leading Pelley to intervene in a voiceover: “They often dodged questions with talking points.”

“What ideology are the children being indoctrinated into? What is your fear?” Pelley asked at one point following a moment of crosstalk.

 

“I think parents’ fears are realized,” Justice said, pointing to books dealing with topics including sexuality and gender that 60 Minutes notes were often “written for older teens but found in a few lower schools.”

 

Both Justice and Descovich refused to answer Pelley’s repeated questions about Moms for Liberty’s attacks on LGBTQ+ people, especially their repeated use of the word “groomer” in describing LGBTQ+ teachers.

 

After the two made several attempts to change the subject, Pelley again took to pointing out the obvious: “‘Grooming’ does not seem like a word that you want to take on.”

 

The report also points out the recent losses Moms for Liberty suffered at the ballot box, with two-thirds of the 166 school board candidates endorsed by the group losing their races in 2023.

 

Pelley then pointed to the example of Beaufort, which fought back against the flood of complaints about library books by asking a group of volunteers from the community to read the books themselves.

 

The result? Just five of the 92 books reviewed were taken off school shelves.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[EmirOfShmo]

 

[Cooked Crack]

Quote

The release of the Education Department report comes months after The Washington Post reported that a confidential preliminary report asserted that the university had repeatedly violated federal law and for years failed to keep its campus safe. The draft obtained by The Post detailed numerous alleged failings, including discouraging people from reporting crimes and not warning the campus about potentially dangerous incidents including gas leaks, bomb threats and reported sexual violence, even as school officials promoted the campus as one of the safest in the country. The draft also claimed that Liberty officials destroyed evidence after the government’s inquiry began.

 

[Larry]

Weaponized DOJ prosecuting people for being Republican.  

 

Just doing "Republican" things like 

* Sexual assault.

* Covering it up.  

* Toxic gas leaks.

* Destroying evidence.  

You know.  Just normal Republican things.  

[China]

On 3/23/2023 at 2:08 PM, China said:

DeSantis to expand ‘Don’t Say Gay’ law to all grades

 

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis ′ administration is moving to forbid classroom instruction on sexual orientation and gender identity in all grades, expanding the controversial law critics call “Don’t Say Gay” as the Republican governor continues to focus on cultural issues ahead of his expected presidential run.

 

The proposal, which would not require legislative approval, is scheduled for a vote next month before the state Board of Education and has been put forward by the state Education Department, both of which are led by appointees of the governor.

 

The rule change would ban lessons on sexual orientation and gender identity from grades 4 to 12, unless required by existing state standards or as part of reproductive health instruction that students can choose not to take. The initial law that DeSantis championed last spring bans those lessons in kindergarten through the third grade. The change was first reported by the Orlando Sentinel.

 

Click on the link for the full article

 

‘Don’t Say Gay’ Settlement in Florida Has Both Sides Claiming Victory

 

A two-year legal battle over Florida’s so-called “Don’t Say Gay” law ended on Monday with the announcement of a settlement that will see the legislation clarified, restoring teachers and students’ ability to freely discuss topics related to gender and sexuality in the classroom.

 

The Parental Rights in Education Act will remain on the books, but the Florida Board of Education must spell out to all 67 of its districts that it does not ban the “mere discussion” of LGBTQ+ people or issues, either directly in the classroom or in literature kept in schools. It also does not prohibit student-run LGBTQ+ groups, plays or musicals with LGBTQ+ themes or characters, or instruction on anti-bullying measures.

 

Both Gov. Ron DeSantis (R), who signed the legislation into law in 2022, and the 19 plaintiffs, a coalition of parents, students, and LGBTQ+ advocacy groups, claimed victory in the case.

 

DeSantis’ office framed it as a “major win” for his administration, saying in a news release that “the law remains in effect, and children will be protected from radical gender and sexual ideology in the classroom.”

 

“We fought hard to ensure this law couldn’t be maligned in court, as it was in the public arena by the media and large corporate actors,” state general counsel Ryan Newman added. “We are victorious, and Florida’s classrooms will remain a safe place under the Parental Rights in Education Act.”

 

There was just as much jubilation on the other side. Equality Florida, an organization involved in the lawsuit, said in a press release that the settlement “effectively nullifies the most dangerous and discriminatory impacts of Florida’s controversial “Don’t Say Gay Law,” and makes clear that the law must be applied neutrally and is no license to discriminate against or erase LGBTQ+ families.”

 

Click on the link for the full article

[China]

Autauga-Prattville Library Board fires library director, staff who locked facility in protest

 

The Autauga-Prattville Library Board fired the library’s director during an special meeting on Thursday -- a decision the director’s supporters claimed was retaliation for questioning the board’s new book banning policy.

 

The board also terminated “several” Autauga-Prattville Public Library staffers who locked the facility shortly after Andrew Foster’s firing in solidarity with their former boss, the director told AL.com.

 

“I hate that it went this way ... and I think the actions that have happened today are ultimately just going to impact the community,” Foster said.

 

The meeting’s stated purpose was vague. The board’s special meeting notice said the session was called “to discuss the good name and character of an individual.”

 

Foster said he was told during the meeting that “something I did violated federal law,” but “was never given any specific code” of an alleged offense.

 

Not knowing what the meeting was about, Foster said he recorded the session but stopped after he was told that, too, violated federal law. Under Alabama law, a conversation can be recorded if one of the parties is aware it is being recorded.

 

His termination occurred three days after Alabama Political Reporter published a story that included documents showing Foster pushing back against the board’s list of books to be banned for children due to “obscenity, sexual conduct, sexual intercourse, sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender discordance.”

 

Asked if he believed that was the actual reason for his termination, Foster said, “That’s what it felt like.”

 

“As a library, we are about open information,” he said. “That information being a black eye on the board, they did not seem to like it.”

 

Click on the link for the full article

[China]

Ignorance and democracy: Capitalism's long war against higher education

 

Donald Trump exposed his profound condescension and blatant manipulation with the notorious 2016 declaration, “I love the poorly educated.” Election results and polling data consistently show that the most poorly-educated Americans — at least, those who are white — love him back with almost religious reverence, treating him as guru, despot and pop-culture idol all in one. While it is easy to chortle at the hillbilly-Deadhead vibe surrounding Trump rallies, it is more important to consider how the better-educated are weakening their country by rejecting the tools necessary to maintain the structure of liberal democracy.

 

Decades ago, universities across the country began making cuts to the liberal arts. The humanities, fine arts and social sciences are endangered everywhere, as evident by the staggering variety of state colleges and private universities no longer invested in their survival. In 2023, West Virginia University eliminated its world languages department, reduced its education department by a third and slashed its programs in art history, music, architecture and natural resource management. In the same year, Lasell University, a small private school in Massachusetts, killed five majors, including English and history. In Ohio, numerous of the state's best-known institutions of learning have announced cuts to the liberal arts, including Kent State, the University of Toledo, Miami University, Youngstown State, Baldwin Wallace University and Marietta College.

 

But the academic carnage in the Buckeye State is hardly an outlier. A quick Google search reveals intellectual wreckage piling up across the nation. The University of New Hampshire permanently closed its art museum, the University of Tulsa eliminated degrees in history, and the chancellor of the University of Wisconsin system has instructed all 25 of its campuses — which enroll more than 160,000 students every year — to prepare for reductions in liberal arts programs.

 

My alma mater, Valparaiso University, is now preparing to join in the self-destruction. A Lutheran liberal arts college on the shores of Lake Michigan, 50 miles or so southeast of Chicago, Valparaiso recently announced that it is considering the “discontinuation” of 28 programs, including philosophy, public health, theology and the graduate program in English Studies and Communication, where I earned a master's degree. When I graduated in 2010, Valparaiso had a regional reputation as a small, private institution with excellent educational standards, bolstered by an emphasis on the arts and humanities.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[Mr.Sacksn'Stuff]

Apologies if this has been posted already, but the Republican candidate for Superintendent of Public Instruction (North Carolina) is a real piece of work.

 

She has zero qualifications and is very dangerous. I hope this blows up in the NC Repub's faces. She's as far right as Mark Robinson. 

 

https://www.wral.com/story/gop-nominee-to-run-north-carolina-public-schools-called-for-violence-against-democrats-including-executing-obama-and-biden/21329633/

[China]

Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey signs sweeping law that prohibits diversity, equity, and inclusion at public schools and universities

 

labama Gov. Kay Ivey signed a sweeping bill into law Wednesday that prohibits public schools and universities from maintaining or funding diversity, equity, and inclusion programs.

 

The law, known as SB129, also requires public universities to “designate restrooms on the basis of biological sex” — which Alabama law defines as “the physical condition of being male or female, as stated on the individual’s original birth certificate” — and not the gender that aligns with how a person identifies.

 

In a statement shared with CNN Wednesday, Gov. Ivey said her administration “will continue to value Alabama’s rich diversity,” but she vowed to stop DEI supporters and proponents from pursuing a “liberal political movement counter to what the majority of Alabamians believe.”

 

The law goes into effect on October 1, 2024.

 

SB129 comes amid a nationwide push from conservative lawmakers to limit the rights of transgender and LGBTQ individuals and ban DEI programs after the Supreme Court overturned affirmative action.

 

The legislation prohibits local public school boards and universities from maintaining an office or department that promotes DEI. It also bars students, employees, and contractors from being required to attend any DEI “training, orientation, or course work that advocates or requires assent to a divisive concept.”

 

The legislation outlines eight “divisive concepts” including discussions around conscious or subconscious racism and sexism, and whether “meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are racist or sexist” that are now prohibited.

 

It also empowers state agencies – including local boards of education and public universities – to “discipline or terminate the employment of any employee or contractor who knowingly violates this act.”

 

However, the law specifically notes that it does not prohibit students and staff from hosting DEI programs “provided that no state funds are used.” Universities are also still allowed to “engage in recruiting and outreach programs” and teach topics and events in a “historically accurate context.”

 

Click on the link for the full article

[Larry]

19 minutes ago, China said:

 

In a statement shared with CNN Wednesday, Gov. Ivey said her administration “will continue to value Alabama’s rich diversity,”

 

. . . without any hint that she was aware that she was lying her ass off.  

 

[Renegade7]

https://www.reddit.com/r/norulevideos/s/XU5s5IGwrv

[Cooked Crack]

 

[China]

AG to Lay Out Evidence in Epic’s Multi-Million Dollar Embezzlement Case

 

The size of the scandal alleged at the state’s largest online school befits the school’s name: epic. 

 

Investigators say two men at the helm of Epic Charter Schools defrauded taxpayers out of tens of millions of dollars over a decade. Details of the scheme, which the state auditor called the largest abuse of taxpayer dollars in Oklahoma history, will be unveiled in court this week. 

 

A hearing in the embezzlement case against David Chaney and Ben Harris begins Monday. Oklahoma County District Special Judge Jason Glidewell allotted five days for the preliminary hearing, which is like a mini-trial, with witnesses and evidence and cross-examination. The purpose is for the judge to determine whether there’s enough probable cause to proceed to trial.

 

Chaney and Harris are each charged with fifteen felonies, including embezzlement, money laundering, computer crimes and conspiracy to defraud the state. They have denied wrongdoing.

 

Epic’s former chief financial officer, Josh Brock, faces the same felony charges but waived his preliminary hearing. He is expected to be one of several witnesses this week and will likely take a plea deal. 

 

His attorney, Irven Box, said Brock is ready to move forward. 

 

Chaney and Harris founded Epic in 2010 and contracted with their own for-profit company, Epic Youth Services, to manage the school for 10% of all revenue. That fee exceeded the state’s 5% cap on school administration expenses.

 

Prosecutors allege the men diverted tens of millions of dollars meant for students’ education through a complicated scheme involving shell companies and false invoices. 

 

More students equaled more state funding rolling in. At its peak in the fall of 2020, Epic had a roster of 60,000 students. 

 

Some of the charges involve illegally moving funds between Epic’s Oklahoma schools and an out-of-state charter school and using student learning fund money to make credit card payments. The credit card was used for school purchases and personal expenses. It was used to buy political influence, investigators said, via political campaign donations and lobbyist payments. 

 

The men are also charged with money laundering by forming a shell company, Edtech, LLC,  to conceal profits and justify fraudulent management fees between 2017 and 2021, a time when law enforcement and state regulators had ramped up investigations. 

 

Click on the link for the full article

[Destino]

Quote

Why Seattle Public Schools is closing its highly capable cohort program

 

But now, in an effort to make the program more equitable and to better serve all students, the district is phasing out highly capable cohort schools. In their place, SPS is offering a whole-classroom model where all students are in the same classroom and the teacher individualizes learning plans for each student. Teachers won’t necessarily have additional staff in the classroom; the district is working to provide teachers with curriculum and instruction on how to make it work.

 

Three elementary schools, five middle schools and three high schools are currently highly capable cohort schools. The elementaries are Cascadia, Decatur and Thurgood Marshall; middle schools are Hamilton International, Jane Addams, Madison, Robert Eagle Staff and Washington; and high schools are Lincoln, Garfield and West Seattle.

 

SPS started phasing out highly capable cohort schools in the 2021-22 school year and will be finished by the 2027-28 school year. Starting in 2024-25, the whole-classroom model — which the district calls the “highly capable neighborhood model” — will be available in every school.

https://www.seattletimes.com/education-lab/why-seattle-public-schools-is-closing-its-highly-capable-cohort-program/
 

the more I read about equity leadership in public schools the more it looks like their critics were right. They are trying to manipulate outcomes and that does include slowing down high achievers. I’m not buying this crap that there’ll just elevate every classroom and it will be the same as the gifted program thing anymore. They’re bull****ting and people need to stop supporting this ****. Especially being that’s it’s failed to lift the floor. 

 

its also become evident to me that changing curriculum, like the disastrous three cueing system, is more driven by selling training and books than actual evidence. Let’s all remember to act surprised when Jo Boaler falls out of favor and the next school of education rockstar pops up to sell a new method, for a steep price. One that’s entirely inline with the current political winds of course.