A federal lawsuit accuses a suburban Philadelphia school district of spying on students at home through school-issued laptop webcams.

I’m trying to envision this. How did it happen that the school issued laptops, someone put software on them that allowed the school to access the camera remotely, let other know it can be done, and nobody say this might not be a good idea? Or maybe even, do we have policies in place to ensure it’s not abused–didn’t they think that some student might hack the system and use it? Or at the very least, will our insurance cover us if we get caught?

A task force on Tuesday recommended requiring students at the University of Texas to complete their bachelor’s degrees in 10 semesters or five years

So do you think that means that the university will start reporting it’s four year (not six year) graduation rate which is 48%? Oh wait, that’s the student’s fault as well, you know, all those top 10 percent graduates who are just enjoying paying for college so much that they won’t graduate and mess up the school’s stats.

In an effort to help education policy makers separate the wheat from the chaff, expert third party reviews are provided by the Think Tank Review Project, a collaboration of the Education and Public Interest Center (EPIC) at the University of Colorado at Boulder and the Education Policy Research Unit (EPRU) at Arizona State University. Each year the reports identified by experts as the worst of the worst are awarded a “Bunkum.” The Think Tank Review Project today announced five “honorees” for 2009.

While the social science of the winning reports was sub-par, they typically had very high production values, glossy paper, multi-color printing, and artful layouts. “Given the bibliographies, footnotes, charts and tables, policymakers or laypeople may be forgiven for thinking that these honoree reports are based on the highest quality research. We hope that our expert reviews have helped to correct that impression,” said EPIC director Kevin Welner.

I’m not surprised that educators fall for the glitz. I remember in high school helping a friend make up information on studies of prisoners and the effect of television for an English research paper at a magnet school. I had actually done the research and report but my friend was doing it all the night before and had a major advantage–he had a computer to write and print it out on. So the next day he turned in the report, all typed out, in a little report protector, with an extensive bibliography we had made up the night before. The teacher took his report, flipped through the pages, and started ohhing and ahhing over the quality of his report. He got the same grade I got, an A.

EducationNews.org – Internet rewiring youngsters’ brains

A survey designed to examine the internet’s impact on the brain examined how 100 12 to 18-year-olds responded to a series of questions requiring some form of research.

They discovered that most of the respondents gave their answers after looking at just half the number of web pages older people examined.

They also found that younger people took far less time to research their answers and were therefore less thorough.

“There are tons of really great schools with really smart kids applying for the same jobs,” said Jacob Loewenstein, a junior from Lawrence, N.Y., who is majoring in German. “People intuitively take a G.P.A. to be a representation of your academic ability and act accordingly. The assumption that a recruiter who is screening applications is going to treat a Princeton student differently based on a letter is naïve.”

So why did you apply to Princeton as opposed to some lesser known state school with a reputation for easy A’s? How pathetic! Get real, you applied because of the name. If you applied because of the rigor of the program, you wouldn’t be whining now. Is this the result of the Princeton education? Maybe Princeton should reconsider their admission procedures if this is how their students react in the face of “adversity.”  

Board member Don McLeroy, R-College Station, offered the amendment requiring coverage of “key organizations and individuals of the conservative resurgence of the 1980s and 1990s.” McLeroy said he offered the proposal because the history standards were already “rife with leftist political periods and events – the populists, the progressives, the New Deal and the Great Society.”

McLeroy probably doesn’t understand that the reasons why the above mentioned periods are included in the history standards–they resulted in concrete achievements. You know, things like safe food, eliminating child labor, social security, and medicare. If he thinks these are “liberal” causes and indicative of textbook bias, he’s not talking about history, he promoting propaganda and indoctrination. That would explain why he wants Joe McCarthy portrayed in a more positive light. Now was that change proposed by the expert reviewers or public comment?

Board Republicans also removed United Farm Workers co-founder Dolores Huerta for proposed inclusion in third-grade textbooks as an example of someone who exemplified good citizenship.

Huerta is considered a civil-rights leader but Republican board members objected to her because of her past membership in the Democratic Socialists of America Party.

Helen Keller or Clara Barton would be better examples, said board member Geraldine “Tincy” Miller, R-Dallas.

I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. Should I cry because board members believe that being a socialist automatically means you can not exemplify good citizenship? Or should I laugh because our board members believe that Helen Keller would be a better example, presumably because she wasn’t a socialist.

The Truth about Helen Keller – Volume 17 No. 1 – Fall 2002 – Rethinking Schools Online

While she was alive, Helen Keller fought against the media’s tendency to put her on a pedestal as a “model” sweet, good-natured, handicapped person who overcame adversity. The American Foundation for the Blind depended on her as spokesperson, but some of its leaders were horrified by her activism. As Robert Irwin, the executive director of the foundation, wrote to one of the trustees, “Helen Keller’s habit of playing around with Communists and near-Communists has long been a source of embarrassment to her conservative friends. Please advise!”

In the years since her death, her lifelong work as a social justice activist has continued to be swept under the rug. As her biographer Dorothy Herrmann concludes:

“Missing from her curriculum vitae are her militant socialism and the fact that she once had to be protected by six policemen from an admiring crowd of 2,000 people in New York after delivering a fiery speech protesting America’s entry into World War I. The war, she told her audience, to thunderous applause, was a capitalist ploy to further enslave the workers. As in her lifetime, Helen Keller’s public image remains one of an angelic, sexless, deaf-blind woman who is smelling a rose as she holds a Braille book open on her lap.”

But why is her activism so consistently left out of her life stories? Stories such as this are perpetuated to fill a perceived need. The mythical Helen Keller creates a politically conservative moral lesson, one that stresses the ability of the individual to overcome personal adversity in a fair world. The lesson we are meant to learn seems to be: “Society is fine the way it is. Look at Helen Keller! Even though she was deaf and blind, she worked hard – with a smile on her face – and overcame her disabilities. She even met kings, queens, and presidents, and is remembered for helping other handicapped people. So what do you have to complain about in this great nation of ours?”

This demeaning view of Helen Keller celebrates her in a way that keeps her in her place. She never gets to be an adult; rather she is framed as a grown-up child who overcame her handicap. Like other people with disabilities, Helen Keller deserves to be known for herself and not defined by her blindness or her deafness. She saw herself as a free and self-reliant person – as she wrote, “a human being with a mind of my own.”

It’s time to move beyond the distorted and dangerous Helen Keller myth, repeated in picture book after picture book. It’s time to stop lying to children and go beyond Keller’s childhood drama and share the remarkable story of her adult life and work. What finer lesson could children learn than the rewards of the kind of engaged life that Helen Keller lived as she worked with others toward a vision of a more just world?

I guess we know what kind of education our board members received and what kind they they think is best for the children of Texas.

Texas State Board of Education, Geraldine Miller, Helen Keller

But Perry said Texas “reserves the right to decide how we educate our children and not surrender that control to the federal bureaucracy.”

Perry’s objections seem to center on the fact that the grant rules give preference to states that sign on to a push for national curriculum standards. Perry and Scott have been critical of the Common Core Standards Initiative, a state-led effort coordinated by the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers with support from the Department of Education. Texas and Alaska are the only two states that have not joined the initiative.

So the grant rules giver “preference” to those who sign on for national standards–why not apply anyway and see what happens? And isn’t “local control” the basis of Texas public education? So why isn’t the state supporting districts (if any) that are implementing such standards on their own?

Are there potential negative consequences of national standards? Of course there are. But national standards or no, Texans, parents, students, and citizens, deserve to know why over 80 percent of students in the more desirable high schools are considered “college ready” but only half of them can meet the minimum SAT/ACT scores required by state colleges to enroll in schools without remediation.

That’ll teach Mike Leach to embarrass Texas Tech University during contract negotiations.

This is the definition of payback, everyone. Nearly a year after the fact.

The record will show that Leach, Tech’s unorthodox yet highly successful coach, was fired Wednesday for mistreatment of a player with a “mild” concussion. The reality is Leach was fired because he took Texas Tech for everything it had last February during contract negotiations — and made the university brass look like bumbling fools in the process.