The School Knows Better Than You Do

Goodbye, sweet America. Can't figure out what to feed your own child? Are you addled brained of a parent that you're going to need someone else to decide what you child should and should not eat? Well, if you answered yes to those two questions AND if you have a child and they are currently attending (or going to attend) Little Village Academy in Chicago, then you are in luck! That's right. That's because the Little Village Academy in Chicago has decided that you have no idea how to feed your kid properly and therefore they have banned "...students from bringing lunches from home altogether."

That's right. It doesn't matter if you want to pack your kid's lunch. If your child attends Little Village Academy, you can't. According to the Chicago Tribune, "...students are not allowed to pack lunches from home. Unless they have a medical excuse, they must eat the food served in the cafeteria." NOT ALLOWED to pack lunches from home. In the land of the free. All right then. How...how...why is this? Well, because the school knows better than you, silly.

The principal, a one Elsa Carmona, explained that "...her intention is to protect students from their own unhealthful food choices." By telling folks how to parent. By telling them that they CANNOT choose what their own child eats. By taking away their freedom to raise their child how they see fit. All right then. This is asinine. Oh, and in case you were wondering what sort of meal they will be providing the children with for their own protection, please see the photo below. It is alleged that it is some sort of "an enchilada dish". Behold!

Oh, man. Kid, I feel for ya. Ms. Carmona claims that she created this policy six years ago. The reasoning? She saw students bringing "bottles of soda and flaming hot chips" on field trips for lunch. Oh, no! Flaming hot chips! Soda?! The madness! She goes on to say that "Nutrition wise, it is better for the children to eat at the school." Right. Because parents are completely incapable of packing a nutritious lunch for their children to eat. Those poor dumb, dumb parents. She also says that "It's about the nutrition and the excellent quality food that they are able to serve (in the lunchroom). It's milk versus a Coke. But with allergies and any medical issue, of course, we would make an exception." Wait. She what?

She would make an exception for kids with allergies or some sort of medical issue? You mean, the school doesn't know how to handle things like that better than the parents do? Why not? They seem to know what's best for every other kid out there when it comes to feeding them. Why can't they execute that same sort of care for the ones that really need some help? If you answered because this is an asinine policy to begin with, please come forward and claim your prize.

And in case you were wondering who pays for all of this, let us go to the part of the article that really aggravates me. It explains that "Any school that bans homemade lunches also puts more money in the pockets of the district's food provider, Chartwells-Thompson. The federal government pays the district for each free or reduced-price lunch taken, and the caterer receives a set fee from the district per lunch." I see. Soooo...let me get this straight. By doing this, someone actually makes money. By taking away the freedom to choose, someone is profiting off of it. Huh. And the money that someone makes comes from where again? The federal government, was it? Yeah, OK. And that money comes from where again? OH. That's right. ME!

How many times do I have to point out to morons that this stuff happens ALL THE TIME. This isn't a "free" program. It's paid for by the taxpayers! Federal taxpayers! When did it become everyone else's job to feed someone else's kid?! I didn't sign up for that! I can think of about a hundred different ways that I would like my federal tax dollars to be used and not one of them involves feeding school children in Chicago! (And most of them don't include the many, many ways our tax dollars are already being pissed away, but I digress.)

Fortunately, there are some voices of reason with this issue. A one J. Justin Wilson, who is a senior researcher at the Washington-based Center for Consumer Freedom, which is partially funded by the food industry, said "This is such a fundamental infringement on parental responsibility." Do you think?! Oh, sorry about that. He seems to be on my side. Never mind. I meant, yeah! It's an infringement. (I'm going to have to remember that phrase. Fundamental infringement. It sounds a little more responsible than "moronic" or "asinine".) He also asks the sadly rhetorical question of "Would the school balk if the parent wanted to prepare a healthier meal?" Hard to say, being as how they've banned lunches from home altogether, but I'd still like to know their answer.

Another voice of reason on this topic seems to come from a one Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach who is an "education policy professor" (whatever that is). She commented on the issue of the cost of requiring students to eat a school lunch at the cost of $2.25 a day. "We don't spend anywhere close to that on my son's daily intake of a sandwich (lovingly cut into the shape of a Star Wars ship), Goldfish crackers and milk". That lady is awesome. How cool of a mom is she? I want to know what Star Wars ship. I'm guessing the Millennium Falcon. Her son probably doesn't like crusts, so she cuts them off in a cutesy way. I like her. She's fun, she's reasonable and she's right. $2.25 a day for a school lunch? You can definitely bring a lunch from home for considerably less.

And while not all schools in the Chicago area have implemented this policy that you and I pay for (funny, I don't feel like I live in Chicago), others have come up with their own equally ridiculous policies. Take the Claremont Academy Elementary School on the South Side. Over there you can bring a lunch to school, but the school "officials" will "...confiscate any snacks loaded with sugar or salt. (They often are returned after school.)" Right. That makes perfect sense. Because the kid won't eat it after school. Noooo. If you're not eating it at school, it takes all of the fun out of it! But do you know why they do it? If you ask Principal Rebecca Stinson she'll tell you that "...most parents expect that the school will look out for their children."

If that last quote doesn't horrify you to your bones, then I can't help you here. Sure, I expect schools to "look out" for children when the children are there. But when I think of being "looked out" for, I think of the school keeping the children safe...and not safe from a Cheeto! Next thing you know, they're going to want to tell the kids what to wear, what doctor to go to, etc. And what, exactly, happens on the weekends when the school isn't around to guide these completely soft-headed parents in raising their children? What are they going to do? How will they know what to choose? Where is the school when we need it?! Holy crap. I think I made myself sick typing these last few lines. Goodbye, sweet America. With policies like the ones described here, we are not only doomed, we are screwed. We are so scroomed.

Survey Says? Inappropriate!

Look, I'm not sure what a "sex survey" that is given to middle school children should consist of, but I'm not really all that comfortable with the first question on such a "survey" being "What is your gender?" and having there be four choices. As I'm sure you can imagine, not all of the parents were thrilled either.

Over there at Hardy Middle School in Washington, DC, a 7th grade health/physical education class was given a "sex survey", the purpose of which is a little fuzzy to me. From what I can tell from reading the article over there at something called The Georgetown Dish, there's some sort of a non profit called Metro TeenAIDS which educates children about HIV and AIDS. It appears that in 2009, the Washington, DC Public Schools (DCPS) gave Metro TeenAIDS "...a $15,000 consulting contract and $80,000 contract...to provide programming in the schools". Supposedly, "This program has been selected by DCPS for instruction to meet [health learning standards] for the middle school grades and is used in 7th and 8th health classes (sic) throughout DCPS." Um, OK. How does this turn out to be some sort of survey given to 12-year olds and asking them about their gender while providing them with four choices?

That part isn't overly clear to me. But it does say that not only does Metro TeenAIDS (which is a ridiculous name, if you're asking me) provide some sort of an educational component, they also use their time in public schools to do research. I'm guessing that this little survey was more along the lines of the research end of things. Though, from what I can tell, a whole lot of kids learn a whole lot of new things that day. And I'm guessing that a lot of them were more than they ever wanted to know. At least, I'm hoping so.

Let's look at some of the questions and see how appropriate they are for middle school kids, shall we? Let's also see if we can figure out what in the world people were thinking when they decided that this would be a good idea, OK? Here we go...first question:

"What is your gender?"

Well, that seems pretty straight forward. Let's look at the choices.

A) Male B) Female C) Transgender (M to F) D) Transgender (F to M)

Wait. For 12-year olds? Transgender?! I'd be looking for "E) WTF". I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that choices C and D are completely unnecessary. 100% not needed. What is wrong with you people?

It only gets worse.

One series of questions read:

"How sure are you that you.......

Can name all four body fluids that can transmit HIV?

Know the difference between oral, vaginal, and anal sex?

Can correctly put a condom on yourself or your partner?

Will avoid getting yourself or your partner pregnant if you have sex?

Can convince a reluctant partner to use barrier protection (i.e. condoms, dental dams) during sex?"

For 12-year olds. First of all, dental dams? Really? You expect a 12-year old to have any sort of knowledge about that? Do you want your 12-year old to have knowledge of that? And seriously, who has ever used one of those? Honestly. Sure, they probably sound OK in theory (but not really), but I don't think that they're in high demand. Where do you get them? Other than at the dentist's office when you're having something done in your mouth. Are they next to the condoms? I have no idea and neither should 12-year olds.

By the way, when the kids didn't understand what certain things were and inquired about them, "...the facilitator...brought in on a DCPS contract...started to define "anal sex" and "oral sex." Are you kidding me?! Anal sex shouldn't even be explained to adults, let alone small children!

The questions on the survey continued along those ludicrous lines and included things like "During your life, with how many peopled have you had sex (oral, vaginal, anal)?" and "In the past 30 days on how many days did you......

Have 5 or more drinks of alcohol in a row, or within a couple of hours?

Use marijuana?

Use other non-injecting drugs (like cocaine, PCP, ecstasy)?

Inject drugs with a needle like heroin)?

Have sex?

Have sex after drinking alcohol or getting high?"

Hey, you people getting the almost $100k grant to do this sort of thing! Yeah, you. Question: Don't you think that you should tone things down a bit? Seriously. Are you trying to traumatize these kids? I'd be interested to know if EVER during the time that you've been taking this survey even ONE 12-year old answered "Yes" to having 5 or more drinks of alcohol in a row or within a couple of hours. I'm guessing you have not. And what does that have to do with HIV and AIDS?

Now, of course, parents were outraged. Not just so much at the content of the survey, but more so at the fact that they had not been notified ahead of time, given a copy of the survey or given a chance to have their kid opt out of this insanity. Huh. And they're angry, eh? In what way?

I'm sure that some sort of an apology is forthcoming. That I don't doubt. But I'm sick of apologies. Here's what I want: I want someone to explain to everyone how they came to the decision to distribute this survey to the middle schoolers. I want someone to explain the logic that they were using that allowed them to come to the conclusion that this sort of thing was appropriate. That's what I want. I want a detailed description of the thinking process that goes into something that is so obviously not OK. I also want to know if anyone, anyone even ventured to say anything along the lines of, 'Uh, are we sure this is a good idea? Because this seems awfully advanced for 12-year olds." Anything along those lines? Anything? Anyone? That's what I want to know. Keep your apologies and instead explain why you're so stupid. Inquiring minds want to know.

If you'd like to see more of this absurd survey, it can be found here. And I can be found banging my head against a wall. What is wrong with people?

Students Who Don't Give A S***

Oh, The Onion. How I love you so. Good question. How do we accommodate students that just don't give a flying f**k?

In The Know: Are Tests Biased Against Students Who Don't Give A Shit?

2+2 = zebra

Yesterday's post involved the idiotic notion that it is a good idea to pay people to remember to take their medication. Apparently, in some people's world, not dying isn't enough of an incentive, but fifty bucks a months seems to really motivate folks. Go figure. Why I should care if they croak it because they're too moronic to realize the benefits of taking medication that they need is beyond me. But I'm guessing that the reason that test scores are going up over there in New York has to do with a method that has to be along these same lines of thinking. That's right. They're giving kids credit on tests even if they have given the wrong answer (including no answer at all). Wait. Wuck?

Correct. According to the NY Post, on the exams that kids take to determine if they're going to advance up to the next grade, the students "...got "partial credit" for wrong answers". Now, I read that and I wondered if they were referring to something like essay questions, as you can have rather subjective answers that vary here and there. Good thing I didn't have to read too much farther to learn that is wasn't English or anything like that for which partial credit was being given. No, it was MATH. That's right. Math. See, there was at least half a credit given"...after failing to correctly add, subtract, multiply and divide." And "Some got credit for no answer at all." NO answer? Was the answer zero? No? What the what?

Keep in mind that these were not just rogue scorers who were grading these tests and giving away credit like it was welfare. No, this extremely unorthodox (Translation: Asinine) method was discovered when "...scoring guides obtained by The Post reveal that kids get half-credit or more for showing fragments of work related to the problem -- even if they screw up the calculations or leave the answer blank." Oh, good Lord....

At this point, I'm still hoping that this isn't going to be as bad as it sounds like it is. Turns out, it's at least that bad. Probably worse. Let's look at a few examples that the Post gives us. Try not to weep until you're at the end. Your eyes will get watery and it will be hard for you to focus on the remaining words.

The example below is worth 2 points. The question reads: "Milton takes $400 on a shopping trip. He plans to spend 1/5 of his money on DVDs. How much money will Milton spend on the DVDs?" Try not to focus on the logistics of why Milton is on a "shopping trip" that includes a budget for DVDs. Also, try not to wonder what he is spending the other 4/5ths of his money on. No, try and focus on how the child whose answer sheet this is wrote down the formula for figuring out Milton's DVD budget, but did not do the calculations. The child knew that you divide 5 into 400.00, but did not actually perform the act of said dividing. Granted, the question did say "Show your work". It did not say "Show your answer". Perhaps this is why the child was given one point for showing the correct equation. Never mind that the child never answered the question, leaving Milton at a loss as to how much to spend on those DVDs. No, he knew the theory behind division, so that's good enough. That's pretty much all they require at NASA, right? Just know basic concepts and those space shuttles will fly themselves, right? Yeah, OK. Next example...

The example below is worth 2 points. The question reads: "Thomas buys a skateboard that is two feet long. What is the length, in inches, of the skateboard?" Never mind that two feet is a rather short skateboard. The poor simpleton who answered this question chose to add 24 and 24. Now, he added them correctly and came up with the answer of 48. Unfortunately, the only thing he got correct was adding 24 and 24. See, it might surprise you (or at least, that child) to learn that there are only 12 inches in a foot. Thus, the correct answer is 24. This child has multiplied the number of skateboards that he has by two. Either that or he had a four foot long skateboard. Both of which are not deserving of ANY credit! But in New York, he gets one point!

Other examples of what New York feels are deserving of partial credit are things like :

A miscalculation that 28 divided by 14 equals 4 instead of 2 is "partially correct" if the student uses the right method to verify the wrong answer. Tell me, how in the hell are you going to use the right method to verify the wrong answer?! If you used the right method to verify, wouldn't you figure out that the answer was wrong and change it to the right one?

A kid who subtracts 57 cents from three quarters for the right change and comes up with 15 cents instead of 18 cents still gets half-credit. Half credit? For giving someone not enough change? Sure, that's fine. Whenever I receive the incorrect amount of change, I always just let it slide because I know that the cashier did something. Yeah, that's how the real world works. Exactly. Perfect. Seems logical!

These scoring guidelines are something called "holistic rubrics". The fact that this stupidity has a name makes me hate it even more. (Though I do appreciate that it has a variation of the word "rube" in the name. That's telling.) This holistic rubric crap "...require that points be given if a kid's attempt at an answer reflects a "partial understanding" of the math concept, "addresses some element of the task correctly," or uses the "appropriate process" to arrive at a wrong solution." I need a wall. I need to bang my head against it until I pass out. Are you effing kidding me?

Please note that it says "attempt at an answer". Does that mean that if the question is "2+2= __" and the kid writes "zebra" that there is partial credit given because an attempt was made? I mean, it does "address some element of the task correctly", right? The kid knew that an answer went in that spot and wrote "zebra". Does that count? It probably does. And do they not see the problem with their logic in giving credit for using the "appropriate process to arrive at a wrong solution"? If you get the WRONG answer, you're NOT using the APPROPRIATE process! The APPROPRIATE process is the process that gives you the CORRECT answer! You morons!

The part that really scares me is that these are not difficult questions. If the scoring has to be dumbed down to this ridiculous level (ie, just marking things correct when they are clearly wrong) for such basic calculations, then how dumb are these kids really? We're never going to know until it's too late. And we might just be a little past too late these days. We're so doomed. Goodbye, sweet America. Goodbye.

No Facebook For You!

Yes, I'm tired of hearing about Facebook everywhere I go. For cryin' out loud, it's not THAT entertaining! What exactly are you people doing on there, anyway? I don't quite get it. And by "it", I mean the obsession with Facebook. I get Facebook. I have a Facebook. I check it a couple of times a day. I like it, I just don't get those of you who are obsessed with it is all. And one middle school principal in New Jersey really doesn't get it and he has sent out an email to all parents asking them to join a voluntary ban on social networking. He wants to...? But he sent an email out to...? Asking them....? Yeah, there's a little bit of irony in there somewhere.

Here's the scoop: According to the fine folks over at WCBS, over yonder at Benjamin Franklin Middle School in Ridgewood, principal Anthony Orsini "...sent out an e-mail Wednesday morning asking parents to help him get all of his students off social networks and keep careful track of their text messages." Hmmm. I'm not sure how I feel about the whole "getting them off of social networks" plea. It's an interesting idea, but I'm not sure that I'm in favor of an "all or nothing" approach to the matter. And the part about keeping track of their text messages? Yeah, that just sounds like him telling parents how to parent. And while I am well aware that a lot of parents (unfortunately) DO need to be told how to parent, the question would seem to be whether or not telling them what to do is going to do any good.

According to the school's guidance counselor, a one Meredith Wearly, "...about 75 percent of her day is spent dealing with social networking issues with students." First of all, congratulations, Benjamin Franklin Middle School, on even having a guidance counselor, let alone one who does something. Bravo! Second, however, is the question as to whether or not any of the parents are ever notified of these "social networking issues" that are arising seventy five percent of the time with the students. Craptastic reporting being what it is, that was left out of the story. Brilliant.

The article says that "...middle schools have always had drama and emotion, but the social networks amplify them to such an extent that guidance counselors there said it's become a menace to their students." A menace? Really? That only leads me in the direction of believing that the parents were not notified or didn't do anything after being notified. That's not something you can fix right away, if ever.

Mr. Orsini's email is rather lengthy, considering that it's from a middle school administrator. They're usually not much for the explanations and the words (usually because they have difficulty forming coherent sentences themselves). Here are some highlights from his memo:

- There is absolutely no reason for any middle school student to be a part of a social networking site. OK, I pretty much completely disagree with this. There are reasons. Is there any reason for a middle school student to be checking their social networking sites during school hours? Absolutely not. That I am against. I am hardly against them being on a social networking site, as long as they're not abusing it, using it for malicious purposes or letting it interfere with life in the real world. But there are plenty of reasons. To say that there are not reasons, well, that's just asinine.

- 3 Students yesterday told a guidance counselor that their parents told them to close their accounts when the parents learned they had an account. All three students told their parents it was closed. All three students still had an account after telling their parents it was closed. So, what makes him think that telling the parents to have their children get rid of all of their social networking sites is going to have any different outcome than that example? If a parent isn't technologically savvy enough to figure that stuff out, they're doomed. Doomed, I tell you.

- Let them know that you will at some point every week be checking their text messages online! You have the ability to do this through your cell phone provider. Hmm. I'm not sure that this is entirely true. I know that you can see how many texts were sent, but as for the content of them being available to be looked at online? I am unaware that such a feature exists. It'd be great if it was available (you have no idea how many times I've needed to go back and look at a text I've either sent or received and found that it's gone), but I'm not so sure that it's that simple.

- Let them know that you will be installing Parental Control Software so you can tell every place they have visited online, and everything they have instant messaged or written to a friend. Don't install it behind their back, but install it! I really do appreciate the part that he includes about not doing it behind their back. That's a good approach. But he needs to be more clear about it. Do you know why they most likely don't have Parental Control Software already installed? They either a) don't know about it, b) wouldn't know how to install it if they did, c) don't know which kind to get or where to get it and/or d) couldn't afford it (or won't pay for it) if they did. He's going to need to put a little more effort into getting that one accomplished.

- Over 90% of all homework does not require the Internet, or even a computer. Do not allow them to have a computer in their room, there is no need. I found this fascinating. I also find it hard to believe. Really? 90% of all homework doesn't require a computer and/or the Internet? I guess he's expecting kids to trot on down to the library and use the encyclopedias there? Does that happen anymore? Don't get me wrong, it would be grand if it did, but I'm not so sure that it does. Regardless, however, what about the 10% that does require it? And shouldn't at least some homework be on how to use the Internet? What about learning how to be safe on the Internet? Wouldn't that be a good skill to be teaching middle school kids? I'm thinking it would be. I'm thinking it would swell.

Look, the guy really sounds like he has the kids' best interest at heart. I really believe that he does. He even includes in his letter "I will be more than happy to take the blame off you as a parent if it is too difficult to have the students close their accounts, but it is time they all get closed and the texts always get checked." That's pretty cool (as my experience with middle school administrators is that they don't want to take responsibility for much of anything). I just don't know if he's going about it in the right way.

I'm more of a person that believes in educating individuals rather than isolating them as a way to change or corral behaviors. And I can understand just wanting to remove the entire problem so that it doesn't have to be dealt with or so that it isn't an issue. But I just don't think that it's the way to go in situations like this. I think that with computers and the Innnerwebs and YouFace and everything like that, parents are going to have to step it up. They're the ones that are ultimately responsible for their children (which is why a lot of the problem kids are the way that they are). They need to be educated in this stuff so that they better know how to handle it. And if he thinks that cyber-bullying is only a problem in middle school, he should probably rethink that position....'cause it ain't.

I'm pretty sure that this all comes down to responsible parenting, a concept that is lost on quite a few these days. You can read his entire plea here if you so desire. And let me know what you think. It's a tricky issue, I'll give it that. For once, I don't have an easy answer. Shocking, I know. But I'm pretty sure that my answer isn't to just take it all away because there are potential problems with it. That answer I can stand behind. Anything other than that and I'm open to suggestions.

One Of The Worst Ideas Ever

Some things are just inexplicable to me. I mean, I can understand how one person can screw something up. That's easy enough. It's only one person. One person might not see right away that something is a horrible idea. But it's when something is an absolutely horrible idea and there is more than one individual involved in the decision making process that it just really confuses me. How is it that more than one person can think that something is a good idea when it so clearly is not?

Here's the scoop: Over at the AP we learn about a practice that went on at the Lower Merion School District in Philadelphia. See, they issued laptops to their students. (There's a high school that issues laptops to students? That alone was news to me. Don't get me wrong. I think it's a fine idea. I was just a little surprised by it is all.) But in the past couple of years, about 80 of the laptops had gone missing. It's unclear exactly how many laptops were issued to begin with, but what is clear is that they couldn't find 80 of them and they needed to figure out where they were. But that's OK because the computers all had a tracking program in them that was activated and the webcams in the laptops took over 56,000 pictures. Wait. What now?

Correct. In some desperate attempt to locate these 80 missing laptops, this tracking program was activated. When activated, wherever the laptops were, as long as they were on I'm assuming, they would take a picture once every fifteen minutes. Now, where are the laptops going to be the majority of the time? I'm guessing that they're going to be where the kids spend most of their time. Like in their house. In their rooms. Places where there really shouldn't be secret tracking programs taking pictures of them, I'm guessing!

Seriously, how many people had to have been aware that this was a program and a procedure that were going to be implemented with the intention of being used at some point? Clearly, there had to have been several people involved in this process. In fact, the AP article said that there were TEN people who were authorized to request that the programs be activated. TEN?! How did they all think that this was a good idea? I mean, one person can come up with the idea. I get that. But do you mean to tell me that NO ONE else ever said anything like, "Uh, I don't know if we can even legally do that."? Really?! That would probably be the first thing that I would think. OK, it'd be second. It'd be the second thing right after "Oh, hell no!"

And that's the part I don't get. It's such an unbelievably bad idea. That seems obvious. But yet, somehow, some way, it got done. Who are these people? Who thought that this was going to be OK? All at least of them? The school district is claiming that none of the photos taken were inappropriate, meaning that no one was fully undressed in any of the photos. But if you're asking me, just taking the photos at all is inappropriate, so it's really hard to define that to mean something that is really pretty much after the fact. We're just surrounded by stupidity, that's all there is to it. But it still scares the hell out of me.