Thursday, August 7th, 2003
I sent the GPS back to Magellan today. I had read for over a year about the blue splotches. About a month ago, while caching, I finally noticed them on my unit. With August upon us, I thought it was a good time to send this thing in and get fixed. This will free up some much needed time to work on the thesis.
Sigh . . . the thesis. I need the first two chapters completed in six weeks. Time to get moving.
This Woodsters guy is flat out lazy. He refuses to use the search feature and he is unable to count. I really wish InfoPop had an ignore function. His response to my question last week was so off-topic, I chose not to respond.
I have a headache that I have had for several days now.
current mood: crappy
Posted in GPS Games, Geocaching | No Comments »
Wednesday, December 9th, 1998
School Law for Administration and Supervision: 0827.559
Brief submitted 9 December 1998
Citation:
Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School District
United States Supreme Court
113 S. Ct. 2462 (1993)
Topic:
Freedom of Religion - public personnel provided to a religious school
Relief Sought:
Zobrest was seeking to reverse the local school ditrict�s decision not to provide a sign language interpreter because he was a Catholic school student.
Issue:
Does a state violate the Establishment Clause if it provides a sign language interpreter for a child attending a Catholic high school?
Facts:
James Zobrest is deaf. He asked the Catalina Foothills [Public] School District to provide him with a sign language interpreter who would accompany him to classes at a Catholic high school. He believed that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) required the district to provide the interpreter. The school officials denied the request. It claimed that the placement of a public employee in a religious school would violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment (Meek v. Pittenger).
Findings of the US District Court:
The District Court granted summary judgment to Zobrest. This decision was based on the idea that the interpreter �would act as a conduit for the child’s religious inculcation, thereby promoting his religious development at government expense in violation of the Establishment Clause. �
Findings of the US Court of Appeals:
The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Findings of the US Supreme Court:
Reversed. In the Nyquist decision, it was found that the Establishment Clause requires government to be neutral towards religion and to refrain from action that might be deemed to constitute state sponsorship of a religion. As for education, Mueller v. Allen allowed states to provide tax deductions to parents whose children attend religious schools and Witters v. Washington Dept. of Services for Blind gave vocational assistance to a blind person studying at a Christian college. In the Allen case, textbooks were provided to religious schools. The Court has disallowed programs that provided equipment and remedial teachers to religious schools (Wolman v. Walter, Meek v. Pittenger).
Reasoning:
The Court held that providing a sign language interpreter did not constitute state sponsorship of religion. It based its decision on Allen and Witters, The Court decided that distributed benefits without regard to religion (neutrally). The Court also stated that providing an interpreter was different than providing a teacher because an interpreter, unlike a teacher, would not add or subtract from the overall environment of the school. The dissent disagreed, arguing that the Establishment Clause prohibited the provision of a public employee who would serve as a conduit for the transmission of religious views.
Significance:
The Court drew a fine line between the provision of state benefits and the endorsement of religion. The Court is splitting hairs as to what it is allowing/disallowing to religious schools. There is no clear-cut rule being followed that will allow us to determine if something is permitted or not. This 5-4 decision shows the Court�s confusion as well.
Posted in Education, Politics | No Comments »
Monday, December 7th, 1998
Educational Organization and Leadership: 0828.546
Paper submitted 7 December 1998
There used to be a regular skit on Saturday Night Live in which a character, Stuart Smalley, held his daily affirmation. Smalley, who suffered from low self-esteem, would talk himself up in a mirror by chanting, “I’m good enough. I’m smart enough. And gosh darn it, people like me.” It was a spoof of the psychobabble that is purported to help us so much. Reading the studies in this section of our course reminded me of that skit.
Margolis dishes out a wordy essay that is nothing more than common sense. Yes, talking with those who will be responsible for the work before a change is good business. Yes, have those workers be part of the decision-making process. A perceptive administrator indeed should consider the perspective of his subordinates. It is understandable that workers may resist change. Was this to have been news? Was Margolis paid for this? My goodness, these are some of the basic tenets of work.
He states, “Thus, teachers need clear, observable, short and long-term objectives which they value and believe are achievable. These objectives should use criteria they believe accurately measure success.” Besides offering troublesome pronouns, Margolis would have us believe that teachers are just like the students they teach. If this is indeed the case (spoon-feeding faculty), then I suggest we spend some time researching whatever happened to the work ethic in our society. Yes, it is better to be informed as to what is happening and why it is. Absent that, workers need to understand they are employees.
Neck and Barnard offer no better. They suggest that we should, “Observe and record [our] existing beliefs and assumptions, [our] self-talk, and [our] mental imagery patterns.” My existing beliefs have taken decades to establish, let alone the effort involved. How would these folks suggest I record them? It sounds as though the suggestion is we put ourselves into therapy. This is one of the steps to inner leadership. Earlier, the pair discuss the classic optimist/pessimist argument as if it were the result of their study. Perhaps I suffer from their all-or-nothing thinking in that either their conclusion is lucid or I dismiss their entire paper.
The same can be said of the Navigating the Seas of Educational Innovation paper in which the authors seem to be quite unaware of the current state of affairs. More psychobabble is thrown about. It seems as though they would have us believe that we are inept in our comprehension of the expanding information load. They offer, “Many have chosen to deal with this increasing tension by teaching less about more, rather than opting for the less common, but more meaningful path of teaching more about less.” What seems to be missing from the discussion is not teaching more about less, but rather realizing that we are amidst a paradigm shift in our society. Rather than squabble over it, we need to accept it. We are moving out of the mechanistic world and into an information world. No longer can we master material. We will need to change what is learned, therefore, to be educated. We need to learn how to sort, classify, and evaluate material these days. It is not more about less. It is a fundamental shift in how we approach the material. Rather than proposing asinine theories, our authors would do well to catch up to the rest of the community. A thorough reading of Capra’s The Turning Point is suggested.
Attitude is the emotion of the evening, eh? I do agree with the introductory paragraph to the page named Change, “. . . the primary work of the principal is to facilitate change in such as [sic] manner as to lower the fear and anxiety of staff while maintaining a focus on the overall systematic goal and policing the integrity of the change process.” Here we discuss the reality of the job before us. Yes, it will entail much of what Margolis suggested. However, as we have covered earlier, a true leader will need to do this in an innovative manner.
Posted in Education | No Comments »
Wednesday, December 2nd, 1998
School Law for Administration and Supervision: 0827.559
Brief submitted 2 December 1998
Citation:
Rosenberger v. University of Virginia
United States Supreme Court
115 S. Ct. 2510 (1995)
Topic:
Freedom of Speech/Freedom of Religion - viewpoint descrimination
Relief Sought:
Rosenberger was seeking to reverse the University of Virginia�s denial of funds for his group�s student-led religious publication.
Issue:
Can a public university that pays printing costs to several student publications deny paying for a student-run religious publication?
Facts:
The University of Virginia collects a $14 per semester activities fee from each full-time student. This money provides for a student activity fund. The student activity fund pays off-campus businesses to print publications of 15 student groups. The SAF denied a request for printing costs from students who published a Christian magazine. The SAF based its decision on its guidelines, which do not permit the funding of religious activities.
Findings of the US District Court:
Held that the denial did not constitute unconstitutional discrimination against the Christian magazine.
Findings of the US Court of Appeals:
Affirmed the US District Court. Even though UVA practiced viewpoint discrimination when it denied payment (that violates the Speech Clause), it was in order to comply with the Establishment Clause.
Findings of the US Supreme Court:
Reversed. A public university has no obligation to provide benefits or facilities to student groups. But once it chooses do so, it may not discriminate based upon the viewpoint their speech (Lamb�s Chapel). No government entity, the university here, may impose a tax/fee in order to support religious activity (Roemer v. Board of Public Works of Md.).
Reasoning:
The Court has held that government may neutrally supply benefits to religious organizations without violating the Establishment Clause (Lamb�s Chapel). The Court found that the distribution of SAF money was a neutral supply of benefits. The dissent claimed money provided to a religious organization should be considered an unconstitutional tax for the benefit of a religious activity (Establishment Clause).
Significance:
The Court was confronted with a direct conflict between the First Amendment freedom of speech and the First Amendment prohibition against the establishment of a religion. While all of the Justices in the majority and dissent agreed that these types of cases require an individualized analysis, the majority’s decision appears indicative of a willingness to come closer to, if not encroach upon, the wall between church and state.
Posted in Education, Politics | No Comments »
Monday, November 30th, 1998
Educational Organization and Leadership: 0828.546
Reflection submitted on 30 November 1998
Although we have not discussed the newspaper article A Question of Character, but Whose?, I find it a clear statement that we are in a state of chaos! I am certain that this article is re-printed here for us to discuss the decision-making process and the consequences of doing it one way as opposed to another. Oftentimes, reflection bears that to be the case. However, this is not one of them.
The National Honor Society is an exclusive group. It is a privilege to be a member, not a right. An honor society holds good character as an example to be emulated. Leaving school without permission and under-aged consumption of alcohol (on school grounds, it appears) is not behavior that needs to be exalted. Although certainly we could all envision circumstances in which leaving school premises would not be a break in judgment, this one does not appear to rise to that standard.
Miss Taylor is a loud mouth. She is an instigator. Far be it from me to offer those as criticisms. However, who we are and how we behave dictates a lot of what happens to us. Perhaps those admitted to the National Honor Society, although still minors, have demonstrated adult behavior and adult thinking. Perhaps these individuals have learned that life has its lessons and sometimes the example of those lessons is found in the mirror. Perhaps the attitude displayed in the statement, “If I think things are being done in a dumb or inefficient way, I’m going to say something about it,” displays too much character for admittance to an honor society.
What appalls me about this situation is not so much that Miss Taylor is an emotional child, but rather that her parents are supporting the public tantrum she is throwing. Worse yet, Miss Taylor’s parents are waging the battle with her, “The big issue here is that someone has slandered her character. When people assault her that, she doesn’t accept it. And I don’t blame her,” Mrs. Taylor commented. The big issue, Mrs. Taylor, is that the lesson being taught/learned here is not that sometimes life isn’t fair (you’ve got to go along to get along, etc.), but rather, if a child has a complaint, any manner in which it is offered is okay.
I agree that the three passes in the situation offered are ridiculous. Nevertheless, it is not for a child to say. Honey does catch more flies. Perhaps demonstrating knowledge of how the system works by presenting a solution along with the critique in the proper forum would have allowed the Society to see citizenship, a necessary facet of character for admittance.
Other thoughts
The Tree Diagram tool for decision making appeals to me. Of course, it is not appropriate for all occasions. However, it is appropriate for major decisions (whatever they are). It validates my approach to collaborative decision making. Our district is in the process of evaluating Whole School Reform programs and making recommendations for establishing the program for each building. I have volunteered to evaluate the programs. This fits well with Appendix A of Leadership for Tomorrow�s Schools in that:
- value placing decision making as close to the point of implementation (ugh!) as possible
- value decisions being made by those who are directly affected by them
- employees who have expertise and/or interest can make decisions that are relevant to them
Then again, one might ascribe to the old way of talking about this subject by stating the only way to effect change is to have the power to do so. If one is not on the committee, team, etc. that evaluates these programs, one is not in a position to know these programs. The building team will be presenting the programs (read: recommendations) to the faculty. That presentation should set forth an educational path for the next several years for the building. Although decision making will be shared, it will be shared more equally among some than others.
Posted in Education | No Comments »
