Morrisville Council: Monday, April 20, 2009
7:30 p.m., borough hall, 35 Union St.
Agenda: regular business items. 215-295-8181
Sunday, April 19, 2009
U.S. Supreme Court to hear school strip-search case
From the Austin (TX) Statesman via the Los Angeles Times
Supreme Court to hear school strip-search case
By David G. Savage
LOS ANGELES TIMES
Sunday, April 19, 2009
SAFFORD, Ariz. — When Savana Redding, now 19, talks of what happened to her in eighth grade, it is clear that the painful memories linger.
She speaks of being embarrassed and fearful, and of staying away from school for two months. And she recalls the "whispers" and "stares" from others in this small eastern Arizona mining town after she was strip-searched in the nurse's office because a vice principal suspected she might be hiding an extra-strength ibuprofen in her underwear.
The Supreme Court will hear her case Tuesday. Its decision, the first to address the issue of strip-searches in schools, will set legal limits, if any, on the authority of school officials to search for drugs or weapons on campus.
If limits on searches are imposed, the school district warns, its ability to keep all drugs out of its schools would be reduced. In this case, said district lawyer Matthew Wright, the vice principal was concerned because one student had gotten seriously ill from taking unidentified pills.
"That was the driving force for him. If nothing had been done, and this happened to another kid, parents would have been outraged," Wright said.
Only once in the past has the high court ruled on a school search case. In 1980 a New Jersey girl was caught smoking in the bathroom, and her principal searched her purse for cigarettes.
The justices upheld that search because the principal had a specific reason for looking in her purse. But they did not say how far officials could go, and how much of a student's privacy could be sacrificed, to maintain safety at school. That's the issue in Safford Unified School District v. Redding.
Judges have been split over whether Redding's rights were violated. A federal magistrate in Tucson, Ariz., upheld the search because the vice principal was relying on a student's tip. In a 2-1 decision, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed.
Last year, however, the full 9th Circuit Court took up the case and ruled 6-5 for Redding. Last fall, the school district appealed to the high court, saying it "finds itself on the front lines of the decades-long war against drug abuse among students."
Also on the docket
This week, the Supreme Court will consider the reverse-discrimination claim of Matthew Marcarelli and a group of white firefighters from the New Haven, Conn., department. They all passed a promotion exam, but the city threw out the test because no blacks would have been promoted, saying the exam had a "disparate impact" on minorities likely to violate the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Mary Frances Berry, a history professor at the University of Pennsylvania and head of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights during the Clinton administration, said the firefighters' case has broad implications.
"This is about whether we are going to see a sea change in how the judiciary looks at the need for these (protections), and how the popular culture and electoral politics influence their perceptions," Berry said.
Besides the firefighters' lawsuit, the Supreme Court will soon hear a case seeking to overturn a Voting Rights Act requirement that all or parts of 16 states, including Texas, with a history of discrimination must get approval from the Justice Department before changing election procedures.
Supreme Court to hear school strip-search case
By David G. Savage
LOS ANGELES TIMES
Sunday, April 19, 2009
SAFFORD, Ariz. — When Savana Redding, now 19, talks of what happened to her in eighth grade, it is clear that the painful memories linger.
She speaks of being embarrassed and fearful, and of staying away from school for two months. And she recalls the "whispers" and "stares" from others in this small eastern Arizona mining town after she was strip-searched in the nurse's office because a vice principal suspected she might be hiding an extra-strength ibuprofen in her underwear.
The Supreme Court will hear her case Tuesday. Its decision, the first to address the issue of strip-searches in schools, will set legal limits, if any, on the authority of school officials to search for drugs or weapons on campus.
If limits on searches are imposed, the school district warns, its ability to keep all drugs out of its schools would be reduced. In this case, said district lawyer Matthew Wright, the vice principal was concerned because one student had gotten seriously ill from taking unidentified pills.
"That was the driving force for him. If nothing had been done, and this happened to another kid, parents would have been outraged," Wright said.
Only once in the past has the high court ruled on a school search case. In 1980 a New Jersey girl was caught smoking in the bathroom, and her principal searched her purse for cigarettes.
The justices upheld that search because the principal had a specific reason for looking in her purse. But they did not say how far officials could go, and how much of a student's privacy could be sacrificed, to maintain safety at school. That's the issue in Safford Unified School District v. Redding.
Judges have been split over whether Redding's rights were violated. A federal magistrate in Tucson, Ariz., upheld the search because the vice principal was relying on a student's tip. In a 2-1 decision, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed.
Last year, however, the full 9th Circuit Court took up the case and ruled 6-5 for Redding. Last fall, the school district appealed to the high court, saying it "finds itself on the front lines of the decades-long war against drug abuse among students."
Also on the docket
This week, the Supreme Court will consider the reverse-discrimination claim of Matthew Marcarelli and a group of white firefighters from the New Haven, Conn., department. They all passed a promotion exam, but the city threw out the test because no blacks would have been promoted, saying the exam had a "disparate impact" on minorities likely to violate the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Mary Frances Berry, a history professor at the University of Pennsylvania and head of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights during the Clinton administration, said the firefighters' case has broad implications.
"This is about whether we are going to see a sea change in how the judiciary looks at the need for these (protections), and how the popular culture and electoral politics influence their perceptions," Berry said.
Besides the firefighters' lawsuit, the Supreme Court will soon hear a case seeking to overturn a Voting Rights Act requirement that all or parts of 16 states, including Texas, with a history of discrimination must get approval from the Justice Department before changing election procedures.
Tea and taxes
From the Inquirer.
Editorial: Tea and taxes Posted on Sun, Apr. 19, 2009
Tax protesters who held "tea parties" in Philadelphia and other cities are both right and wrong.
They're right that the national debt is out of control. But they're wrong about taxpayers now bearing an especially heavy burden.
The demonstrations ignited partisan disagreements about motives, but they also raised a point that's beyond dispute: The federal government must get serious about balancing its books, soon.
Despite bailouts and massive government spending to combat the recession, overall tax burdens today are not as high as in previous years. That's because the federal government, instead of paying its way, habitually takes the easy way out by borrowing too much.
Still, the average taxpayer this year will pay 28.2 percent of his or her income in federal, state, and local taxes, according to the conservative-leaning Tax Foundation in Washington. That's the lowest overall tax burden since 1967. The high was 33.6 percent in 2000.
Middle-income households in 2006 paid an average of 14.2 percent of their income in federal taxes, the lowest level since 1979, according to the left-leaning Center for Budget and Policy Priorities in Washington.
Tax Freedom Day, billed as the day each year when Americans have worked enough to pay off all of their taxes, was April 13. That's two weeks earlier than 2007, and the earliest date since 1967.
That doesn't mean taxes are low everywhere. Certain states and cities have chronically high taxes. New Jersey ranks second behind Connecticut in overall tax burden (Pennsylvania is 11th). Philadelphia, with its wage and business privilege taxes, is one of the highest-taxing cities in the nation.
Overall tax rates are lower than in the past, but what's high is the government's credit-card balance. Federal spending has soared in the past decade, and tax revenue hasn't kept pace.
If taxes funded all of Washington's spending this year, Tax Freedom Day wouldn't arrive until May 29, which would be the latest ever.
When President George W. Bush took office in 2001, the national debt stood at $5.7 trillion. Bush cut taxes but boosted spending dramatically. When he left office, the national debt had risen to more than $10 trillion, with nary a tea party in sight. For most of that time, Republicans controlled Congress.
With Democrats now in charge of Congress and the White House, the deficit in the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30 will hit $1.85 trillion. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office calculates that President Obama's budget would add $9.2 trillion to the national debt over the next 10 years, a level that can't be sustained.
Overall tax rates are lower now than in previous years, but deficits are a looming tax bill that must be paid eventually. Faced with that, arguing whether tea-party protesters have partisan motives is like playing the violin badly while Rome burns.
Spending to fight the recession and create jobs was necessary. And anti-tax protesters don't talk enough about what spending they'd like to cut. The Pentagon's half-trillion-dollar budget? Government pensions or Medicare's prescription-drug program?
The deficit problem didn't begin with the economic-stimulus plan. Nor will it be solved without public pressure, including tea parties.
Editorial: Tea and taxes Posted on Sun, Apr. 19, 2009
Tax protesters who held "tea parties" in Philadelphia and other cities are both right and wrong.
They're right that the national debt is out of control. But they're wrong about taxpayers now bearing an especially heavy burden.
The demonstrations ignited partisan disagreements about motives, but they also raised a point that's beyond dispute: The federal government must get serious about balancing its books, soon.
Despite bailouts and massive government spending to combat the recession, overall tax burdens today are not as high as in previous years. That's because the federal government, instead of paying its way, habitually takes the easy way out by borrowing too much.
Still, the average taxpayer this year will pay 28.2 percent of his or her income in federal, state, and local taxes, according to the conservative-leaning Tax Foundation in Washington. That's the lowest overall tax burden since 1967. The high was 33.6 percent in 2000.
Middle-income households in 2006 paid an average of 14.2 percent of their income in federal taxes, the lowest level since 1979, according to the left-leaning Center for Budget and Policy Priorities in Washington.
Tax Freedom Day, billed as the day each year when Americans have worked enough to pay off all of their taxes, was April 13. That's two weeks earlier than 2007, and the earliest date since 1967.
That doesn't mean taxes are low everywhere. Certain states and cities have chronically high taxes. New Jersey ranks second behind Connecticut in overall tax burden (Pennsylvania is 11th). Philadelphia, with its wage and business privilege taxes, is one of the highest-taxing cities in the nation.
Overall tax rates are lower than in the past, but what's high is the government's credit-card balance. Federal spending has soared in the past decade, and tax revenue hasn't kept pace.
If taxes funded all of Washington's spending this year, Tax Freedom Day wouldn't arrive until May 29, which would be the latest ever.
When President George W. Bush took office in 2001, the national debt stood at $5.7 trillion. Bush cut taxes but boosted spending dramatically. When he left office, the national debt had risen to more than $10 trillion, with nary a tea party in sight. For most of that time, Republicans controlled Congress.
With Democrats now in charge of Congress and the White House, the deficit in the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30 will hit $1.85 trillion. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office calculates that President Obama's budget would add $9.2 trillion to the national debt over the next 10 years, a level that can't be sustained.
Overall tax rates are lower now than in previous years, but deficits are a looming tax bill that must be paid eventually. Faced with that, arguing whether tea-party protesters have partisan motives is like playing the violin badly while Rome burns.
Spending to fight the recession and create jobs was necessary. And anti-tax protesters don't talk enough about what spending they'd like to cut. The Pentagon's half-trillion-dollar budget? Government pensions or Medicare's prescription-drug program?
The deficit problem didn't begin with the economic-stimulus plan. Nor will it be solved without public pressure, including tea parties.
A National Education Standard?
From TIME.com
How to Raise the Standard in America's Schools
By Walter Isaacson Wednesday, Apr. 15, 2009
National standards have long been the third rail of education politics. The right chokes on the word national, with its implication that the feds will trample on the states' traditional authority over public schools. And the left chokes on the word standards, with the intimations of assessments and testing that accompany it. The result is a K-12 education system in the U.S. that is burdened by an incoherent jumble of state and local curriculum standards, assessment tools, tests, texts and teaching materials. Even worse, many states have bumbled into a race to the bottom as they define their local standards downward in order to pretend to satisfy federal demands by showing that their students are proficient.
It's time to take another look. Without national standards for what our students should learn, it will be hard for the U.S. to succeed in the 21st century economy. Today's wacky patchwork makes it difficult to assess which methods work best or how to hold teachers and schools accountable. Fortunately, there are glimmers of hope that the politics surrounding national standards has become a little less contentious. A growing coalition of reformers — from civil rights activist Al Sharpton to Georgia Republican governor Sonny Perdue — believe that some form of common standards is necessary to achieve a wide array of other education reforms, including merit pay for good teachers and the expansion of the role of public charter schools. (See pictures of inside a public boarding school.)
The idea of "common schools" that adopt the same curriculum and standards isn't new. It first arose in the 1840s, largely owing to the influence of the reformer Horace Mann. But the U.S. Constitution leaves public education to the states, and the states devolve much of the authority to local school districts, of which there are now more than 13,000 in the U.S. The Federal Government provides less than 9% of the funding for K-12 schools. That is why it has proved impossible thus far to create common curriculum standards nationwide. In 1989, President George H.W. Bush summoned the nation's governors to Charlottesville, Va., to attempt a standards-based approach to school reform. The result was only a vague endorsement of "voluntary national standards," which never gained much traction. In 1994, President Bill Clinton got federal money for standards-based reform, but the effort remained in the hands of the states, leading to a wildly varying hodgepodge of expectations for — as well as ideological battles over — math and English curriculums.
The No Child Left Behind Act pushed by President George W. Bush unintentionally exacerbated the problem. It required each state to ensure that its students achieve "universal proficiency" in reading and math — but allowed each to define what that meant. The result was that many states made their job easier by setting their bar lower. This race to the bottom resulted in a Lake Wobegon world where every state declared that its kids were better than average. Take the amazing case of Mississippi. According to the standards it set for itself, 89% of its fourth-graders were proficient or better in reading, making them the best in the nation. Yet according to the random sampling done every few years by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) test, a mere 18% of the state's fourth-graders were proficient, making them the worst in the nation. Even in Lake Wobegon that doesn't happen. Only in America. The Thomas B. Fordham Institute, led by reformer Chester Finn Jr., has been analyzing state standards for more than a decade and concludes, "Two-thirds of U.S. children attend schools in states with mediocre standards or worse."
See the rest at TIME.com
How to Raise the Standard in America's Schools
By Walter Isaacson Wednesday, Apr. 15, 2009
National standards have long been the third rail of education politics. The right chokes on the word national, with its implication that the feds will trample on the states' traditional authority over public schools. And the left chokes on the word standards, with the intimations of assessments and testing that accompany it. The result is a K-12 education system in the U.S. that is burdened by an incoherent jumble of state and local curriculum standards, assessment tools, tests, texts and teaching materials. Even worse, many states have bumbled into a race to the bottom as they define their local standards downward in order to pretend to satisfy federal demands by showing that their students are proficient.
It's time to take another look. Without national standards for what our students should learn, it will be hard for the U.S. to succeed in the 21st century economy. Today's wacky patchwork makes it difficult to assess which methods work best or how to hold teachers and schools accountable. Fortunately, there are glimmers of hope that the politics surrounding national standards has become a little less contentious. A growing coalition of reformers — from civil rights activist Al Sharpton to Georgia Republican governor Sonny Perdue — believe that some form of common standards is necessary to achieve a wide array of other education reforms, including merit pay for good teachers and the expansion of the role of public charter schools. (See pictures of inside a public boarding school.)
The idea of "common schools" that adopt the same curriculum and standards isn't new. It first arose in the 1840s, largely owing to the influence of the reformer Horace Mann. But the U.S. Constitution leaves public education to the states, and the states devolve much of the authority to local school districts, of which there are now more than 13,000 in the U.S. The Federal Government provides less than 9% of the funding for K-12 schools. That is why it has proved impossible thus far to create common curriculum standards nationwide. In 1989, President George H.W. Bush summoned the nation's governors to Charlottesville, Va., to attempt a standards-based approach to school reform. The result was only a vague endorsement of "voluntary national standards," which never gained much traction. In 1994, President Bill Clinton got federal money for standards-based reform, but the effort remained in the hands of the states, leading to a wildly varying hodgepodge of expectations for — as well as ideological battles over — math and English curriculums.
The No Child Left Behind Act pushed by President George W. Bush unintentionally exacerbated the problem. It required each state to ensure that its students achieve "universal proficiency" in reading and math — but allowed each to define what that meant. The result was that many states made their job easier by setting their bar lower. This race to the bottom resulted in a Lake Wobegon world where every state declared that its kids were better than average. Take the amazing case of Mississippi. According to the standards it set for itself, 89% of its fourth-graders were proficient or better in reading, making them the best in the nation. Yet according to the random sampling done every few years by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) test, a mere 18% of the state's fourth-graders were proficient, making them the worst in the nation. Even in Lake Wobegon that doesn't happen. Only in America. The Thomas B. Fordham Institute, led by reformer Chester Finn Jr., has been analyzing state standards for more than a decade and concludes, "Two-thirds of U.S. children attend schools in states with mediocre standards or worse."
See the rest at TIME.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)