myshortpencil

Michigan Education Association analysis contends that salary concessions have paid for increases in benefit costs
By Lu Battaglieri / Detroit News
Feb. 25, 2005



MyShortPencil's first Triple Crown Winner!

          

Honesty. Respect. Responsibility.

We teach these values every day in public schools from Detroit to DeTour. They are the basics.

Sadly, they seem to be in short supply among some lawmakers and school officials in Lansing as the debate over the lack of school funding intensifies.

Sadly, they seem to be in short supply within the data provided in this article.

Instead we have myths, attacks and the ever popular search for a scapegoat.

Instead we have obscurity and self-serving statistics that have been carefully selected to bolster a point of view.

Such behavior doesn't solve problems. It pits people who should be focused on kids against each other and further erodes public confidence in our public institutions.

Ditto.

It's time for a refresher course on the values necessary to do the right thing for Michigan's 1.7 million public school children.

By way of background, in 1994-95 Michigan spent $7,760 per student in constant 2001-02 dollars. This increased to $8,425 in 2001-02. From 1994-95 to 2001-02, per pupil spending experienced a real increase of $665 or 8.6%.

In 1994-95 Michigan had 1.6 million students. By 2001-02 it had 1.7 million students, a 6.3% increase.

From 1996 to 1999, the number of teachers in Michigan K-12 schools increased from 88,051 to 96,094 (9.1%).

TODAY'S BEST OF MYSHORTPENCIL.COM
• SEE A LIST OF THIS WEEK'S COMMENTARIES
• More Stories on Teachers' Unions & Salaries
• Compare your salary to any teacher's

Honesty

The Michigan Education Association (MEA) analyzed public school budget data from the 1994-95 school year, when Proposal A took effect, to the 2002-03 school year, the most current data available.

What we found flies in the face of the popular charge that teachers are diverting resources from the classroom and putting them into hefty salaries, Cadillac health insurance policies and rich retirements.

What they actually found was a way of deluding themselves into believing this, though I'll admit that Michigan has done a better job of controlling salary, health care and retirement costs than NY.

The data show that salaries, FICA and retirement as a portion of total school expenses are down from where they were almost a decade ago. Salaries, FICA and retirement together accounted for 2.78 percentage points less as a share of total expenses for schools in the 2002-03 school year than they did in 1994-95.

What do you make of that? Is it possible that salaries, FICA and retirement could be contributing to escalating school expenses even though these are down by 2.78%? You betcha!

The MEA is comparing these to total expenditures. As more teachers are hired at the lower steps, as more interest is paid on more building projects, as testing costs rise and as utility and other costs may rise faster than increases in teacher salaries, the proportion of the budget spent for salaries, FICA and retirement will decline. This doesn't mean employee costs aren't part of the problem. It just means they aren't rising as quickly as other costs.

For example, we know that testing costs have risen dramatically during this period due to state standards and No Child Left Behind. These costs increase the total size of the budget, which means that salaries, health insurance and retirement will necessarily be a smaller percentage of total expenditures.

The same is true if average teacher experience is falling. Salaries may be steaming right along, but if average teacher experience is falling because of high retirement rates or other factors, then the portion of the budget spent on teacher salaries will fall.

For these, and lots of other reasons, knowing that "salaries, FICA and retirement as a portion of total school expenses are down from where they were almost a decade ago" tells us nothing about whether salaries and retirement are responsible for escalating education costs.

No one in education denies that health insurance has been going up as a result of the national healthcare crisis. For Michigan schools, the increase in health insurance as a share of total expenses since 1994-95 was 3.04 percentage points.

As other portions of the budget grow faster--like testing--the growth in health insurance expenses as a proportion of total expenditures will look relatively smaller. This doesn't mean schools are holding the line on health insurance. You have to know what other aspects of school budgets are increasing, by how much and why, before you can judge whether the increase in health insurance expenditures is reasonable in relation to total expenditures.

The MEA doesn't tell us this. If the news were in its favor, the odds are it would have.

The math is pretty simple. The reality is, too.

The math is simple, but the reality is simple only for those willing to use and rely upon simple-minded analyses. Both percentages and dollar amounts are necessary for approaching the truth of any financial situation. Whenever anyone gives you one without the other--or without the numbers needed to calculate the other--readers should be on the alert.

School personnel across the board have given up ground in salaries to cover just about all of the increase in health insurance.

If that statement is being made on the basis of the data analysis revealed in this article, then it's entirely unjustified. Beyond that, how much "ground" has been given up? Are salaries increasing faster than inflation but not as fast as before? That's entirely likely and it's not what I call "giving up ground." I call that "gaining ground at a slower pace."

On top of that, MEA members have joined workers everywhere and accepted less coverage, more managed care, higher deductibles and monthly out-of-pocket premium payments as high as $400 per month.

That's probably true, but that doesn't mean district contributions to employee heath insurance plans haven't been increasing much faster than inflation. It simply means that district costs aren't increasing as fast as they would have without the changes.

In some cases, our members who work as custodians, bus drivers and paraprofessionals are paying so much out of their own pocket for health insurance that they are working for nothing more than that benefit.

The average cost of a family health insurance policy in NY in 2002-03 was $9,051. (It's close to $11,000, today). Health insurance is nothing more or less than salary paid in-kind. It has to be earned. It isn't simply given away as part of the job, though that's what many educators seem to believe. If an employee is entitled to a 50% health insurance contribution from the district, that means s/he has to come up with the other 50% from her/his wages.

MEA members and those closest to the students -- the instructional staff -- have taken the hardest hit proportionately. Their salaries, FICA and retirement have gone down as a share of total expenses by 3.28 percentage points while insurance costs for that group have increased as a share of total expenses 1.81 percentage points during that same nine years.

Again, it means little unless you know whether average teacher experience is declining and why other costs are rising and by how much.

Ask yourself this: "Why is Lu reporting the percentage change relative to total spending rather than the actual dollar amount spent by school districts in 1994-95 and 2002-03 for salaries and health insurance?" The answer is because those numbers would not only reveal a much different picture but most likely knock your socks off. I've seen no data anywhere to suggest that district costs for employee compensation in Michigan haven't been rising at inflation-busting rates when controlling for staff experience.

Here's what the Michigan Department of Education says:

Escalating labor costs, primarily health care, pensions and minimal inflation-related salary increases, exacerbate the financial situations of local districts. As discussed at the November 9, 2004, Board meeting, almost 2/3rds of every new dollar provided is consumed by health care and pension costs.

Tom Watkins, Structural Issues Surrounding Michigan School Funding in the 21st Century [pdf], December 2004.

You can find detailed information on Michigan's public school finances here. Because Lu reports only percentages without actual dollar increases, in addition to the Orb of Obscurity, she also wins a Red Herring Award.

Respect

The rhetoric is that Michigan's school funding problems would go away if school employees would just sacrifice more. We have sacrificed, and the problems are still with us.

It's possible that total increases in school employee compensation have been rising at slower rates than in the past. But that doesn't mean they aren't rising much faster than inflation.

Blaming school employees for the crisis shows a genuine lack of respect for the facts. Even more disturbing, it demonstrates a fundamental lack of respect for the teachers and other school employees who are struggling with too few resources, too little parental support and too much bureaucracy to do what is expected and required of them under the federal No Child Left Behind Act and Michigan's Education YES!

As I have demonstrated, the most probable truth is that the MEA is distorting the "facts" by omitting the ones that would lead to a different interpretation. Why is the MEA doing this? Because it knows it can get away with it. It knows that public schools haven't educated students sufficiently well to see through the smoke. See The success side of American education.

All this is happening while many school districts are amassing large so-called "rainy day" funds. Statewide, these savings accounts have nearly doubled in relation to total school expenses since Proposal A passed.

We support responsible saving. But hoarding taxpayer money while laying off staff, cutting basic programs, closing school buildings and siphoning more money from parents for sports, band and other extra curricular activities shows a lack of respect for the social contract our schools have with parents and taxpayers. It also demonstrates the level of fear and insecurity schools feel as a result of the funding crisis.

Education is labor intensive. Putting prepared, experienced and tested teachers in front of every student is the best classroom investment a school district can make.

Wrong. Education needs to become a lot less labor intensive with schools for The 21st Century Student. You can't possibly replicate excellence in teaching 3.1 million times. It's foolish to try and it's expensive. Why have thousands of teachers replicating the same lessons when they can be provided in a variety of ways over the Internet to each student, who can take as much or as little time as needed to learn the material unaffected by the learning rates of others? We need to stop reinventing the wheel and start accumulating sophistication by producing thousands of high-quality, interactive, multimedia, learning-style-specific, Internet-delivered, parent-monitored, student-selected lessons with instant feedback, online professional support and software applications to monitor each student's progress on every lesson.

MEA members respect the need to debate over how to fix the school funding crisis. We respect that everything can and should be scrutinized along the way. But everything must mean everything.

Including salaries and benefits?

The MEA is making an assumption that it hopes you will buy. That assumption is that if total compensation is no greater now than in 1994-95, it must not be responsible for escalating school costs. But is that a fair assumption? What's been happening in the private sector? If total compensation there has actually been falling, then school employees would be getting a better deal than others because their salaries never fall to adjust for changes in the economy. Rather, schools cut jobs, not salaries. In the private sector, businesses cut salaries to maintain service levels. See Pilots Won't Fight UAL on Pensions and Bankruptcy Judge Allows US Airways to Cut Wages. Educators believe that it's more appropriate to cut services and programs for their customers--the students--than to take cuts in pay and pensions.

Responsibility

Schools have cut about a half a billion dollars out of their budgets over the past three years, and school employees have clearly done their part to help balance the books.

Now it's time for those in power --our lawmakers-- to do their jobs.

Finger pointing is not the answer. As much as we've endured it, we know that lawmakers, too, have been subject to criticism -- over salaries, benefits, absenteeism and raises they've given themselves.

That approach doesn't fix anything.

We know that kids listen to our lessons about core democratic values. And then they watch what we do.

The question is, which of our legislators will reflect the honesty, respect and responsibility it will take to fix the real problem--insufficient school funding.

It's a good thing the question wasn't whether the MEA will reflect the honesty, respect and responsibility needed to fix the real problem.

I note that neither the study nor the data used have been published on the MEA's website. That's a sure sign the MEA doesn't want others to scrutinize its "findings." As with most teacher union studies, this analysis is more about politics than truth. Lu has stolen the characteristics of ethical conduct and dishonored them. She has co-opted the high moral ground to achieve her own purposes rather than the public good.

Kids, don't grow up to be like this. Don't hide the facts that detract from your goals to make it easier to win your points. And if you do, certainly do not claim to be doing it in the name of honesty, respect and responsibility.

Lu Battaglieri is president of the Michigan Education Association, the state's largest teachers union.

By Kelly Kearsley, Associated Press via USA Today
Feb. 23, 2005

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin

"They that can give up freedom of speech to obtain a little education deserve neither freedom of speech nor an education. Freedom of speech is indispensable to education. Its diminishment leads to menticide and oppression. Good intentions are insufficient to prevent undesired consequences. The suppression and punishment of off-campus student speech by government schools is nothing less than bullying. It's a case of system needs trumping student rights." -- Jerry Moore

As you read these stories, ask yourself how long it will be before a government school punishes a child for something s/he said about a sibling, whether or not the parents agree with the need for punishment or type of punishment imposed. Between family members, speech that may sound harsh or cruel to others may be an accepted, familiar and enamouring aspect of family tradition.

There is no question that children and teens ought to be taught to be kind and considerate. But the means chosen to teach these lessons is not a trivial matter. Resorting to government imposed punishment for speech violations teaches students a lesson that can ultimately transform our society into one of great repression. See Teens miss the First Amendment's point and First Amendment No Big Deal, Students Say.

---

quote:

The other Persians were silent; all feared to raise their voice against the plan proposed to them. But Artabanus, the son of Hystaspes, and uncle of Xerxes, trusting to his relationship, was bold to speak:- "O king!" he said, "it is impossible, if no more than one opinion is uttered, to make choice of the best: a man is forced then to follow whatever advice may have been given him; but if opposite speeches are delivered, then choice can be exercised. In like manner pure gold is not recognised by itself; but when we test it along with baser ore, we perceive which is the better.

--Herodotus, History, VII, 10

---

The predominant inclination of the powerful has always been to suppress the speech that diminishes their authority or status. That inclination must be despised and condemned.

OLYMPIA, Wash. — Stephanie Gallardo doesn't spend much time on the computer since someone hijacked her instant-message screen name and sent out mean messages.

"The person was pretending it was me, and using it to call people names," the 14-year-old Seattle student said. "I never found out who it was."

TODAY'S BEST OF MYSHORTPENCIL.COM
• SEE A LIST OF THIS WEEK'S COMMENTARIES
• More Stories on Bullying & Social Engineering
• Compare your salary to any teacher's

Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles wants to stop such behavior. She's sponsoring a bill that would require school harassment policies to prohibit "cyberbullying."

It's the end of free speech for children, and in a generation, for all of us. Not even Osama bin Laden could have accomplished that.

* * *

"Schools would make (cyberbullying) subject to disciplinary action and certainly students may think twice about engaging in this," said Kohl-Wells, D-Seattle.

And who decides what is and isn't improper speech? What's the burden of proof? Will students be guilty by association? Will they have the right to counsel? The right of appeal? What are you going to do about students who use the names of other students when bullying still other students? Will schools be given subpoena powers to learn the IP addresses of anonymous authors? Will they be given the power to issue search warrants? How much money will it take to enforce this law?

This is not only an assault on the constitution and parent rights, it's also a can of worms brought to you by the do-gooders who have so boosted the self-esteem of today's parents that they can't stand to be told the objective truth!

The Internet offers technology-savvy teens many ways to stay in constant contact with friends, from instant messaging to private chat rooms.

It also provides new forums for malicious gossips and school bullies. Cyberbullying ranges from ridiculing classmates on Web sites and spreading rumors through blogs to bombarding someone with harassing instant messages or publicizing their personal information.

Bad things. What to do? Tell the parents and let them handle it. If they don't handle it, use more speech to cure bad speech.

"It's limited only by the imagination and the technology that kids have access to," said Parry Aftab, a New Jersey attorney and executive director of Wired Kids, a nonprofit organization that seeks to prevent cyber abuse.

* * *

Cyberbullying can appeal to more than the regular playground bully because of the anonymity of the Internet. Sometimes kids bully by mistake, forwarding an e-mail or sending an instant message that's unintentionally offensive.

And it can cause more psychological damage than traditional bullying, said Nancy Willard, director of the Center for Safe and Responsible Internet Use in Eugene, Ore.

Then teach students how to deal with it. Don't coddle them and tell them that it shouldn't happen. This is the abstinence-only approach to bullying education. How many of these people support an abstinence-only approach to sex education?

* * *

Under current state law, school districts are required to have policies prohibiting bullying — written, verbal or physical acts that negatively affect a student or the school environment.

Kohl-Welles' bill would add electronic acts of bullying to that definition. Cyberbullying would not have to occur on school property, during school hours or with school equipment to be covered by the measure, as long as it has an adverse effect on a student or school.

It's the unconstitutional policy followed by many schools now.

It would also require schools to bar cyberbullying in Internet-use policies. Discipline for violations would be up to the school.

If Internet use is required to complete school assignments, schools cannot simply take away student access to the Internet. Do they take away the textbooks of students who misbehave?

Aftab said such laws can be problematic because they collide with schools' authority to regulate off-campus activities and speech.

That's it? "Such laws can be problematic." What kind of balance and analysis is that?

---

Off campus, not off limits
School responses to online bullying is the new threat to off-campus speech
Student Press Law Center
Winter 2003-04 - Internet
XXV, No. 1 - Page 33

In weblogs and chat rooms across the Internet, they dish out insults and spread gossip about their classmates from the comfort of their home computer.

They are the new generation of bullies — cyberbullies.

While there is nothing new about students taunting and harassing other students, the introduction of the Internet to this tradition is causing some educators to establish school policies that punish students for off-campus speech.

The effort by these educators to prevent bullying by smearing the boundary between on- and off-campus speech could have a chilling effect on a student’s First Amendment right to publish uncensored, experts say. As more high school student journalists turn to the Internet to publish news, the question of how schools differentiate between bullying and free speech could impact the editorial content of many off-campus student publications.

How about answering a more basic question, like whether schools should have this kind of power?

Most experts agree that bullying is a problem in schools and many claim bullying is linked to increases in crime, suicide and school shootings.

* * *

Some experts also believe that online bullying, or the humiliation and taunting of classmates online, can have just as many negative consequences as face-to-face bullying at school.

However, the question is whether schools should protect students from online bullying by creating policies that threaten students’ First Amendment right to free expression or whether there are better, constitutionally valid approaches to resolving the problem.

In the past, school administrators intervened when written harassment took place by tracking down the authors of “slam books” and erasing graffiti from bathroom walls. But with the advent of cyberbullying, administrators are finding it harder to locate the perpetrators not only because the bullying occurs off campus, but also because the Internet offers easy anonymity. As a result, critics claim cyberbullying can be more violent and bitter.

No doubt pushed in that direction by overburdensome rules governing speech in school.

Cyberbullying is different than traditional bullying because the Internet lacks feedback and therefore students are willing to say things that they wouldn’t otherwise, wrote Nancy Willard in her 2003 article, “Off-Campus, Harmful Online Student Speech” in the Journal of School Violence. In addition, students are aware that they are less likely to be caught, and in some online communities, bullies feel support from peers to post offensive messages.

As a result, many school officials have argued for the right to punish students for off-campus speech because of the direct impact Internet bullying has on the school environment. The officials claim that off-campus speech by cyberbullies creates a reasonable expectation that a “material disruption” of the school environment would occur if they fail to act.

The Supreme Court ruled in 1969 in Tinker v. Des Moines Community School District that public school students “do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gates.” But the court said that school administrators could “restrict student speech if it represents a material disruption to the learning environment.”

Some school administrators argue the ruling gives them the right to discipline certain off-campus speech even though Tinker is traditionally used to determine the free-speech rights of students at school.

Right. The context of the case completely eliminates any possibility that the court's holding can logically be used as a justification for expanding the power of schools to regulate off-campus speech.

Nevertheless, in lawsuits involving students who create off-campus speech that is deemed offensive, courts have generally protected students from punishment, which is good news for the student media.

A federal court in Seattle ruled in 2000 that a school could not suspend a student who created mock obituaries of his classmates on a Web site he created on his home computer. But in 2002, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled a student could be disciplined for a personal Web site that made a threat against a teacher because the student accessed the site at school and disrupted the school community.

Threats are not protected speech.

* * *

Wiseman said she balances a student’s First Amendment rights with being a responsible citizen. She said she asks students to think about whether “the right to say something that makes someone feel bad about themselves is more important then the right to walk down a hallway with dignity.”

Wonder if making a person feel bad is appropriate. Wonder if it's an expression of opinion. Is the First Amendment so feeble that we can outlaw and/or criminalize any and all speech that might hurt someone's feelings?

Some school districts across the nation already have a student code of conduct that regulates off-campus speech. For example, officials at Gwinnett County School District in Georgia used their student conduct policy at least twice this past year to discipline students for off-campus speech.

* * *

Two other Gwinnett County students filed a lawsuit this fall against the district, alleging that school officials violated their First Amendment rights by suspending them for comments posted on an off-campus Web site.

The Brookwood High School students were suspended in March after administrators said their comments that were posted on another student’s site threatened a teacher at the school. (See STAMPING, page 4.)

Administrators said the comments violated the district’s policy, which prohibits posting on the Internet “any expression (oral, written or gesture) which could have the effect of undermining the authority of the school employee.”

This is bullying. It's a case of system needs trumping student rights. It's unconstitutional. Government school employees are agents of the state. Such speech may often be political speech. And, may I add (until such time as it becomes unlawful) that any school board member, any teacher and any administrator who believes government schools should have the authority to punish students for truthful remarks and opinions about public educators made off-campus deserves no respect whatsoever.

I've said it several times before: The existence of government schools is inconsistent with the First Amendment. The importance of education has been used time and again to trump free speech. The First Amendment doesn't say, "If free speech makes it too hard for government to do what it wants to, then freedom of speech can be restricted." The First Amendment is supposed to be a check on government power.

In the lawsuit, the students are asking the court to declare provisions in the Gwinnett County School District student conduct code unconstitutionally vague and overbroad.

For the most part, the courts have ruled in students’ favor in lawsuits challenging whether school officials have the authority to discipline a student for off-campus activities, said Lee Tien, a senior staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit organization focused on protecting the digital rights of individuals.

“What a student does off campus is off campus,” Tien said. “Unless there are very special kinds of circumstances, there is no authority or entitlement by a school to really regulate off-campus conduct.”

Tien said that student online speech should not be treated differently than other off-campus speech.

Right. The fact that the subject matter is about government schools makes the case even more compelling.

“This is not any different than sitting at home bitching and moaning — it’s just that it is on a Web page,” Tien said. “It ought to be recognized by courts that there is a real strong dividing line in terms of the authority to [impose] consequences within the school context for [students’] lives outside of school.”

If school officials are allowed to discipline for off-campus bullying they could eventually expand their authority and discipline students for content posted in an off-campus, online newspaper, Tien said.

“Schools should absolutely not be disciplining students for off-campus newspapers,” Tien said.

There are already signs that some school officials are expanding their authority over off-campus speech.

This fall, a junior at Mechanicsburg High School in Ohio was suspended from school and later arrested on charges that he linked his personal Web page to a friend’s Web site, which school administrators and peers later deemed a threat to school safety. * * *

Jameson Pack, 16, was charged with seven counts of a first degree misdemeanor and a fourth degree felony for complicity to menacing by stalking. In addition, school administrators suspended him for 10 days and banned him from the school’s computer facilities for two years.

The charges against Pack stem from an Ohio law that went into effect in August. The Ohio legislature approved Senate Bill 8, which forbids a person from using “any electronic method of remotely transferring information” to engage “in a pattern of conduct” and “knowingly cause another person to believe that the offender will cause physical harm to the other person or cause mental distress to the other person.” If the victim is a minor, the crime is felony punishable by more than a year in prison if the victim is a minor.

“This [law] is clearly unconstitutional and a violation of free speech,” said Robert Ellis, who heads the Computer Law Committee for the Ohio State Bar. “It makes speech a felony.”

Ellis said this is the first time he has seen a law that makes it a felony to provide a link to a Web site whose content is controlled by someone else. In addition, he said the law is far-reaching and vague.

“Mental distress is not a criminal concept,” Ellis said. “If you do or say something [electronically] that causes mental distress and that’s a felony, my only response is, give me a break; this is America.”

While the Ohio law is perhaps one of the most severe laws regarding Internet speech, other states and school districts have also been adopting potentially overbroad regulations regarding off-campus bullying and speech in the form of zero-tolerance policies.

In school districts across the nation, zero-tolerance policies are being used to discipline students for both major and minor offenses with equally severe punishments. In some cases, students are being punished not for committing an offense, but for writing about one.

Rachel Boim, a freshman honors student at Roswell High School in Georgia, was suspended and later expelled this fall for writing a fictional story in her personal journal about a student who dreams of killing an unnamed teacher. * * *

Boim was punished under the district’s policy, which makes no exceptions for conduct that threatens the school security.

“In an era dominated by discussion of educational accountability and the need for schools to use only evidence-based practices, the continued support for zero-tolerance is surprising,” said Russell Skiba, an associate professor in the department of counseling and educational psychology at Indiana University. “There is no data that shows it in any way contributes to safe schools or student behavior.”

Some experts suggest that schools should only adopt policies regarding off-campus bullying that focus on prevention and not punishment.

Willard, who is also the director of the Center for Safe and Responsible Internet Use, said schools should approach problems caused by off-campus speech from an educational perspective rather than an administrative perspective.

Willard said she does not support school districts adopting policies that call for the punishment of off-campus bullying because the policies are unconstitutional and ineffective.

“Traditional disciplinary responses only teach kids that if an authority is present, they had better behave. There are too many places online where an authority is not present,” Willard said. “This issue must be addressed instructionally and through sensitivity awareness activities with both the students and their parents.”

Willard said that educators should start addressing bullying from kindergarten. Research shows that schools that effectively deal with harmful speech have fewer incidents of on-campus bullying, which would likely lead to fewer incidents of online bullying, she said.

Willard said administrators should assist the victims with information on practical and legal options instead of punishing a student.

In addition, online speech is often used as a vehicle for the powerless, Willard said. She said school officials should be mindful that the perpetrator of harmful off-campus, online speech may, in fact, be the victim of on-campus bullying.

As more students gain access to the Internet, it is unlikely that the trend in using the Internet as an outlet for violent and disrespectful speech will subside anytime soon, Willard said.

At one time, it was important that just journalists understood the basic legal standards regarding publications, Willard said. But with the Internet, everyone is capable of publishing content.

So as schools continue to adopt policies regarding off-campus speech, it becomes important for all students to educate themselves on their First Amendment freedoms, Willard said.

“It is exceptionally important for all student to have a good understanding of the legal principals that govern [online] publications,” Willard said.

Jenny LaCoste-Caputo / San Antonio (TX) Express-News Staff Writer
02/19/2005

For writing an essay against standardized testing on her practice state exam, for recognizing that state exams are more about system needs than student needs, and for refusing to take state- and federally-mandated tests, I'm proud to recognize Mia Kang with the first Henry David Thoreau Meandering Brook Award. "What does education often do? It makes a straight cut ditch of a free meandering brook." -- Thoreau

Mia Kang stared at the test sheet on her desk.

It only was practice. Teachers call it a "field test" to give them an idea of how students will perform on the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills.

But instead of filling in the bubbles and making her teacher happy, Mia, a freshman at MacArthur High School, used her answer sheet to write an essay that challenged standardized testing and using test scores to judge children and rank schools.

TODAY'S BEST OF MYSHORTPENCIL.COM
• SEE A LIST OF THIS WEEK'S COMMENTARIES
• More Stories on Student Activism
• Compare your salary to any teacher's

"I wrote about how standardized tests are hurting and not helping schools and kids," said Mia, who looks and acts older than her 14 years. "I just couldn't participate in something that I'm completely opposed to."

Mia isn't boycotting just the practice tests. The straight-A student said she'll refuse to take the state- and federally-mandated tests Texas teachers begin administrating next week.

Mia has figured out that state testing isn't about her needs; it's about system needs. Because professional educators let millions of students graduate with 8th grade knowledge and skills--or worse--now they have to be watched. The cheapest way to watch them is to make their students take tests. What students need is schools for The 21st Century Student, where mastery must be demonstrated on each lesson before moving on. Statewide accountability tests are completely unnecessary in such schools, though annual testing of a random sample of students could be useful.

The decision isn't a popular one. When Mia refused to take the practice test, two school guidance counselors came to the classroom to try to change her mind.

Because she doesn't think like the herd, she must need counseling. See Students' Right To Refuse Counseling.

"They warned me that it would be a black mark on my record and that I should choose my battles wisely," Mia said.

A black mark on her academic record, maybe, but a gold star on her integrity and character record. Which is more important?

Mia is the latest in a growing number of students nationwide who are showing their opposition to high-stakes testing by putting down their pencils.

These young people say the "drill and kill" mentality of test preparation is destroying their thirst for knowledge and creating a generation of students who are missing crucial lessons in critical thinking, creativity and discovery.

Nothing about mandated testing requires a "drill and kill" approach. That's the choice of the professional educators.

Frustration also grips teachers, but at least in Texas, it's students who are making their voices heard.

A fifth-grader in Edinburgh also is refusing to take the test this year. And two years ago, Kimberly Marciniak, then a freshman at the North East School of Arts at Lee High School, received national attention for her decision to boycott. Students in Massachusetts and New York also have participated in organized boycotts.

Kimberly, now 17 and studying in New Zealand, said she has no regrets.

"I am definitely not an attention seeker and I was kind of unprepared for the attention it received," Kimberly said. "It really was a bit overwhelming, but I accomplished my goal of creating awareness and attention."

* * *

In Texas, third- and fifth-graders must pass the test to be promoted to the next grade, and high school students must pass all four sections of the test — English, math, social studies and science — to earn a diploma, regardless of what their report card says.

Kimberly said she won't take the test when she returns to the state next year even though it could cost her a diploma.

* * *

Test preparation dominates classes, Mia says, squeezing out time for meaningful discussion or creative projects.

"These tests don't measure what kids really need to know, they measure what's easy to measure," she said. "We should be learning concepts and skills, not just memorizing. It's sad for kids and it's sad for teachers too.

Mia's mother, Jennifer Radlet, said she supports her daughter.

"She has educated us on the whole issue for years now. I admire her for following through with this," Radlet said.

* * *

A MacArthur High teacher said Mia is showing courage by standing up for what she believes.

"We are constantly being told that character education is an important component of teaching a child," said the teacher, who asked not to be identified. "Clearly this child has learned her values. She's developing her character — a strong, honest character — and she's following through with it.

"Mia threatens people because Mia actually is evaluating what she believes in and is applying an intelligent response to an irrational situation."

That's it! That's what schools FEAR--a rational analysis of the irrationality within. That's why schools never ask students to analyze their own education environments. They prefer having students analyze things like corporations and tell them what they should be doing. See Students Teach Mega-bank To Keep Its Promises.

And you know what students who use their rationality to analyze their school environments need most? Counseling. That's the opinion of professionals. In 21st Century Schools a lot of this nonsense would vanish.

Mia doesn't plan to take the TAKS test ever. Like Kimberly, she doesn't intend to participate even though it means her diploma is on the line. Both girls have stellar academic records and hope colleges see beyond one test.

"If my high school diploma means I passed one test in the 11th grade, then that's pretty meaningless," Mia said.