 |
 |
H.R.1940 (Reference ) www.thomas.gov http://www.thomas.gov/
Title: To amend section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify those classes of individuals born in the United States who are nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.
Sponsor: Rep Deal, Nathan (92)
Latest Major Action: 5/4/2007 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law.
Birthright Citizenship Act of 2007 (Introduced in House)
HR 1940 IH
110th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 1940
To amend section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify those classes of individuals born in the United States who are nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
April 19, 2007
Mr. DEAL of Georgia (for himself, Mr. BILBRAY, and Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
A BILL
To amend section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify those classes of individuals born in the United States who are nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Birthright Citizenship Act of 2007'.
SEC. 2. CITIZENSHIP AT BIRTH FOR CERTAIN PERSONS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES.
(a) In General- Section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1401) is amended--
(1) by inserting `(a) IN GENERAL- ' before `The following';
(2) by redesignating paragraphs (a) through (h) as paragraphs (1) through (8); and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
`(b) Definition- Acknowledging the right of birthright citizenship established by
section 1 of the 14th amendment to the Constitution, a person born in the United States shall be considered `subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States for purposes of subsection (a)(1) if the person is born in the United States of parents, one of whom is--
`(1) a citizen or national of the United States;
`(2) an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States whose residence is in the United States; or
`(3) an alien performing active service in the armed forces (as defined in section 101 of title 10, United States Code).'.
(b) Applicability- The amendment made by subsection (a)(3) shall not be construed to affect the citizenship or nationality status of any person born before the date of the enactment of this Act.
Sponsor: Rep Deal, Nathan [GA-9] (introduced 4/19/2007)
(92)Cosponsors <file:///cgi-bin/bdquery/z%3Fd110:HR01940:@@@P>
Title: To amend section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify those classes of individuals born in the United States who are nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.
Sponsor: Rep Deal, Nathan (92)
Latest Major Action: 5/4/2007 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law.
Birthright Citizenship Act of 2007 (Introduced in House)
HR 1940 IH
110th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 1940
To amend section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify those classes of individuals born in the United States who are nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
April 19, 2007
Mr. DEAL of Georgia (for himself, Mr. BILBRAY, and Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
A BILL
To amend section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify those classes of individuals born in the United States who are nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Birthright Citizenship Act of 2007'.
SEC. 2. CITIZENSHIP AT BIRTH FOR CERTAIN PERSONS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES.
(a) In General- Section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1401) is amended--
(1) by inserting `(a) IN GENERAL- ' before `The following';
(2) by redesignating paragraphs (a) through (h) as paragraphs (1) through (8); and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
`(b) Definition- Acknowledging the right of birthright citizenship established by
section 1 of the 14th amendment to the Constitution, a person born in the United States shall be considered `subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States for purposes of subsection (a)(1) if the person is born in the United States of parents, one of whom is--
`(1) a citizen or national of the United States;
`(2) an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States whose residence is in the United States; or
`(3) an alien performing active service in the armed forces (as defined in section 101 of title 10, United States Code).'.
(b) Applicability- The amendment made by subsection (a)(3) shall not be construed to affect the citizenship or nationality status of any person born before the date of the enactment of this Act.
Sponsor: Rep Deal, Nathan [GA-9] (introduced 4/19/2007)
(92)Cosponsors <file:///cgi-bin/bdquery/z%3Fd110:HR01940:@@@P>
The Lone Star Report, Nov. 3, 2007, Volume 12, Issue 13
http://www.lonestarreport.org/login.asp
Excerpt from this article:
“Any history standards document that substitutes pillars such as the U.S. Constitution and The Magna Carta for air-headed multiculturalism diversity mush should be deposited in the nearest trash bin,” Leo said. “The draft is so awful that I call upon the commissioner to start completely over or face clear opposition from this member when the draft reaches the State Board of Education.”
College readiness standards: more multiculturalism, fewer facts
by William Lutz
Texas high school students will be learning a lot about multiculturalism and political correctness, if new teams of college and high school faculty created by the Legislature’s 2006 school reform bill get their way.
The Higher Education Coordinating Board released for public comment Oct. 25 draft college readiness standards to be added to the state’s high school curriculum. The document is posted on the coordinating board’s website and includes standards in English, social studies, science, and mathematics. The public can comment online until Dec. 10 by going to http://www.thecb.state.tx.us.
The social studies standards are likely to prove the most controversial. These include a whole section (out of five) dedicated to “Diverse Human Perspectives and Experiences.” Meanwhile, the standards contain almost nothing about economics and very little about understanding the basics about American culture, values, and civilization.
The document explicitly states that the new standards do not emphasize learning facts. “The Vertical Teams (VTs) chose deliberately not to identify lists of facts that students must master to be ready for college,” the document states. “This should not be interpreted to mean that students should not be mastering a range of specific information about social systems and phenomena. Instead, the standards assume that students will utilize their understanding of events, social systems, and human behavior to develop greater insight into how the various parts fit together into a more unified whole and into how seemingly contradictory explanations or points of view can be analyzed for greater understanding instead of simply taking sides.”
Accordingly, the Declaration of Independence is mentioned only once in the proposed standards. Students are told they need to “Analyze the Declaration of Independence from the perspective of men and women, and people of Native American, European, and African descent.”
While the standards are vague about what college-bound students need to know about history, they are anything but vague when diversity issues are involved. Students are not expected to understand the development of English common law and its impact on the United States or, for example, the causes of the American revolution, but they are directed to “Identify the different racial and ethnic classifications used by the U.S. Census Bureau” and “Describe and list several examples of Latino contributions to U.S. popular culture since 1980” and “Assess how concepts of ethnicity have been used to allow one group to dominate another.”
Ronald Reagan gets no mention, but students are expected to “Listen to Martin Luther King, Jr’s ‘I Have a Dream’ speech and summarize five main points.”
Though not expected to know anything about supply and demand, supply-side economics, or Adam Smith, students are to “Write an analytical essay that predicts how climate change might affect the economy of the United States.”
It is important to note that the college readiness standards are meant to be in addition to the regular curriculum, and the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills does contain some specific facts in history that students are expected to know.
The existing high school curriculum, however, does not cover early American history, which is in the eighth grade curriculum. Early American history is sometimes covered in high school, the Legislature in 1999 having directed its inclusion in the state’s testing program.
This whole process started in 2006, when lawmakers were concerned that a large number of students had to take remedial courses in college.
The school finance bill adopted that year – HB 1 – contained a provision directing the Commissioner of Education and the Commissioner of Higher Education to appoint vertical teams – consisting of college and public school faculty members. The teams would review the curriculum and propose college readiness standards to be added to it. (The members of the vertical teams that produced the social studies standards were appointed by current Commissioner of Higher Education Raymond Paredes and former Commissioner of Education Shirley Neeley. Neeley has since been replaced as Commissioner of Education by Robert Scott.)
Several members of the State Board of Education expressed concerns that the provision might inadvertently take power away from the elected board to write the curriculum.(see LSR, May 5, 2006).
In response to these concerns, the bill was amended to state explicitly that it is not intended to remove any power from the elected board.
Even that did not completely satisfy board member Terri Leo (R-Spring) and delegates to the 2006 Republican State Convention, which added language to the platform — not acted on by the Legislature — calling for the repeal of the vertical teams.
“This is one ‘I told you so’ that I wish had not come true,” said Leo. “I received enormous criticism from Republican leadership in the Legislature when I tried to get them to do away with the vertical teams provisions of HB1. It should be no surprise to them that the draft is clearly in direct opposition to the Republican platform. The legislation passed basically mandates that the high school history standards writing team would consist in part of nutty professors in liberal academia with personal agendas. This is another case why all curriculum authority should be returned to the elected, and therefore accountable, State Board of Education.”
The vertical teams create draft college readiness standards. These standards are then submitted to the Higher Education Coordinating Board and the Commissioner of Education for approval. If both approve, the standards are then forwarded to the State Board of Education, which makes the final decision on how to amend the state’s curriculum.
In the 2006 election, the state board moved significantly to the right. Seven of the board’s 15 members are now part of the socially conservative bloc often associated with David Bradley (R-Beaumont). Several others hold conservative views, even if they don’t always vote with the bloc. Unlike 1997 – the last time the curriculum was up for revision – this board is highly unlikely to approve anything politically correct.
“Any history standards document that substitutes pillars such as the U.S. Constitution and The Magna Carta for air-headed multiculturalism diversity mush should be deposited in the nearest trash bin,” Leo said. “The draft is so awful that I call upon the commissioner to start completely over or face clear opposition from this member when the draft reaches the State Board of Education.”
One interesting question on the social studies standards is what will prove more controversial – what’s in the standards or what’s not. The absence of significant coverage of economics, The Federalist, the Founding Fathers, Abraham Lincoln, or the Magna Carta will certainly attract opposition.
Certainly much of what’s in will provoke opposition from conservatives — homosexuality, for example.
Students are directed to “Analyze how various Supreme Court decisions or federal government initiatives have shaped individual or group identities over time (e.g., Plessy v. Ferguson, Brown v. Board of Education, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Lawrence v. Texas).” The U.S. Supreme Court threw out the Texas ban on homosexual sodomy in Lawrence v. Texas. Students are also directed to “Identify examples of how gender is socially constructed.”
Students are also invited to talk about illegal immigration in several places in the draft standards. One such standard invites students to “Provide a historical perspective of xenophobia and its impact on immigration policies in the United States.”
A few of the standards could be classified as basic skills, such as one that encourages students to write papers using standard citation formats to document sources or several standards that discuss drawing and reading maps. Most standards, nevertheless, focus on things political, which means the political arena is likely where these standards will be debated.
The social studies standards are likely to attract the most attention, but different vertical teams also produced college readiness standards in English, science, and mathematics.
The mathematics standards have drawn fire from Dr. Wayne Bishop, a mathematics professor at the California State University, Los Angeles, and one of the leaders of Mathematically Correct, a grass-roots organization that fights for traditional mathematics standards, rather than “fuzzy” standards that prioritize thinking about math over the ability to do math.
“The content requirements are far from clear in the proposed document, and those that are present are surrounded by education industry fluff,” Bishop said in written comments.
In addition to the legislature’s vertical teams, Gov. Rick Perry has appointed the Commission for a College Ready Texas, which will look at the curriculum and college readinesss standards and assist the vertical teams in developing college readiness standards. The commission, meeting in Austin Nov. 7, will unveil its draft report, which is not the same as the vertical teams report. O
© 2003, The Lone Star Foundation
10711 Burnet Road, Suite 333 • Austin, TX 78758 • (888) 472-6051
Donna Garner
wgarner1@hot.rr.com mailto:wgarner1@hot.rr.com
http://www.lonestarreport.org/login.asp
Excerpt from this article:
“Any history standards document that substitutes pillars such as the U.S. Constitution and The Magna Carta for air-headed multiculturalism diversity mush should be deposited in the nearest trash bin,” Leo said. “The draft is so awful that I call upon the commissioner to start completely over or face clear opposition from this member when the draft reaches the State Board of Education.”
College readiness standards: more multiculturalism, fewer facts
by William Lutz
Texas high school students will be learning a lot about multiculturalism and political correctness, if new teams of college and high school faculty created by the Legislature’s 2006 school reform bill get their way.
The Higher Education Coordinating Board released for public comment Oct. 25 draft college readiness standards to be added to the state’s high school curriculum. The document is posted on the coordinating board’s website and includes standards in English, social studies, science, and mathematics. The public can comment online until Dec. 10 by going to http://www.thecb.state.tx.us.
The social studies standards are likely to prove the most controversial. These include a whole section (out of five) dedicated to “Diverse Human Perspectives and Experiences.” Meanwhile, the standards contain almost nothing about economics and very little about understanding the basics about American culture, values, and civilization.
The document explicitly states that the new standards do not emphasize learning facts. “The Vertical Teams (VTs) chose deliberately not to identify lists of facts that students must master to be ready for college,” the document states. “This should not be interpreted to mean that students should not be mastering a range of specific information about social systems and phenomena. Instead, the standards assume that students will utilize their understanding of events, social systems, and human behavior to develop greater insight into how the various parts fit together into a more unified whole and into how seemingly contradictory explanations or points of view can be analyzed for greater understanding instead of simply taking sides.”
Accordingly, the Declaration of Independence is mentioned only once in the proposed standards. Students are told they need to “Analyze the Declaration of Independence from the perspective of men and women, and people of Native American, European, and African descent.”
While the standards are vague about what college-bound students need to know about history, they are anything but vague when diversity issues are involved. Students are not expected to understand the development of English common law and its impact on the United States or, for example, the causes of the American revolution, but they are directed to “Identify the different racial and ethnic classifications used by the U.S. Census Bureau” and “Describe and list several examples of Latino contributions to U.S. popular culture since 1980” and “Assess how concepts of ethnicity have been used to allow one group to dominate another.”
Ronald Reagan gets no mention, but students are expected to “Listen to Martin Luther King, Jr’s ‘I Have a Dream’ speech and summarize five main points.”
Though not expected to know anything about supply and demand, supply-side economics, or Adam Smith, students are to “Write an analytical essay that predicts how climate change might affect the economy of the United States.”
It is important to note that the college readiness standards are meant to be in addition to the regular curriculum, and the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills does contain some specific facts in history that students are expected to know.
The existing high school curriculum, however, does not cover early American history, which is in the eighth grade curriculum. Early American history is sometimes covered in high school, the Legislature in 1999 having directed its inclusion in the state’s testing program.
This whole process started in 2006, when lawmakers were concerned that a large number of students had to take remedial courses in college.
The school finance bill adopted that year – HB 1 – contained a provision directing the Commissioner of Education and the Commissioner of Higher Education to appoint vertical teams – consisting of college and public school faculty members. The teams would review the curriculum and propose college readiness standards to be added to it. (The members of the vertical teams that produced the social studies standards were appointed by current Commissioner of Higher Education Raymond Paredes and former Commissioner of Education Shirley Neeley. Neeley has since been replaced as Commissioner of Education by Robert Scott.)
Several members of the State Board of Education expressed concerns that the provision might inadvertently take power away from the elected board to write the curriculum.(see LSR, May 5, 2006).
In response to these concerns, the bill was amended to state explicitly that it is not intended to remove any power from the elected board.
Even that did not completely satisfy board member Terri Leo (R-Spring) and delegates to the 2006 Republican State Convention, which added language to the platform — not acted on by the Legislature — calling for the repeal of the vertical teams.
“This is one ‘I told you so’ that I wish had not come true,” said Leo. “I received enormous criticism from Republican leadership in the Legislature when I tried to get them to do away with the vertical teams provisions of HB1. It should be no surprise to them that the draft is clearly in direct opposition to the Republican platform. The legislation passed basically mandates that the high school history standards writing team would consist in part of nutty professors in liberal academia with personal agendas. This is another case why all curriculum authority should be returned to the elected, and therefore accountable, State Board of Education.”
The vertical teams create draft college readiness standards. These standards are then submitted to the Higher Education Coordinating Board and the Commissioner of Education for approval. If both approve, the standards are then forwarded to the State Board of Education, which makes the final decision on how to amend the state’s curriculum.
In the 2006 election, the state board moved significantly to the right. Seven of the board’s 15 members are now part of the socially conservative bloc often associated with David Bradley (R-Beaumont). Several others hold conservative views, even if they don’t always vote with the bloc. Unlike 1997 – the last time the curriculum was up for revision – this board is highly unlikely to approve anything politically correct.
“Any history standards document that substitutes pillars such as the U.S. Constitution and The Magna Carta for air-headed multiculturalism diversity mush should be deposited in the nearest trash bin,” Leo said. “The draft is so awful that I call upon the commissioner to start completely over or face clear opposition from this member when the draft reaches the State Board of Education.”
One interesting question on the social studies standards is what will prove more controversial – what’s in the standards or what’s not. The absence of significant coverage of economics, The Federalist, the Founding Fathers, Abraham Lincoln, or the Magna Carta will certainly attract opposition.
Certainly much of what’s in will provoke opposition from conservatives — homosexuality, for example.
Students are directed to “Analyze how various Supreme Court decisions or federal government initiatives have shaped individual or group identities over time (e.g., Plessy v. Ferguson, Brown v. Board of Education, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Lawrence v. Texas).” The U.S. Supreme Court threw out the Texas ban on homosexual sodomy in Lawrence v. Texas. Students are also directed to “Identify examples of how gender is socially constructed.”
Students are also invited to talk about illegal immigration in several places in the draft standards. One such standard invites students to “Provide a historical perspective of xenophobia and its impact on immigration policies in the United States.”
A few of the standards could be classified as basic skills, such as one that encourages students to write papers using standard citation formats to document sources or several standards that discuss drawing and reading maps. Most standards, nevertheless, focus on things political, which means the political arena is likely where these standards will be debated.
The social studies standards are likely to attract the most attention, but different vertical teams also produced college readiness standards in English, science, and mathematics.
The mathematics standards have drawn fire from Dr. Wayne Bishop, a mathematics professor at the California State University, Los Angeles, and one of the leaders of Mathematically Correct, a grass-roots organization that fights for traditional mathematics standards, rather than “fuzzy” standards that prioritize thinking about math over the ability to do math.
“The content requirements are far from clear in the proposed document, and those that are present are surrounded by education industry fluff,” Bishop said in written comments.
In addition to the legislature’s vertical teams, Gov. Rick Perry has appointed the Commission for a College Ready Texas, which will look at the curriculum and college readinesss standards and assist the vertical teams in developing college readiness standards. The commission, meeting in Austin Nov. 7, will unveil its draft report, which is not the same as the vertical teams report. O
© 2003, The Lone Star Foundation
10711 Burnet Road, Suite 333 • Austin, TX 78758 • (888) 472-6051
Donna Garner
wgarner1@hot.rr.com mailto:wgarner1@hot.rr.com
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/education/stories/DN-irvinglaptops_02met.ART.West.Edition1.428a2b1.html
[Even though I am the lead writer/consultant for MyStudyHall.com which is an online tutorial to teach students English / Language Arts / Reading (ELAR) skills, I still believe that nothing will ever replace a live teacher working directly with a live student.
The problem with most software/online offerings is that there is no real depth of content; students waste their time playing in a game-like environment where entertainment is the goal rather than acquisition of deep knowledge.
Student laptops present a constant discipline problem for teachers, distract students from serious learning, and cost taxpayers huge amounts of money for initial purchase, tech support, updates, software, and maintenance.
Irving ISD is finding the expenses almost overwhelming and wants the taxpayers to fork over more money even though the "...Texas Technology Immersion Project...has noted no significant impact on TAKS reading or math scores. Researchers also found no impact on self-directed or independent learning by students."
Because I taught English for over 33 years, I know what it is that students need to learn and practice. Our online tutorial, MyStudyHall.com, contains deep knowledge; but our site is not a course nor is its major emphasis to entertain. Teachers are encouraged to use our site to supplement instruction -- not to replace live teacher-to-student interaction.
Part of our site contains "deep-and-wide" grammar modules which require real study; but because the concepts are sensibly connected and interestingly presented, students actually learn grammar.
The other part of our site contains those ELAR units upon which students need extra practice (e.g., drawing conclusions, inferences, types of formal and informal writing, authors' point of view, homophones, idioms, synonyms/antonyms, paraphrasing, summarizing, outlining, descriptive/narrative/persuasive/expository writing, fact/opinion, etc.).
MyStudyHall.com can be utilized in a school computer lab; the site can be utilized at home or any place where there is Internet connectivity. We encourage teachers to use the site to help their students to learn academic knowledge; but the application of that knowledge can only be motivated, monitored, and assessed by real teachers working directly with real students.
One of the things about which I am the most pleased is the cost of our site -- $35 per student/per year for everything on the site 24/7. The president and owner of MyStudyHall.com, Tim Thomasson, charges nothing for staff development, maintenance, updates, and set-up. In other words, Tim is not trying to suck the taxpayers dry and get rich at their expense! He is a rare find.
Donna Garner
Laptop funding sought
Irving ISD: Bonds would update students' computers
12:00 AM CDT on Friday, November 2, 2007
By KATHERINE LEAL UNMUTH / The Dallas Morning News
kunmuth@dallasnews.com
Irving school officials want to continue providing a laptop to every high school student with funding in a Nov. 6 bond proposition.
An estimated $50 million of the $250 million in bond propositions on the ballot would finance technology purchases.
Voters first approved the controversial student laptop program in a 2001 bond election.
Included in the technology proposal is about $15.5 million for new laptops and batteries for students. The existing laptops must be replaced because they are growing older.
The technology funds also will pay for laptops for teachers, providing wireless access at campuses and distance learning equipment.
Most of the other bond funds will go toward renovating and expanding older schools. Other projects include building a new middle school and new elementary school.
The new schools were included in the 2001 bond issue but were not built because the district diverted funds to pay for projects including building security enhancements, science labs and a new gymnasium at MacArthur High School.
Irving is one of a handful of school districts in the nation to implement such an ambitious technology program. But the program has not been without controversy or challenges.
Bob Harper, who chaired the school district's needs assessment committee, said his own children benefited from the laptop program.
"Just like any school equipment there is potential for abuse, but for the most part we're continuing to get good use out of the technology," he said.
District officials said the laptops are essential because they help prepare students for working in high-tech careers. The program really helps lower-income students who could not afford to buy computers on their own.
But teachers say it's hard to find meaningful ways to use the laptops in class. And some report students using the machines for instant messaging and Internet surfing during class time. Some teachers have even told students not to open their laptops in class.
School board President Michael Hill said teachers have to adapt to technological change even if it means putting up with some behavior problems.
"Laptops will not replace teachers, but teachers who refuse to use the laptops – those teachers will be replaced," he said.
Each school employs an instructional technology specialist who provides leadership and supports teachers in their attempts to use technology to enhance curriculum, Mr. Hill said.
Former Irving school board President Owen DeWitt once strongly backed the program. Now, he worries that the district did not properly train teachers on how to use the laptops for classroom instruction.
The Academy of Irving ISD has adopted the technology well, but other schools have struggled, Mr. DeWitt said.
"Unless you get teachers to buy into the use of technology it doesn't matter what you put into kids' hands," he said.
University of North Texas education professor Gerald Knezek conducted a study in 2005 and found a large number of students do not bring laptops to school every day because they are heavy and because they break down frequently.
But the study also found the laptops made students excited about learning and helped with research. Students help teach other family members how to use the technology. Students often stay after school so they can use the wireless access available.
Dr. Knezek said laptops in school districts will become more widespread only when they become smaller and less costly.
"Computers change so fast and they still cost a lot of money relative to books," he said. "As valuable as the laptop tool can be – is it sustainable? Can you afford to buy one every three to five years?"
The academic gains remain unclear. Through the Texas Technology Immersion Project, researchers are studying the impacts of laptops on middle school students.
The study so far has noted no significant impact on TAKS reading or math scores. Researchers also found no impact on self-directed or independent learning by students.
[Even though I am the lead writer/consultant for MyStudyHall.com which is an online tutorial to teach students English / Language Arts / Reading (ELAR) skills, I still believe that nothing will ever replace a live teacher working directly with a live student.
The problem with most software/online offerings is that there is no real depth of content; students waste their time playing in a game-like environment where entertainment is the goal rather than acquisition of deep knowledge.
Student laptops present a constant discipline problem for teachers, distract students from serious learning, and cost taxpayers huge amounts of money for initial purchase, tech support, updates, software, and maintenance.
Irving ISD is finding the expenses almost overwhelming and wants the taxpayers to fork over more money even though the "...Texas Technology Immersion Project...has noted no significant impact on TAKS reading or math scores. Researchers also found no impact on self-directed or independent learning by students."
Because I taught English for over 33 years, I know what it is that students need to learn and practice. Our online tutorial, MyStudyHall.com, contains deep knowledge; but our site is not a course nor is its major emphasis to entertain. Teachers are encouraged to use our site to supplement instruction -- not to replace live teacher-to-student interaction.
Part of our site contains "deep-and-wide" grammar modules which require real study; but because the concepts are sensibly connected and interestingly presented, students actually learn grammar.
The other part of our site contains those ELAR units upon which students need extra practice (e.g., drawing conclusions, inferences, types of formal and informal writing, authors' point of view, homophones, idioms, synonyms/antonyms, paraphrasing, summarizing, outlining, descriptive/narrative/persuasive/expository writing, fact/opinion, etc.).
MyStudyHall.com can be utilized in a school computer lab; the site can be utilized at home or any place where there is Internet connectivity. We encourage teachers to use the site to help their students to learn academic knowledge; but the application of that knowledge can only be motivated, monitored, and assessed by real teachers working directly with real students.
One of the things about which I am the most pleased is the cost of our site -- $35 per student/per year for everything on the site 24/7. The president and owner of MyStudyHall.com, Tim Thomasson, charges nothing for staff development, maintenance, updates, and set-up. In other words, Tim is not trying to suck the taxpayers dry and get rich at their expense! He is a rare find.
Donna Garner
Laptop funding sought
Irving ISD: Bonds would update students' computers
12:00 AM CDT on Friday, November 2, 2007
By KATHERINE LEAL UNMUTH / The Dallas Morning News
kunmuth@dallasnews.com
Irving school officials want to continue providing a laptop to every high school student with funding in a Nov. 6 bond proposition.
An estimated $50 million of the $250 million in bond propositions on the ballot would finance technology purchases.
Voters first approved the controversial student laptop program in a 2001 bond election.
Included in the technology proposal is about $15.5 million for new laptops and batteries for students. The existing laptops must be replaced because they are growing older.
The technology funds also will pay for laptops for teachers, providing wireless access at campuses and distance learning equipment.
Most of the other bond funds will go toward renovating and expanding older schools. Other projects include building a new middle school and new elementary school.
The new schools were included in the 2001 bond issue but were not built because the district diverted funds to pay for projects including building security enhancements, science labs and a new gymnasium at MacArthur High School.
Irving is one of a handful of school districts in the nation to implement such an ambitious technology program. But the program has not been without controversy or challenges.
Bob Harper, who chaired the school district's needs assessment committee, said his own children benefited from the laptop program.
"Just like any school equipment there is potential for abuse, but for the most part we're continuing to get good use out of the technology," he said.
District officials said the laptops are essential because they help prepare students for working in high-tech careers. The program really helps lower-income students who could not afford to buy computers on their own.
But teachers say it's hard to find meaningful ways to use the laptops in class. And some report students using the machines for instant messaging and Internet surfing during class time. Some teachers have even told students not to open their laptops in class.
School board President Michael Hill said teachers have to adapt to technological change even if it means putting up with some behavior problems.
"Laptops will not replace teachers, but teachers who refuse to use the laptops – those teachers will be replaced," he said.
Each school employs an instructional technology specialist who provides leadership and supports teachers in their attempts to use technology to enhance curriculum, Mr. Hill said.
Former Irving school board President Owen DeWitt once strongly backed the program. Now, he worries that the district did not properly train teachers on how to use the laptops for classroom instruction.
The Academy of Irving ISD has adopted the technology well, but other schools have struggled, Mr. DeWitt said.
"Unless you get teachers to buy into the use of technology it doesn't matter what you put into kids' hands," he said.
University of North Texas education professor Gerald Knezek conducted a study in 2005 and found a large number of students do not bring laptops to school every day because they are heavy and because they break down frequently.
But the study also found the laptops made students excited about learning and helped with research. Students help teach other family members how to use the technology. Students often stay after school so they can use the wireless access available.
Dr. Knezek said laptops in school districts will become more widespread only when they become smaller and less costly.
"Computers change so fast and they still cost a lot of money relative to books," he said. "As valuable as the laptop tool can be – is it sustainable? Can you afford to buy one every three to five years?"
The academic gains remain unclear. Through the Texas Technology Immersion Project, researchers are studying the impacts of laptops on middle school students.
The study so far has noted no significant impact on TAKS reading or math scores. Researchers also found no impact on self-directed or independent learning by students.
Expert: U.S. Attack on Iran Would Have Terrible Consequences
By: Jeff Burt
Iran may be militarily impotent but a U.S. first strike would throw the Middle East into chaos while leaving Iran’s nuclear program largely intact, an Israeli military expert tells Newsmax.
Martin van Creveld, a professor of military history and strategy at Hebrew University in Jerusalem says that, for all its bombastic rhetoric and saber rattling, there is little Iran can do to protect itself from an attack by the United States or to strike back in retaliation.
Iran has an underfunded defense budget, ill-equipped ground and air forces, and a limited number of unreliable Shihab III missiles that, while technically able to reach Israel, do not pose much of a threat, van Crevald says.
Still, any first strike by the U.S. would be ill-advised, van Crevald warns.
A U.S. air attack using cruise missiles and manned aircraft aimed at knocking out Iran’s large, entrenched nuclear program would succeed only in exacerbating conflict in the Middle East and put U.S. troops in Iraq at risk. “The scenarios are really terrible,” he says. ..more...........................
By: Jeff Burt
Iran may be militarily impotent but a U.S. first strike would throw the Middle East into chaos while leaving Iran’s nuclear program largely intact, an Israeli military expert tells Newsmax.
Martin van Creveld, a professor of military history and strategy at Hebrew University in Jerusalem says that, for all its bombastic rhetoric and saber rattling, there is little Iran can do to protect itself from an attack by the United States or to strike back in retaliation.
Iran has an underfunded defense budget, ill-equipped ground and air forces, and a limited number of unreliable Shihab III missiles that, while technically able to reach Israel, do not pose much of a threat, van Crevald says.
Still, any first strike by the U.S. would be ill-advised, van Crevald warns.
A U.S. air attack using cruise missiles and manned aircraft aimed at knocking out Iran’s large, entrenched nuclear program would succeed only in exacerbating conflict in the Middle East and put U.S. troops in Iraq at risk. “The scenarios are really terrible,” he says. ..more...........................
BUT! Look what some of Europe has to say about Ron Paul. And I read today where Ron Paul says he would prefer Prayers as opposed to body guards since the body guards would be paid for by TAX PAYERS and answer to Washington crooks.
AND! I also saw an interview where a writer, a conservative, said America needs a Ron Paul type. His reasoning was that Libertarian minded people are of the mind set of less government and to do what the majority want as opposed to what the candidates deems best in his own heart!
[If you wonder why the writing and speaking skills of the young people in our country are not improving, this report holds the answer. If you wonder what "teaching to the test" really means and why that is a bad thing, please read this report.
Under NCLB, every state had to come up with an accountability system. Where did many states turn for a model? They turned to Texas because our state had a long-standing testing model.
To my knowledge, this is the first time that the inner workings of the assessment division in our state have ever been revealed; and people in Texas as well as in other states need to read this report.
Much secrecy has surrounded exactly how the all-important state-mandated tests in Texas (TAKS) are scored, and English teachers who teach their students each day have long wondered why some students pass and others do not.
I have not recommended getting rid of the accountability system or of state testing, but major changes do need to be made because the tests drive the daily classroom instruction.
In the first few pages, I have laid out each "puzzle" piece; but in the latter pages, I have shown how the puzzle pieces fit together and create a very troubling picture.
Please read this report yourself and then send it to every school administrator, teacher, policymaker, legislator, and school board member you know. Changes can and must be made in the testing system if we are ever to see the daily instruction in our public schools improve. The future of our nation hinges on how well prepared this generation is to face the challenges ahead. -- Donna Garner] (Click on link below to read 13 page PDF!) http://www.mycountryiwantitback.org/Student_Test_DGarner.pdf
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under NCLB, every state had to come up with an accountability system. Where did many states turn for a model? They turned to Texas because our state had a long-standing testing model.
To my knowledge, this is the first time that the inner workings of the assessment division in our state have ever been revealed; and people in Texas as well as in other states need to read this report.
Much secrecy has surrounded exactly how the all-important state-mandated tests in Texas (TAKS) are scored, and English teachers who teach their students each day have long wondered why some students pass and others do not.
I have not recommended getting rid of the accountability system or of state testing, but major changes do need to be made because the tests drive the daily classroom instruction.
In the first few pages, I have laid out each "puzzle" piece; but in the latter pages, I have shown how the puzzle pieces fit together and create a very troubling picture.
Please read this report yourself and then send it to every school administrator, teacher, policymaker, legislator, and school board member you know. Changes can and must be made in the testing system if we are ever to see the daily instruction in our public schools improve. The future of our nation hinges on how well prepared this generation is to face the challenges ahead. -- Donna Garner] (Click on link below to read 13 page PDF!) http://www.mycountryiwantitback.org/Student_Test_DGarner.pdf
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Educator Donna Garner Speaks!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Big Shots Jump at Bilderberg’s Oil Orders
By James P. Tucker Jr.
Powerful world leaders ran like dogs to the whistle to champion Bilderberg’s decree (AFP June 23, 2008) to put a lid on surging oil prices. Meanwhile, Bilderberg’s world government project suffered another severe setback when Irish voters killed the latest version of the European Constitution.
Just three days after Bilderberg concluded its annual secret meeting, on June 11, a top energy bureaucrat said average gasoline prices would likely peak at $4.35 a gallon, contradicting previous predictions that the costs would soon exceed $5 a gallon Guy Caruso, head of the federal Energy Information Administration, made this prediction at a congressional hearing on energy prices and the future of oil. Gasoline prices are likely to remain close to or at $4 a gallon through 2009, he said.
UN Secretary-General Ban Kimoon said on June 15 that the king of Saudi Arabia had promised to lower oil prices. Ban spoke with reporters after meeting with King Abdullah in the port city of Jidda during a visit to the world’s largest oil producer.
“The king believes that the current oil prices are abnormally high, and he is ready to restore prices to their appropriate levels,” the official Saudi News
Agency quoted Ban. The New York Times reported on June 14—six days after receiving its marching orders at Bilderberg—that unnamed analysts and oil traders briefed by Saudi officials said a production increase of about 500,000 barrels per day is planned
.
“Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest oil producer, is concerned that sustained high oil prices eventually will slacken the world’s appetite for oil, affecting the kingdom in the long run,” Associated Press reported.
This precisely reflects what Bilderberg said in Chantilly. A Bilderberg speaker from Europe had said: “Are we reaching the point of diminishing returns? People who switch from gas hogs to fuel-efficient, small cars are not going to do an instant about-face. And those who convert to public transportation, many of them, are going to stick with the train or bus. We have seen many middle-class families, who grudgingly accepted $3 a gallon, choose to stay home instead of driving to the beaches or mountains. They’re presently calling them ‘staycations.’ We all take the long view of history. Will forcing gasoline prices even higher increase profits in the long term? Ford has already shut down production of big cars and has many SUV-types it can’t give away. Ford will not retool overnight.”
Finance ministers from the Group of Eight weighed in at their meeting in Japan, issuing a joint statement calling for lower oil prices. U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, Jr., who had just left the Bilderberg session, called for oil-producing countries to allow more investment in oil exploration and production.
In another blow to Bilderberg’s global ambitions, Irish voters rejected a treaty to make the European Union a superstate by a decisive 53.4 percent to 46.6 percent. A “European Constitution” had been rejected in referendums in France and the Netherlands in 2005. To take effect, all European Union states must approve.
After the “constitution” was rejected, European leaders came up with a shorter version providing for the same envisioned superstate but called it a “treaty.” As a “treaty,” France and the Netherlands did not have to submit
it for a vote. But Ireland’s constitution required a referendum and Irish voters chose national sovereignty over a European superstate.
“It’s a very sad day for the country and for Europe,” said Justice Minister Brian Lenihan.
“It is a great day for Irish democracy,” said Declan Ganley, a businessman who led the anti-treaty forces.” This is democracy in action . . . and Europe needs to listen to the voice of the people.”
Responding to those seeking a way around the Irish rejection, British Foreign Secretary David Milliband said: “The rules are absolutely clear. If all 27 countries do not pass the Lisbon Treaty it cannot pass into law.”
Establishing a European Union superstate is a crucial plank in Bilderberg’s program for a world government. Similar efforts to establish an “American Union” in the Western Hemisphere have likewise bogged down. Bilderberg is on the ropes.
AFP correspondent James P. Tucker Jr. has spent many years as a member of the “elite” media in Washington. Since 1975 he has won widespread recognition, here and abroad, for his pursuit of on-the-scene stories reporting the intrigues of global power blocs such as the Bilderberg Group. Tucker is the author of Bilderberg Diary: One Man’s 25-Year Battle to Shine the Light on the World Shadow Government. Bound in an attractive full-color softcover and containing 272 pages—loaded with photos—the book recounts Tucker’s experiences over the last quarter century at Bilderberg meetings. $25 from AFP. No charge for S&H in U.S.
(Issue # 26, June 30, 2008)
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute - as long as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
EMAIL A FRIEND ABOUT THIS PAGE
Big Shots Jump at Bilderberg’s Oil Orders
By James P. Tucker Jr.
Powerful world leaders ran like dogs to the whistle to champion Bilderberg’s decree (AFP June 23, 2008) to put a lid on surging oil prices. Meanwhile, Bilderberg’s world government project suffered another severe setback when Irish voters killed the latest version of the European Constitution.
Just three days after Bilderberg concluded its annual secret meeting, on June 11, a top energy bureaucrat said average gasoline prices would likely peak at $4.35 a gallon, contradicting previous predictions that the costs would soon exceed $5 a gallon Guy Caruso, head of the federal Energy Information Administration, made this prediction at a congressional hearing on energy prices and the future of oil. Gasoline prices are likely to remain close to or at $4 a gallon through 2009, he said.
UN Secretary-General Ban Kimoon said on June 15 that the king of Saudi Arabia had promised to lower oil prices. Ban spoke with reporters after meeting with King Abdullah in the port city of Jidda during a visit to the world’s largest oil producer.
“The king believes that the current oil prices are abnormally high, and he is ready to restore prices to their appropriate levels,” the official Saudi News
Agency quoted Ban. The New York Times reported on June 14—six days after receiving its marching orders at Bilderberg—that unnamed analysts and oil traders briefed by Saudi officials said a production increase of about 500,000 barrels per day is planned
.
“Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest oil producer, is concerned that sustained high oil prices eventually will slacken the world’s appetite for oil, affecting the kingdom in the long run,” Associated Press reported.
This precisely reflects what Bilderberg said in Chantilly. A Bilderberg speaker from Europe had said: “Are we reaching the point of diminishing returns? People who switch from gas hogs to fuel-efficient, small cars are not going to do an instant about-face. And those who convert to public transportation, many of them, are going to stick with the train or bus. We have seen many middle-class families, who grudgingly accepted $3 a gallon, choose to stay home instead of driving to the beaches or mountains. They’re presently calling them ‘staycations.’ We all take the long view of history. Will forcing gasoline prices even higher increase profits in the long term? Ford has already shut down production of big cars and has many SUV-types it can’t give away. Ford will not retool overnight.”
Finance ministers from the Group of Eight weighed in at their meeting in Japan, issuing a joint statement calling for lower oil prices. U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, Jr., who had just left the Bilderberg session, called for oil-producing countries to allow more investment in oil exploration and production.
In another blow to Bilderberg’s global ambitions, Irish voters rejected a treaty to make the European Union a superstate by a decisive 53.4 percent to 46.6 percent. A “European Constitution” had been rejected in referendums in France and the Netherlands in 2005. To take effect, all European Union states must approve.
After the “constitution” was rejected, European leaders came up with a shorter version providing for the same envisioned superstate but called it a “treaty.” As a “treaty,” France and the Netherlands did not have to submit
it for a vote. But Ireland’s constitution required a referendum and Irish voters chose national sovereignty over a European superstate.
“It’s a very sad day for the country and for Europe,” said Justice Minister Brian Lenihan.
“It is a great day for Irish democracy,” said Declan Ganley, a businessman who led the anti-treaty forces.” This is democracy in action . . . and Europe needs to listen to the voice of the people.”
Responding to those seeking a way around the Irish rejection, British Foreign Secretary David Milliband said: “The rules are absolutely clear. If all 27 countries do not pass the Lisbon Treaty it cannot pass into law.”
Establishing a European Union superstate is a crucial plank in Bilderberg’s program for a world government. Similar efforts to establish an “American Union” in the Western Hemisphere have likewise bogged down. Bilderberg is on the ropes.
AFP correspondent James P. Tucker Jr. has spent many years as a member of the “elite” media in Washington. Since 1975 he has won widespread recognition, here and abroad, for his pursuit of on-the-scene stories reporting the intrigues of global power blocs such as the Bilderberg Group. Tucker is the author of Bilderberg Diary: One Man’s 25-Year Battle to Shine the Light on the World Shadow Government. Bound in an attractive full-color softcover and containing 272 pages—loaded with photos—the book recounts Tucker’s experiences over the last quarter century at Bilderberg meetings. $25 from AFP. No charge for S&H in U.S.
(Issue # 26, June 30, 2008)
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute - as long as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
EMAIL A FRIEND ABOUT THIS PAGE
Read about:
Big Shots Jump at Bilderberg’s Oil Orders and oil prices at bottom of this page.
Big Shots Jump at Bilderberg’s Oil Orders and oil prices at bottom of this page.