Conjuring Orwellian images, Josephs worries the identification devices - the size of a grain of rice - could lead to a real-life Big Brother nightmare.
"I'm doing, I think, what the legislature does too little of," she said. "This is a problem on the horizon, and I want to address it before it becomes a societal disgrace."
Though the technology hasn't debuted in Pennsylvania, VeriChip, a company in Florida, received federal Food and Drug Administration clearance in 2004 to market the implanted microchips, which were tested on 200 Alzheimer's patients.
Injected into the triceps, the chips have unique 16-digit codes and GPS capabilities that allow nursing homes to find wandering patients.
"I think it's really horrible that we want to chip them like barcoded packages of meat," said Kim Sultzbaugh, a research specialist who helped Josephs write the bill.
California, North Dakota, and Wisconsin have enacted laws similar to the ban Josephs is proposing.
The technology can also be used for security, as in a widely reported case in Mexico. There, the implants were required for some government employees to enter restricted buildings.
A bar in Scotland even offers to implant patrons with chips that allow them to purchase pints without a credit card, according to news accounts.
Despite the technology's potential usefulness, Sultzbaugh said, some Christian groups liken the identification devices to the "mark of the beast," a Satanic mark described in the Book of Revelation and represented by the number 666.
Josephs said electronic ankle bracelets could keep track of someone in a less-invasive manner.
But for some "murderers, killers, and rapists," ankle bracelets won't do the trick, said State Rep. Dan Moul (R., Adams).
Moul amended Josephs' bill to allow chips to be implanted by court order. The bill also would allow the chips to be implanted in Guantanamo Bay detainees who end up in Pennsylvania.
"Terrorists could take that ankle bracelet off with a saw and strap it to a dog and let them run around," Moul said. "We need to know if these people are returning to the war to fight against America."
Josephs called Moul's changes "inflammatory" and "sensational" and hopes the Senate throws them out when it considers the measure.
Erik Arneson, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi (R., Delaware), said the bill was not scheduled for immediate action.
Related posts:
]]>I have always kicked butt in school. Without even trying. This was not weird in my world. Everyone I hung out with were School Butt Kickers as well. We were like a biker gang. With pocket protectors.
I kicked butt because on the first day of kindergarten someone told me that if I could do well here, if I could slay this dragon we call “formal education”, my reward would be success and happiness for all the days of my life. Someone told me that doing well in school meant making good grades. “Do what the teacher says, live up to their standards, DON’T COLOR OUTSIDE THE LINES,” They said.
I listened. I made A’s. I pleased the teachers. I followed directions. I stood where they told me to stand and wrote what they told me to write. I played the game with the best of them.
I kicked butt. Just like someone told me to do.
The problem is that someone kind of lied. Because happiness and success don’t come from learning the rules and playing by them. Untold riches of the heart come when you learn to follow your passion, not when you learn to follow directions. What I want from life requires that I be risky and courageous. Success requires spunk. School stole my spunk.
That’s right. I have no spunk, and I’d like to blame it on school. I spend way too much time desperately wanting someone, ANYONE to tell me what to do. And instead of following my gut, that creative, life giving, God breathed part of me, I’d really love to just follow directions.
I’d like my spunk back.
Thoughts?
Related posts:
]]>Schools vary from place to place. Country to country. Community to community. But there’s always one thing that stays the same, and that is the idea of clichés.
A cliché is when a name can be given to a way a school-goer presents themselves. For instance, on the wonderful island of Britain, many teenagers choose to carry weapons, dress in Burberry and act in a way to others that is universally perceived as ‘obnoxious’. This English cliché is the Chav.
Another cliché (this time recognised all around the world) is of young women who dress promiscuously and are, in general, greatly sexually active. This cliché is the ‘slut’ ‘slag’ or ‘whore’. It is not one a young woman would seek, for obvious reasons.
Now, we must ask: Why are clichés and school so consistently paired? They are not exclusive to one another, certainly. One argument is, of course, social status. One example of the educational food chain is so:
Jocks>Hippies>Nerds
A simple analogy. Let us dive a little further into the world of status, now.
Bullies>Chavs>Neutral>Emo/Goth>Geeks>Mentally incapable
A little more complex, maybe. And also, more frank. Let us straighten out the facts.
Unless something very serious happens, the bullies will always be at the top. Of course, nobody will favour this. Nobody will particularly like it. But it must happen, and why? Because if the bullies are not at the top, they are not bullies. They are simply nasty chavs.
The MIs, sadly, will never gain a high social status in your average highschool/comprehensive. The reason for their low status is that other students are simply unable to acknowledge their ability to understand a hierarchy and therefore exclude them from it completely. They almost exist outside, outcasts.
The nerds are a different story. To explain the nerds is to explain why many students instinctively repel a teacher.
Teachers are repelled from students due to a student’s defensive side. When school is started, teachers are very kind and soothing. They allow you to play in the sandpit and sweetly calm fights.
As soon as a child begins reception (First grade) this dramatically changes. Teachers become the living representation of punishment and boredom. Over a period of eleven years minimum, they are made to leave the classroom, they are told they are inadequate, and they are ignored when they need a tutor most. A ‘nerd’ is often perceived as receiving none of these punishments (although this is often untrue) ,and is then perceived as ‘one of them’ or the enemy.
And then there are the others. The line between these ‘inbetweeny’ students is less prominent, at least in my own experience; They unite. These are the people who really fight. They fight for what they believe, fight for what they want.
This is where I am. It’s where I want to be. I’m not a nerd, because I get into trouble for my ‘big mouth’ too much. I’m not a chav because I have more sense than to carry a knife. I’m not a bully because I have morals. It’s a place where there is relative peace.
There’s no fighting for heirachy in my particular niche. There’s arguments, there’s people leaving the group and joining it, but you can exist, and break-time becomes fun, instead of just the time to avoid the bullies. You don’t have to do anything to fit in.
You don’t have to dress a certain way, to get high grades. You just have to be you.
Do you really want anyone to dictate what you are?
Wherever you are in the social hierarchy, whether you are high or low, remember this. Never let a cliché rule your life. You will lose who you are.
Related posts:
]]>The National Strategies document Support for Spelling, which is being sent to primary schools, says: “The i before e rule is not worth teaching. It applies only to words in which the ie or ei stands for a clear ee sound. Unless this is known, words such as sufficient and veil look like exceptions.
“There are so few words where the ei spelling for the ee sounds follows the letter c that it is easier to learn the specific words.” These include receive, ceiling, perceive and deceit.
The guidance contains 124 pages of ideas for teachers on how to draw up interesting and engaging lessons on spelling. These include analysing television listings for compound words, changing the tense of a poem to practise irregular verbs and learning about homophones through jokes such as “How many socks in a pair? None — because you eat a pear.”
While other spelling conventions are useful, it says, “i before e except after c” should be ditched.
Greg Brooks, a literacy expert, formerly of the University of Sheffield, told the Times Educational Supplement that the rule was thoroughly misleading. He said there were too many exceptions, including eight, feisty, foreign, heinous, protein and seize.
Masha Bell, who has campaigned for English spelling to be simplified, said: “I before e is not a good rule. There are other sayings that are more useful, like ‘one collar, two socks’ for ‘necessary’.
“But children are having to fill their heads with this rubbish — because spelling is rubbish. I think the spelling system should be reformed. We could get rid of the silliest anomalies.”
But Judy Parkinson, author of the book I Before E (Except After C), which sold 450,000 copies in Britain, said that teachers should be able to make up their own minds about how useful it is. “It’s an extremely well-known phrase, easy to remember, and it obviously struck a chord,” she said.
“There are words that it doesn’t fit, but I think teachers could always get a discussion going about the ‘i before e’ rule, and the peculiarities of the English language, and have fun with it. That’s the best way to learn.”
The document says that short, lively spelling sessions are more effective than an occasional skills session, and suggests ten sessions of 15 minutes spread over each half term.
It recommends that children should keep a spelling journal to record their progress, and that pupils should learn to proof-read their work for mistakes as part of the writing process.
Next Tuesday children from around the United Kingdom will compete in the The Times Spelling Bee grand final. The ten teams of finalists will battle it out in London for the prestige of becoming champions of our inaugural Spelling Bee. More than 850 schools entered the competition, submitting teams of three 11 or 12-year-olds, plus one reserve.
Related posts:
]]>Robert Epstein is a former editor in chief of Psychology Today, a contributing editor for Scientific American Mind, a visiting scholar at the University of California, San Diego, and the author of The Case Against Adolescence: Rediscovering the Adult in Every Teen.
Related posts:
]]>Back in March, the parents gave an interview to the Svenska Dagbladet newspaper, saying they decided not to reveal their child's sex because they believe gender is a social construction.
Related posts:
]]>In my attempts to motivate myself to do schoolwork, I've been trying to bribe myself-promising that if I get good grades, I can buy certain things for myself. But I've realized it's a faulty idea. Say, for example, I can buy myself a new video game if I get a B in math and history. Now that video game must be fairly important to me, since I'm using it as a motivator.
If I don't make a B in math and history, then I won't have the pleasure of enjoying the game. I'm essentially telling myself that without good grades, I don't deserve that game. That I don't deserve to have fun. That my grades have the power to make me worthless. I know it's a bit of an overstatement, but these are the implications of my attempt at bribery.
What I'm telling myself is that poor grades should deny me the right to have a good time. Only the grades matter- not my character, not my other accomplishments, not my good and bad deeds outside of school. The grades can almost strip me of my humanity-if I let them. But I'm not going to let them.
If you've read John Gatto's Dumbing Us Down, you'll probably remember his "7 Lesson Schoolteacher." One of those lessons, you may recall, was "provisional self-esteem." School teaches you to base your self-confidence solely on your grades. How you feel about yourself depends upon whether or not you gain the teacher's approval. This kind of thinking, this "provisional self esteem," is extremely destructive, and dangerous. It destroys students' individuality, making them dependent on others for self-confidence.
And unfortunately enough, bribery is a core part of the school system. If you obey your teacher, you'll get a good grade. Your parents will be happy with you. You'll get into college. You'll succeed in life. But since when have grades become the only measure of a person's success?
Bribery makes an ineffective motivator because it places academic performance above students' happiness and freedom. It promotes blind obedience, silently eroding students' ability to think for themselves. In addition, bribery promotes a very narrow-minded view of "success," ignoring the myriad of ways in which one can be successful without school.
If you want that video game, just go out and buy it, no matter what grades you end up with. You deserve it.
Related posts:
]]>In September, Watson's experience of the ocean will likely be much different - she'll be attempting to become the youngest person to sail solo, nonstop and unassisted around the world.
She'll start the voyage at the tender age of 16, which has triggered animated debate in Australia about her parents and their decision to approve such a journey.
"You've got to have a goal, you've got to go for something," Watson said in an interview with The Associated Press. "I have the experience, I have the team, I have the preparations. I think I can do it."
Sailing in her newly refit 34-foot yacht, Watson will cover nearly 23,000 nautical miles on a journey that will take her from Australia's east coast and across the equator, south to Cape Horn at the tip of South America, across the Atlantic Ocean to South Africa, through the Indian Ocean and south of Australia back home.
She expects the trip to take her seven to eight months - "230 days hopefully" - she says, at which time she would become the youngest person to complete a solo unassisted circumnavigation.
The previous mark is held by another Australian, Jesse Martin, who was 18 when he completed the journey in 1999. An American, 17-year Zac Sunderland of Marina del Rey, Calif., is in the latter stages of completing a solo, around-the-world trip, although it's not in the "unassisted" category.
"Without assistance" means that a vessel may not receive any kind of outside help or take on board any supplies, materials or equipment during the attempt. A craft may be anchored or beached during the attempt, but any repairs must be made without outside resources, materials or help.
Watson, who was inspired by fellow Australian Kay Cottee, the first woman to sail solo nonstop unassisted around the world, could easily beat the record in both age and time, but the very fact that a slight, under 110-pound teenage girl will be attempting such an arduous and dangerous trip has raised its share of eyebrows.
John Morrissey of the Australian Family Association said his rather strong criticism of Watson's trip has led to "more flack from sailor types than anything else I've commented on."
Morrissey, a school teacher, stands by his comments that a 16-year-old girl should still be in school. Watson, an 11th-grader who studies through correspondence, hasn't attended a regular school since the ninth grade.
"I think she's too immature, both physically and psychologically, to do something like this," Morrissey said. "It's sure putting a big load on her guardian angel."
An informal Internet poll in her local Sunshine Coast newspaper marginally approved of Watson's plans. Forty-seven percent said they thought experience was more important than age, 39 percent said she was too young, and 12 percent said they'd like to meet her first before commenting.
That 12 percent would probably be impressed.
Watson seems mature for her age, and has been sailing since she was 8. Her New Zealand-born parents, former real estate man Roger and mother Julie, lived for 5 1/2 years on a 50-foot motor boat with Jessica, her sister Emily, 17, brother Tom, 14 and younger sister Hannah, 11. Before that, the family spent two years traveling around Australia in a motor home.
Watson said she expected some criticism.
"As long as it's sensible and good advice, you listen to it all," she said. "The one thing I won't accept is when someone calls this reckless. This is years and years of planning and preparation. We haven't just jumped into this."
Watson and her family have already spoken to Australian and New Zealand search-and-rescue officials. She's studied navigation, electronics and safety procedures.
She and her mother are seeing a nutritionist to best plan the freeze-dried meals she'll have on board for the journey, and she recently completed a maritime first-aid course.
"I learned about hypothermia, every kind of wound," she said of the course. "I stitched up some chickens and stabbed a few oranges."
Watson is allowed to catch fish, but admits a fishing rod is not "big on the agenda" because of the possibility of falling overboard. When she leaves Australia, she'll have only about 95 gallons of fresh water with her, but her sails and a gutter system on the boat will help her capture rainwater. A cooking stove will operate on methylated spirits, as propane gas was deemed to be too heavy and dangerous to take on board.
She will have four "EPIRBS," or satellite tracking devices, on board, including one attached to her body at all times. She'll also have satellite phones, a laptop, and music and books to keep her occupied and in touch with the world.
"Next week's plan includes final fiberglassing, getting the new paint under way, building a new galley, completing the plumbing, getting the wiring under way and I'll be heading down to Brisbane on Wednesday day to do a marine medical course," Watson said.
Don McIntyre of Hobart, Tasmania state, is a 40-year sailing veteran who circumnavigated the globe in 1990-91. He's providing the boat Watson will use and has helped the family in its preparations, along with a handful of sponsors who are providing sails, rigging and safety gear.
"I believe there is a lack of young people who want to live their dream," McIntyre said. "I can see that she is truly committed. You need to see they are happy within themselves, and that they are independent. She has a steely determination that is totally separate from her sailing skills.
"That's what you need. Will she do it? No one knows. There are other factors involved. But she has the ability to do it."
Jim Hawke, an Australian offshore yacht instructor who did a "mock" solo sail with Watson from Australia to New Zealand in January, was impressed with the-then 15-year-old's ability.
"She saps up knowledge like a sponge, she sorts it out, makes her own mind up," Hawke said. "The real strength is in her head. She has such an even temperament and never gets flustered."
Her parents agree.
"She has proven to us and applied the skills and shown us that she has the determination to see it through," Julie Watson said.
"We know she can do it," added Roger Watson, who admits it took him longer to accept his daughter's plans for the sail. "But that's not to say we won't have some sleepless nights when she's away."
The sailor herself admits to concerns over big waves and gear failure.
"And you have to be very careful about exposure," she said. "You don't get warm again out there."
And she again defends her age.
"Someone said to me recently that the ocean doesn't care how old you are," Watson said. "It respects experience, not your age."
She's sure to get plenty of experience on her voyage.
People talking about this story:
Aussie Teen's Solo Sail Round World Inspires US
Mallrat
The Adventure Blog: 16-Year Old Aussie Girl
Prepares to ...
Australian Marinas Guide: Youngest Solo Sailor to
Circumnavigate
Related posts:
]]>Mount Vernon Middle School veteran science teacher John Freshwater has denies any wrongdoing, his attorney told the Mount Vernon News.
Freshwater also displayed the Ten Commandments in his classroom and taught creationism, according to an independent investigation launched after the parents of the student who was allegedly branded filed a lawsuit.
The suit alleges that he regularly discussed Christianity in his science class, even "teaching the meaning of Easter and Good Friday," and kept at least one and sometimes several Bibles in the room.
The investigation commissioned by the Mount Vernon school board and conducted by HR On Call, Inc., a human resources company, conducted interviews with Freshwater, faculty and students.
In its report, released Thursday, the company found Freshwater "did improperly use an electrostatic device on the student who filed the report" and had violated Ohio State standards by "teaching creationism and intelligent design."
According to On Call's report, Freshwater told investigators, "I teach evolution."
Company investigators, however, concluded that "contrary to Mr. Freshwater's statement, the evidence indicates he has been teaching creationism and intelligent design and has been teaching the unreliability of carbon dating in support of opposition to evolution. He has passed out materials to students for the past several years challenging evolution and then collected the materials back from the students. He has done so in spite of specific directives not to teach creationism and intelligent design."
In the civil suit brought against Freshwater, the plaintiffs – the student, identified as James Doe, and his parents, identified as John and Jane Doe – allege that in December 2007, "Mr. Freshwater burned a cross in James Doe's arm using an electric device."
The burned area allegedly "resulted in an easily identifiable cross consisting of red welts with blistering, swelling and blanching in the surrounding area," according to the lawsuit.
Related posts:
]]>The officials in Safford, Ariz., would have been justified in 2003 had they limited their search to the backpack and outer clothing of Savana Redding, who was in the eighth grade at the time, the court ruled. But in searching her undergarments, they went too far and violated her Fourth Amendment privacy rights, the justices said.
Had Savana been suspected of having illegal drugs that could have posed a far greater danger to herself and other students, the strip search, too, might have been justified, the majority said, in an opinion by Justice David H. Souter.
“In sum, what was missing from the suspected facts that pointed to Savana was any indication of danger to the students from the power of the drugs or their quantity, and any reason to suppose that Savana was carrying pills in her underwear,” the court said. “We think that the combination of these deficiencies was fatal to finding the search reasonable.”
In fact, no pills were found on Savana when her underwear was examined by two school officials, both women, who were acting on a tip passed along by another student.
Thursday’s ruling sends the case back to the lower courts to assess what damages, if any, should be paid by the school district. But, by a vote of 7 to 2, the Supreme Court held that the individual officials in the case should not be held liable, because “clearly established law” at the time of the search did not show that it violated the Fourth Amendment.
The portion of the ruling exempting the officials from liability is likely to be greeted with relief by thousands of principals, teachers and other school officials who work to impart knowledge and maintain discipline in a fast-changing world, where children are growing up (or trying to) earlier than ever.
Many school districts already prohibit strip searches, or severely limit them, a fact that was brought out when the case was argued on April 21.
Justice Clarence Thomas was the only member of the court to conclude that the strip search of Savana Redding did not violate the Fourth Amendment. He asserted that the majority’s finding second-guesses the measures that educators take to maintain discipline “and ensure the health and safety of the students in their charge.”
The majority said it meant to cast “no ill reflection” on the assistant principal, Kerry Wilson, who ordered the search at a time when there were incidents of students using alcohol and tobacco. “Parents are known to overreact to protect their children from danger, and a school official with responsibility for safety may tend to do the same,” Justice Souter wrote.
But Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg did not agree, and would not have protected the officials from liability. Justice Ginsburg singled out the assistant principal, noting that he had made Savana sit on a chair outside his office for more than two hours in what Justice Ginsburg called a “humiliating situation” when the case was argued.
“At no point did he attempt to call her parent,” Justice Ginsburg wrote on Thursday. “Abuse of authority of that order should not be shielded by official immunity.”
During the April argument, Justice Ginsburg seemed taken aback by the circumstances of the case, particularly that Savana came under suspicion because of a “tip” to officials from a classmate. “And nothing is done to check her veracity, nothing is done to follow up on it at all,” the justice observed.
Justice Stevens wrote on Thursday that “it does not require a constitutional scholar to conclude that a nude search of a 13-year-old child is an invasion of constitutional rights of some magnitude.”
The majority noted that students in a school setting are protected by something less than the “probable cause” standard that normally determines whether searches are reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. “The lesser standard for school searches could as readily be described as a moderate chance of finding evidence of wrongdoing,” the court said.
But the search of Savana Redding, who Justice Stevens said was an honors student at the time, did not meet even the lower standard, the majority found. (Ms. Redding is now in college.)
Dan Capra, a Fordham Law School professor, issued a statement in which he said that the fundamental question about the ruling in Safford Unified School District v. Redding, No. 08-479, is “is whether school officials will ever actually be liable for such searches.”
“According to the court, the law on the subject was not clearly established, and so the officials had qualified immunity,” Mr. Capra said. “But every case will be an application of law to fact. Officials now know they can’t do exactly what was done in Safford. But what if there is any change of material fact in the circumstances?”
Related posts:
]]>