In honor of Star Wars’ 30th anniversary, the United States Postal Service is unveiling a new commemorative stamp March 29. And my very own Lincoln, Neb., is one of 200 cities nationwide to be selected for a new mailbox to mark the event.

Christy Funcke, customer relations coordinator at the Lincoln post office, explained that some 400 mailboxes made to resemble the famous Star Wars character would be installed nationwide in time for the unveiling of the stamp.

Along with the mailboxes, the USPS will launch a Web site for the commemorative stamp. The site now contains a teaser video with scenes from the original 1977 movie edited to show R2-D2 accepting a letter.

That most well-loved droid, R2-D2, on Times Square in New York City. (Photo credit: wsh1266)

The postal service notified law enforcement to be on the lookout for Star Wars fans gone awry who might try to steal the mailbox, and also notified the Department of Homeland Security of its plans, Funcke said.

R2-D2 was a natural fit because the squat little fellow resembled a mailbox’s shape, anyway, Funcke said, but the promotion was appropriate in other ways, too.

“(R2-D2) is a fun, feisty little character,” Funcke said. “He embodies the trust and dependability for which the post office is renowned.” — Lincoln Journal-Star

I understand why local law enforcement would need to be notified. The likelihood of this little guy being droid-napped are probably pretty high, even if it is a federal offense to tamper with mailboxes. But why Homeland Security? Someone might mistake it for a bomb. Thanks, Boston. Now Lincoln cannot even put up a mailbox without notifying somebody.

(Hat Tip: The Popped Collar)

Information from Principled Discovery. Michael Hampton contributed to this report.

Congratulations to Fairfax County Schools in Fairfax, Virginia. Finally a school district demonstrates an ounce or two of common sense and a little backbone.

On Thursday, the school board voted to defy the U.S. Department of Education and not test immigrants with the same reading exams as their native English-speaking peers. It is a small step, but it highlights two of the problematic portions of this law: the myth of local control under No Child Left Behind, and the insane proposal that 100% of students can attain the same standards in targeted subject area, regardless of their circumstances.

The decision is likely to make the school district some uncomfortable enemies. The decision will likely cause the district, one which is highly respected, to fail the federal standards.

Immigrants’ rights groups are also concerned.

“We don’t want English-language learners to be left out of education,” said Peter Zamora, acting regional counsel for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund. “If you remove this set of standards from the No Child Left Behind accountability system, you are removing the incentive to teach them.” — Washington Post

Testing is being unfairly equated with education. Unfortunately, Mr. Zamora has a point. With the high pressure of these tests, it is likely that any group receiving an exemption will be neglected in favor of spending more time and resources on target groups whose scores are evaluated by NCLB. Just as subject areas which are not tested are neglected.

My suggestion to the state of Virginia (and the other 49 for that matter) is to simply refuse to take the money. Even as it is likely to increase as NCLB comes up for reauthorization this year. For one small step in the right direction, however, I commend the Fairfax County School Board.

One of the many goals of No Child Left Behind is to decrease the “achievement gap” between rich and poor, white and minority. We already know that isn’t happening. At the center of the debate is often money. If these schools only had more of it, they could solve all their problems. In fact, the states themselves seem to generally favor NCLB if only they got a larger portion of the taxpayers’ income.

One program which aims to equal out some of the funding issues is Title I, which uses four statutory formulas to distribute federal money to low-income, local education agencies. NCLB’s pillar of “local control” actually seems to only mean that districts have a little more control over what they do with this money when they get it, not in setting curriculum, testing, teacher evaluations or any other education related decision which at one time was left up to the local school district.

The desire to redistribute some of the nation’s wealth for charitable causes actually has a long history in the United States, stretching back to George Washington’s desire to start a national university. Back then, politicians in favor of these measures were a little more savvy in their approach. They advocated selling government lands and using the money gained to fund their pet projects. Reaching into the pockets of one group of citizens in order to benefit another group was not generally seen as particularly constitutional or a desirable way to run the republic. In 1854, another similar proposal was set before President Franklin Pierce, in which government lands would be turned over to states to fund endowments for the insane. In his veto message, Franklin writes,

I can not find any authority in the Constitution for making the Federal Government the great almoner of public charity throughout the United States. To do so would, in my judgment, be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive of the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded. — LONANG

Yes, I would have to agree that much of what No Child Left Behind seeks to accomplish is “contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive of the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded.” And as Pierce predicted, once the government involved itself in one act of philanthropy, the door was wide open for the government to involve itself in every charitable activity imaginable.

Interestingly, this Title I money isn’t even being used to serve low-income students. According to a study released by The Education Trust, it is actually causing the funding gap between rich and poor states to widen rather than close.

The program, known as Title I, is part of a slew of federal, state and local policies that direct more resources to the nation’s wealthiest children than to its poorest, the study concluded. It found that the highest-poverty school districts receive an average of $825 less each year per student in state and local funding than the wealthiest districts. It also found that state and local money often flows disproportionately to wealthy students within districts. — Washington Post

Thirteen billion dollars to enforce the status quo. That is a noble cause, worthy of disregarding the original intent of our constitution.

Senator Edward Kennedy, (D-Mass.) the incoming chairman of the Senate’s education committee and co-author of the No Child Left Behind Act says in response,

“We cannot close the education achievement gap in this country without addressing the funding gap, which keeps our low-income and minority children at a disadvantage,” he said in a written statement. “States must take responsibility for ensuring access to resources for all our children, but the federal government has to do its part as well.” — Ibid.

The state’s responsibility. The federal government’s responsibility. Some day, maybe, we will realize that we need to take personal responsibility if we want to maintain our personal liberty. The government is a poor executor of the nation’s wealth, and no longer seems to concern itself with protecting the fundamental liberties it was created to protect.

The Lincoln Board of Education just (barely) approved a new expenditure: $120,000 to keep four police officers in the middle schools another year. The argument has been an interesting one. Personally, I think there is something fundamentally wrong with a society that has become so violent that we must have a show of armed government force to keep order in a public school. If anything should hint to America that school is no longer a safe place for children, the perceived necessity of police force should.

The city currently assigns officers to each of Lincoln’s high schools, an expense justified by the fact that a high volume of calls originate from these lovely halls of education. But last year the city told the department of education that it could no longer justify the expense of maintaining officers at the middle schools (and whoever thought it was a good idea to have them in the elementary schools?) So the principals went to the school board, arguing their case.

And, begrudgingly, the Department gave in. I’m not sure exactly if board member Lillie Larson realizes how close she is to the root of the problem in her support of these officers, but her comment is worth some thought.

Also, police bring a certain authority to the school that neither teachers or principals have, said board member Lillie Larson. — Lincoln Journal Star

Teachers have no authority. Principals have no authority. And that is due in large part to the fact that the parents have no authority. Only a man in uniform with a gun.

Oh, yeah. I think I remember why we had officers in our elementary schools. It was part of a big safety plan (we are years ahead of President Bush and his little Conference on School Violence). We had a sex offender leave his group home, get on a city bus, sneak into an elementary school and molest a little boy. That is also why we have this multi-million dollar re-design scheme being batted around. Thankfully, it has been awhile since I’ve heard anything about actually re-designing those buildings already in use, but the designs for our two new elementary schools have been approved. Everyone must enter through the office and the classroom wings can be easily locked down. Sounds like a mental institution.

That reminds me. The school board would prefer to spend the money on social workers and a school psychologist than police officers. Either way, the net effect is that we are building prisons to house the innocent so that the guilty, due to their age, competence or other protected status may walk free.

Interesting solution that my public-schooled mind did not think of until reading the report. And that my public-schooled mind still can’t quite come to terms with. Given the nature of their jobs, many judges are already allowed to carry concealed weapons, a practice which is expanding.

“We feel strongly about providing adequate security, but it comes down to personal responsibility. And you’ve got to take responsibility for your own safety,” Judge Cynthia Stevens Kent said. — National Law Journal

So is it time to arm the teachers? Utah already does.

This article was originally published at Principled Discovery.

Virginia is planning a pilot program for the state’s proposed universal preschool program, an issue that helped Governor Timothy M. Kaine get elected. The pilot program is to begin next year for 1,000 children. The results will be looked at as the program is gradually expanded to include all four year olds in the state.

The Start Strong Council, a group of educators, business leaders and lawmakers convened by Kaine to help launch his ambitious proposal, issued a report yesterday saying that the state also should develop standards for class size and curriculum and work with area colleges to create teacher-training programs. — Washington Post

This isn’t mandatory, yet, but I’m sure it will be eventually. And when it is? I can’t really imagine setting a curriculum and standards for four year olds anyway, but will the state allow a parent to say that the primary purpose of her preschool is bonding?

This is part of a nationwide push toward universal preschool, with the goal of federal support (and eventually control…NCLB for four year olds). We even had an amendment on the Nebraska ballot (which passed) to create an endowment fund to provide for the establishment of an early childhood program. Advocates stress educational advantages. School districts and states are understandably interested in any effort to improve test scores. Parents want free daycare. But is it best for children?

Experience provides little reason to believe universal preschool would significantly benefit children, regardless of family income. For nearly 40 years, local, state, and federal governments and diverse private sources have funded early intervention programs for low-income children, and benefits to the children have been few and fleeting. There is also evidence that middle-class children gain little, if anything, from preschool. Benefits to children in public preschools are unlikely to be greater or more enduring. — Cato Institute

Incidentally, Germany is batting this idea around as well. But the SPD (Socialist Party of Germany, one of the two leading parties), wants more than preschool available for all.

State Education Secretary Wolf-Michael Catenhusen thinks that education reform is to important to be left to the individual states. “We need a national strategy for a better education. No state may depart from it.” So like any good politician, he assembled a team of experts to analyze the problem and give feedback. The summary of their proposal (my translation):

At the core of their vision is a preschool for children from three to six. It should be free and offer a high-quality, standardized education. Every family would be required to send their children. “It is more important to even out the disadvantages of underprivileged children than to respect the wishes of those mothers who would prefer to have their children at home.”

That is just frightening. Being required to turn your children over to the state at the age of three with no other option but to leave the country. But being a bit of an optimist by nature, I’ll end with a speck of good news: “…in almost every country that has some kind of a universal preschool program, there is also a homeschooling movement gaining ground! Parents are actively participating in the education of their young children–and as the studies show, that is the foremost determining factor in a child’s academic success.” I’d say success in all areas of life, not just academic.

What is the relevance of Germany? Most of our education reforms seem to be stemming from there, one way or another. The greater emphasis on preparing students for the workforce, the push for a national exit exam, and the desire for increased trackability. The only thing I haven’t heard talked about the creation of a three-tiered education system to fully segregate students by career tracks in the fourth grade.

Consent of the Governed has some further insight into universal preschool.

But what riles me most is comments like, “You are not serving your child properly if you are waiting till age 5 to educate your child.” This implies that parents are incapable of teaching their children anything, and that everyone should hand over their children to the credentialed “professionals” as soon as possible, or risk ruining their children’s chances for a fulfilling and successful life forever. Don’t forget that in addition to adding more teachers to the NEA’s membership, that what is really going on here is that they need your kids so they can collect and track data on their health and development, in order to develop more public policy! There is a war going on over your children. — Consent of the Governed

That summarizes the issue pretty well.

This article was originally published at Principled Discovery.

There has been quite a debate raging about the National Animal Identification System among farmers and ranchers. Ostensibly in the interest of disease control, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has been pushing for improved tracking of animals.

The program would require every location housing a single chicken, duck, turkey, cow, pig, goat, horse, or any other animal to be registered in a government database, where it’s assigned a number and GPS coordinates. Animal movements would be monitored on a national level with radio-frequency ear tags, retinal scans of eyes or DNA testing. The tracking system would pinpoint an animal’s movements within 48 hours after a disease was discovered. — Mount Vernon News

While an ear tag certainly has never stopped a disease, and I hope our officials are smart enough to realize at least that much, the point is to hopefully pinpoint the origins of infected meat products quickly, should a disease be noticed. The hope is to be able to quarantine animals who may have been exposed more quickly. However, producers are already required by law to track their animals. If the problem is that their records are incomplete or not as readily accessible as is necessary, isn’t it possible to enforce the laws we already have?

And foreign meat is not tracked. It enters the U.S. and is packed alongside our native grown products.

So Australia, Canada, Brazil, Mexico or any other country can ship meat here and they don’t have to meet the requirements of NAIS. So let’s ask the question of what happens to these foreign products when they get here. For the most part they get mixed in with U.S. beef by the packer so it becomes indistinguishable from an American product. Then let’s say there is some contaminate found in it down the road further in the chain say at the restaurant level. Then what happens.

They trace the meat back to the plant then NAIS kicks in and they target all these American producers as the problem for the contamination and liquidate their herds for them. The authorities never once consider that it might be the foreign products that were introduced by the packer, since they can’t be tracked, or the packer itself as the problem. They will just use NAIS to persecute American meat producers. — No Mandatory Animal ID

While the program is voluntary for now, the hope is to have all animals registered by 2008 and full implementation by 2009. No chicken, cow or horse shall be left behind. But tracking doesn’t do anything but give the central government access to that much more information that it does not need in order to do that which it was not intended to do.

Research done by Tel Aviv University Professor of Psychology Avner Ziv confirms that students retain more information when humor is used effectively to illustrate important points. Of course, humor is very subjective, but here is a roundup of stories that I have run into recently that are at least worth a smile.

Perhaps there isn’t really anything humorous in the New York City Police Department sending out mobile scanning detectors to public schools which do not have permanent scanners. These mobile units are also being considered in other areas to monitor attendees at school sponsored events such as football games. I did find it a bit ironic, however, that the first school to receive the honors was the Acorn High School for Social Justice. The action was reportedly successful. No significant delays for students, and they were able to confiscate a box cutter, a knife in a trash can, a student who ran away (apparently in possession of marijuana; someone should tell him the scanners don’t pick that up), 100 cell phones and several MP3 players. Yes, the School for Social Justice is now a safer place.

The Supreme Court has taken on a free-speech case involving a high school student from Juneau, Alaska. Way back in 2002, he displayed a 14-foot banner which read, “Bong Hits for Jesus” outside school grounds while the Olympic torch relay ran past on its way to the Winter Games in Salt Lake City, Utah. The school has policies against anything promoting illegal drug use. While the student was not on school grounds, he was on a school sponsored field trip to watch the relay. He refused to take down his banner and ended up suspended for ten days. An interesting conversation is developing over at the Volokh Conspiracy.

The media in general has been much too nice to Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings and her defeat at Celebrity Jeopardy. Personally, I don’t think I could have done any better than second place out of three, but the reactions from bloggers are decidedly more entertaining. But losing to Lenny from Laverne and Shirley? Who would have thought that there was so much skill involved in pushing those little buttons?

An Australian bus driver transporting children to school had a simple request after being pulled over and found 13 times over the legal limit for alcohol: “Can I finish my run, at least to drop these kids off?”

And that seems a fitting description of our education system. The No Child Left Behind Act is clearly well beyond the legal limit of government involvement in education. Unlike the Australian officers, however, we are letting them continue on this course with our children in their care.

One of the most important goals of the No Child Left Behind Act is closing the “achievement gap” between white and minority students. President Bush assures us in frequent addresses that this achievement gap is closing and will soon be a thing of the past. To do this, his signature legislation focuses on four main areas affecting student achievement: increased funding, quality curriculum, frequent testing and “highly experienced” teachers.

I’ve already addressed how the achievement gap isn’t really closing and how the measures within NCLB actually make the problem worse. If our politicians were truly interested in improving the status of public education, particularly for the most disadvantaged in our society, they would do better to look at real numbers from real research and attempt to discern what really works. In What it Takes to Make a Student, Paul Tough of the New York Times takes a look at some of these issues affecting our achievement gap and the need for reform.

Unlike authors such as Richard Rothstein, I do believe that it is possible for students from lower socio-economic backgrounds to achieve at levels equal to and even superior to their more economically advantaged peers. The problems inherent in poverty are great, but they are not insurmountable. I know this because I have seen it done, and the children involved are not statistical anomalies.

These children face very real problems that most of us have never experienced. English may not be their primary language or, where it is, it may not be the standard American English taught and tested in the schools. They may be malnourished and understandably more concerned about their empty stomachs than their blank worksheets. Their housing may be substandard and their neighborhood may be plagued by violence. Their parents talk to them less, read to them less and criticize them more. In fact, research conducted by two child psychologists from the University of Kansas (my alma mater) found that by the age of three, the vocabulary of the middle class child was more than twice that of the poor child. Also by age four, the average child of a professional had heard about 500,000 words of encouragement and 80,000 words of discouragement. This is completely reversed for the welfare children. By age three, they have heard 75,000 encouragements and 200,000 discouragements.

So by the time they enter school, they believe they cannot succeed and everything about the structure of our public school system reinforces that negative attitude. Especially where there is heavy emphasis on preparing for a standardized test which is of little immediate relevance to their lives.

Tom Torkelson was trying to get his IDEA academy off the ground in 2000 when I met him through Teach for America. His entire student population consists of students who qualify for free and reduced lunches. They are Hispanic and for many, English is a second language. Some live in colonias, illegal housing developments which do not meet codes. These often lack basic water and sewer systems, electricity, paved roads or even floors. When I first drove through a colonia in Donna, Texas, it was difficult to believe I was still in the United States. It was even more difficult to believe that “high expectations” and “student accountability” was going to do anything to help these children attain an excellent education.

With a rather simple formula for success — teacher dedication, emphasis on math and reading, long school hours, and a contract between the school, parents and students — the IDEA academy has become one of the top ranked middle schools in Texas, and one of the highest performing charter schools in the nation.

Unfortunately, the biggest roadblocks to meeting the demand for these schools are education leaders themselves, particularly the labor unions. As Ryan Boots of edspresso points out in his commentary on Tough’s article:

It would require autonomy on the part of principals to make personnel decisions, institute some form of merit pay, no more dancing lemons. In short, the unions would have to get out of the way and let principals run their schools, a feat requiring a level of political muscle not present in either party at the moment. — edspresso

I don’t know that it is necessary to replicate this sort of model in every public school which serves economically disadvantaged children. I do not particularly advocate a lengthening of the school day (some of these schools are in session from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. with only a month off in summer, and teachers are often available weekends and via their cell phones for students who need help). That is the beauty of extending the charter system and of local control. Schools can look at what their individual student populations need and see what they need to do to meet those needs. Differing models can be developed, adapted and studied. Where true choice exists, an excellent education is attainable for anyone who is willing to do the work to get it.

One of the most frequent criticisms of the No Child Left Behind act is that it is an unfunded mandate. In fact, on Tuesday, school districts in Michigan, Vermont and Texas, together with the National Education Association asked a federal appeals court to revive an old lawsuit, arguing that schools should not have to comply with requirements which aren’t funded by the federal government. The case has been taken under advisement, with no hint at when the court will rule.

Inherent in this argument is the acceptance of the federal government’s ever-increasing role in the education policy set at the state and local level. It seems that a simple constitutional argument could be made on the basis of the Tenth Amendment.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

I really thought the whole debate was more interesting back when states were asserting their rights, not just asking for more money. So instead of focusing on whether or not the federal government has any right to direct the educational decisions of the states, the states finally read the law and found buried within it a provision for sufficient funding in Section 9527 (a):

(a) GENERAL PROHIBITION- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize an officer or employee of the Federal Government to mandate, direct, or control a State, local educational agency, or school’s curriculum, program of instruction, or allocation of State or local resources, or mandate a State or any subdivision thereof to spend any funds or incur any costs not paid for under this Act.

So the only objection left now is paying for the federal government’s intrusion into states’ rights. How much are our states’ rights going for these days? There is no real consensus, but studies range from claiming that the increased federal funding more than pays for its requirements to Rep. Rubén Hinojosa’s (D-Texas) claim that there will be a $39 billion shortfall.

So the states will sell their rights for $39 billion. But will anything change?

In an insightful article first appearing in Edweek, the authors point out how many of our international competitors would fail at our proficiency standards.

On a 1991 international math exam, Taiwan scored highest. But if Taiwanese students had taken the NAEP math exam, 60 percent would have scored below proficient, and 22 percent below basic. On the 2003 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study, 25 percent of students in top-scoring Singapore were below NAEP proficiency in math, and 49 percent were below proficiency in science.

On a 2001 international reading test, Sweden was tops, but two-thirds of Swedish students were not proficient in reading, as NAEP defines it. — Schools Matter

No amount of funding will accomplish the impossible. This is not to say there are not ways to improve our education system and to make greater strides toward closing the “achievement gap.” But in attempting to overhaul our education system with legislation with nice slogans, we have lost sight of any rational discussion of the real problems affecting education and how communities can be empowered to solve them.

While I was studying at the University of Kansas, I majored in education, German, linguistics, journalism, history, English and toyed with the idea of biology. I actually got as far as declaring the first five at one time or another, but ended up with a degree in education and German. And I never did end up a German teacher which was the whole point to begin with.

According to ejournal USA, an online publication of the U.S. Department of State, I am not alone. More than two thirds of all college students change their major at some point during their college career and may consider four or five majors before deciding on one. In fact, a growing number of colleges are recommending that students wait until they are enrolled before declaring a major, and at many institutions, a student may wait until his or her sophomore year to formally declare a major and graduate on time.

And what does your major have to do with life? Within ten years, most people are working in a field outside their major.

With all the relevance switching majors has on real life, it is only natural that the government at some time would take over and recommend the process take place even earlier. Say at age 13. Beginning with the School-To-Work Opportunities Act of 1994 (No Child Left Behind’s predecessor), states have been encouraged to adapt their education systems to the needs of the workforce, including choosing a career related major and work toward a skill certificate. As of 1998, all 50 states, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico had received implementation grants from the federal government to implement the program.

Florida is the first to roll out its plan as part of Governor Jeb Bush’s “A-plus-plus” plan to make schools more relevant to children. (Or maybe to the state). This spring, all Florida eighth graders who will be attending a public school, including charters and alternative schools, will be required to declare a major from the state’s approved list of 138 “major areas of interest.”

Every high school, alternative and charter school that offers grades nine through 12 created majors based on the school’s curriculum, magnet programs and career academies. Each has about a dozen majors or more to choose from. Majors in foreign languages, language arts, science, social studies and mathematics can be found at most schools.

Charters and alternative schools have fewer, with some schools offering only two or three options. — Palm Beach Post

I always thought education was more about enlightening the intellect and broadening one’s horizons, but it seems it is looking more and more like herding children into small boxes approved by the state.

Palm Beach school board member Sandra Richmond has high hopes for the program: “As long as we encourage students to think about it and let them know they have choices, and as long as we keep it flexible, I don’t think it will do too much damage.”

I am sure those words are very comforting to parents who entrust their children to the government schools on a daily basis. They’ll try not to “do too much damage.”

Hat Tip: Spunkyhomeschool, who offers additional insight, links and has been covering these developments for some time.