tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post2200541122932620258..comments2023-09-29T06:32:16.005-04:00Comments on My School Committee Blog: Amherst Meeting, September 22, 2009Catherine A. Sandersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03523667921190365891noreply@blogger.comBlogger111125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-32712723816761733502009-10-07T20:23:01.908-04:002009-10-07T20:23:01.908-04:00Anon 7:59 PM,
What do you think is being done now?...Anon 7:59 PM,<br />What do you think is being done now? They are already rounding up the kids and busing them out of their neighborhoods and dropping them off at Crocker Farm!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-4519546652920732812009-10-07T19:33:02.199-04:002009-10-07T19:33:02.199-04:00I think the reason for redistricting is to help th...I think the reason for redistricting is to help the kids who you are so worried about discriminating against. The key issue is getting these kids the best education and this will happen in schools that don't concentrate poverty. Who cares what a bus full of kids looks like? What matters is what happens inside the building, not how it looks to you. That will affect them for the rest of their lives.<br /><br />Also, for the record,the poor kids probaby know they are poor (I was) but don't care about it as much as adults.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-36121921096491600452009-10-06T19:59:55.269-04:002009-10-06T19:59:55.269-04:00To bus the most vulnerable population out of their...To bus the most vulnerable population out of their neighborhoods in the name of "equity" simply cannot be the answer. To have two buses arrive each morning at WW and FR, each filled mainly with young children of color who are clearly from the poor part of town, is not a solution. The arguments FOR this plan-cost and bus schedule- guarantee that those with the least will be asked to sacrifice the most. If we truly believe in equity, then let's see similar islands in east Amherst and north/central Amherst. Let's have "island" buses make the rounds in all 3 areas, putting together diverse groups of children at the IMMEDIATE start of their school day, and drop them off at the 3 different elementary schools. And to all of you who would raise an objection to this plan, your objections are EXACTLY what is wrong with the original one.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-37340026889235271282009-10-06T18:16:17.041-04:002009-10-06T18:16:17.041-04:00In response to this: "You could divide the E...In response to this: "You could divide the East Hadley Road area between CF and WW, but the problem is that you have to fit the MM families largely into WW. So, if we were keeping four schools, that plan would work -- but with three schools, there isn't enough room to put all the kids in the East Hadley Road area into just WW and CF AND fit the MM families largely into WW. The current "island" plan has 40 kids leaving for FR. Those kids can't fit in either of the other schools, and there isn't a way to do this without creating several islands in different parts of town. " <br /><br />Isn't not discriminating against lower-income families -which is what the island plan does- more important than not creating other islands?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-51321612298930979502009-10-06T17:21:19.913-04:002009-10-06T17:21:19.913-04:00Changing the subject back to the original post:
I...Changing the subject back to the original post:<br /><br />If you re-read the post from Margaret way up top (September 24, 2009 12:49 PM ) and Catherine’s thoughtful response to her (September 24, 2009 5:36 PM ) that highlights a real dilemma in the redistricting plan.<br /><br />I think those are worth re-reading before the forums taking place starting on Thursday.Rick Hoodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04347110422224233217noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-71521539696676328532009-10-06T15:43:02.591-04:002009-10-06T15:43:02.591-04:00Joel, I think you and I might be the only ones who...Joel, I think you and I might be the only ones who "get it". It's not the pledge, it's the fact that as a group, Amherst thinks they know better, and just does what they want. I don't know how many times you've stated this, but it seems be lost on a lot of people here. Not surprising tho. akbAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-45735373092315534322009-10-06T10:44:24.145-04:002009-10-06T10:44:24.145-04:00I don't disagree with Rick on the solution to ...I don't disagree with Rick on the solution to this issue. My point about a typical Amherst argument was the assertion of case law and Supreme Court rulings by someone with limited expertise. I'm not a lawyer and I don't know the issues, but the anonymous poster assured the readers of the blog that it was beyond debate. Then, the US Supreme Court, within days of the anonymous posts, said the exact opposite of what we were told was the law.<br /><br />Too many educational policies have been made by people in town who claim some pedagogical expertise but who are often acting from more of an ideological perspective than real expertise. That was my point.Joelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13141742420717242724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-67037395986602089212009-10-06T09:01:28.192-04:002009-10-06T09:01:28.192-04:00First, just backing up a bit: has it been establis...First, just backing up a bit: has it been established as a fact that the Pledge is not recited – and in all elementary schools and classes? Probably, but just want to make sure. <br /><br />At any rate, Alison makes a really good point, and I suggest again a rational proposal – see 15 comments above, October 3, 2009 9:45 AM. <br /><br />Joel mentioned “the debate on this blog to be so typically Amherst.” I would say the problem is that people are sometimes more interested in arguing their views than in coming up with practical solutions that might work for everyone. Instead of thinking “what might work for me and you” it’s “here is why you are wrong”. That doesn’t work. <br /><br />Sometimes it is really hard to come up with a practical solution; the redistricting plan seems like such a case. The redistricting map looks really weird with those two pockets around East Hadley Road. <br /><br />http://www.arps.org/node/1031 <br /><br />but apparently there is no other way to achieve the result. I pity the folks working on this because they are trying to do the right thing, but they are going to get hammered no matter what they do. <br /><br />But in this case – the Pledge – it just seems so easy. I suggest that we shouldn’t waste time on the easy ones, but rather just suggest and implement easy, practical solutions.Rick Hoodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04347110422224233217noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-60302840783099023632009-10-06T06:09:06.797-04:002009-10-06T06:09:06.797-04:00Whether you agree with or like the Pledge personal...Whether you agree with or like the Pledge personally, I feel as if we are doing our kids a disservice by not reciting it in school; it sets them apart as "different" from other schoolchildren in our country. <br /><br />I will never forget when I took my little Daisy Girl Scouts (all students in Amherst schools) to a larger gathering of scouts and the day began with the Pledge. The girls were confused and embarrassed when everyone around them rose at once, put their hands to their hearts, and began to recite the Pledge. They felt very left out and had no idea what was going on. I apologized to them later for not anticipating that, explained the Pledge, and taught it to them so they would be prepared for other Scout group events. At the time, I thought it was only my daughter's teacher who, for some personal reason, was not teaching them the Pledge. I soon learned that it was rarely taught in Amherst.Alison Donta-Venmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03878779168857679143noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-80175641445713729452009-10-05T18:32:34.794-04:002009-10-05T18:32:34.794-04:00For anyone who cares to read about the ability of ...For anyone who cares to read about the ability of the state to compel students to recite the Pledge:<br /><br />http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1005/p02s07-usju.htmlJoelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13141742420717242724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-42436184335766818632009-10-05T18:28:48.132-04:002009-10-05T18:28:48.132-04:00More on the Pledge and what the debate here says a...More on the Pledge and what the debate here says about education in Amherst:<br /><br />Although an anonymous poster promised all of us that there is a black letter law that's crystal clear that prevents the state from mandating reciting the Pledge, today the US Supreme Court let stand a Federal District Court ruling in Florida that allows the state to compel students to recite the Pledge. It's a very complicated issue. The Court let stand the idea that the Free Speech right to ignore the Pledge is an adult right that belongs to parents and not children.<br /><br />I've never cared much about the Pledge per se, but I found the debate on this blog to be so typically Amherst. Someone with some limited expertise opines with great authority about how obvious and clear and beyond debate Amherst policy is even though practically every other school district in the country does something else. And then, out of the blue, a serious authority -- in this case the ultimate authority of what is legal, the US Supreme Court -- says something completely at odds with what was said by our local "experts." <br /><br />I'm sure we'll hear about how we get to ignore the US Supreme Court -- just as the Birthers ignore it and every other authority on Obama's birth in Hawaii.<br /><br />Again, beyond the Pledge, this sort of attitude got us a system of segregating poor Spanish speaking students in one school and a new mandatory science curriculum that is so wonderful and so cutting edge that it's the envy of, well, no one, because we're the only place in the country that anyone can locate that uses it.Joelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13141742420717242724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-78184889109705577672009-10-04T09:38:40.316-04:002009-10-04T09:38:40.316-04:00Okay, so I looked up the supreme court cases and y...Okay, so I looked up the supreme court cases and you've been incredibly deceptive in your arguments. It seems as though most of the decisions protect students from being forced to recite the Pledge, although the 2002 Nedow case surely reveals a much more conservative court than the one that ruled in the West Virginia 1943 case.<br /><br />That's not what we're talking about here. We're discussing the fact that it's not being said at all in Amherst schools.<br /><br />In both those cases the issue was the state *forcing students* to say something. They don't forbid a school system of having the Pledge. Mass law requires us to have that and I didn't see any ruling in our federal district changing that.<br /><br />So, how would those rulings and the Mass law handle students who feel ostracized because the teacher refuses to recite the Pledge?<br /><br />No one should be compelled to do it, but here in Amherst we're making it impossible to do it. <br /><br />I actually don't care about the Pledge per se. My main point remains that we're doing something unique, we've had no public discussion or debate, and the justification, which is offered on this blog not by the schools, is a series of court rulings that we're assured apply.<br /><br />I'm just tired of Amherst insisting it's unique and special and having no evidence that it's actually doing the job it should be doing educating our kids.<br /><br />Decisions have been made for ideological reasons. Those decisions are often made in private and are not openly debated in the community. The Pledge issue is just another example of that.Joelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13141742420717242724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-14677497150633947092009-10-03T22:18:37.892-04:002009-10-03T22:18:37.892-04:00I see you have no substantive counter-arguments to...I see you have no substantive counter-arguments to my points (rants about extremist behavior don't fit the bill), so I'll limit myself to the following observations:<br /><br />-- Concerning the pragmatic issue of the town running the risk of having to go to court and waste "a ton of money and time," you assume that having the school district follow MGL 71/69 would be the safest option, but that is far from clear. Expensive lawsuits can come from many unforeseen directions, and in a town like Amherst, it may be far riskier financially to follow this law than to ignore it.<br /><br />-- You seem to think it's a compelling argument to assert that a majority of Massachusetts residents would be against getting rid of the pledge in the schools. In fact, though, I never said anything about getting rid of the pledge. I was discussing a specific law that requires teachers to "lead the class in a group recitation of the pledge" and punishes them for failing to do so. Between the clearly unconstitutional position taken by this law and an outright ban on the pledge there are a range of possible positions that would neither compel the pledge nor ban it, some of which would no doubt pass constitutional muster. Of course, the Supreme Court is free to take up the issue again and change the rules of the game as they have been established by the 1943 decision and the subsequent decisions affirming and clarifying it, but for now that decision is the law of the land (just as the Supreme Court's more recent striking down of sodomy laws is the law of the land, not MGL 272/35, even though the Supreme Court didn't specifically mention 272/35 in its ruling, and even though this obsolete relic remains on the books).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-22874561815049975502009-10-03T21:10:19.776-04:002009-10-03T21:10:19.776-04:00One more thing:
If we had a vote in the Commonwea...One more thing:<br /><br />If we had a vote in the Commonwealth ending some antiquated anti-sodomy law, or if the legislature wiped it off the books, would there be a broad outcry beyond Christian conservatives? My guess is no.<br /><br />But, do you honestly think politicians in this state and a majority of its residents oppose reciting the Pledge of Allegiance? If so, you might want to spend some time beyond our town's borders. Lots of people like the Pledge and my guess is that very few would be in favor of getting rid of it as a part of the school day.<br /><br />What's fascinating is that many of the things we do and say in Amherst confuse, amuse, and horrify sensible, literate, and progressive people throughout the region.<br /><br />That matters to me not in discussing the Pledge, but in how easily our schools have ignored best practices, state regs, and effective forms of education because some people believe there is a magical Amherst way of doing things, which must be better than everything else everywhere else.Joelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13141742420717242724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-85514288676175354062009-10-03T21:00:19.973-04:002009-10-03T21:00:19.973-04:00Exactly. It isn't progressive or conservative...Exactly. It isn't progressive or conservative, it's a disregard for both common practice and the law of the land because someone feels he/she knows best, via their far left or far right politics. They knew what is truly right and wrong no matter what.<br /><br />Okay, so which Supreme Court decision explicitly speaks to Commonwealth law regarding the Pledge? Which ruling, not a law or ruling that you see as precedent, but an explicit rejection of our law or any state's law requiring the Pledge of Allegiance applies? If one existed, then the law requiring the Pledge wouldn't be on the books.<br /><br />You're right, it isn't left or right, that was my point. I see a lot of people in Amherst acting and talking like a lot of very conservative people in Texas. We talk about "social justice" without ever really defining it and they talk about Jesus in equally bizarre ways.<br /><br />My point is that the behavior of some on the left here in Amherst is just as strange and, frankly, ridiculous, as the behavior I witnessed during 9 long years living in Texas. I much prefer it here, but I'm often amused and put off by the similarities in the thought processes and utter disregard for reality I find among the folks in both places.Joelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13141742420717242724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-32008273802551371232009-10-03T20:21:10.026-04:002009-10-03T20:21:10.026-04:00There's nothing left or right about it. Antiq...There's nothing left or right about it. Antiquated laws that have become unenforceable because of Supreme Court decisions that have overruled them need not be obeyed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-44285832662963799782009-10-03T20:06:30.886-04:002009-10-03T20:06:30.886-04:00To Anon 7:26,
I find this to be a fairly common A...To Anon 7:26,<br /><br />I find this to be a fairly common Amherst-Left and Texas-Right response. You find some other law that isn't enforced or that's silly, etc. and say, well I have no problem ignoring this one.<br /><br />The public schools aren't in the business of flaunting state laws. If our district wants to go to court, and waste a ton of money and time, then it should do so. Short of that, it should follow the law. <br /><br />The obvious question for you is where do you draw the line? At what point is ignoring a law a problem?<br /><br />And, although I share your skepticism about the efficacy of the Pledge itself, I have a much less sanguine view of the U.S. Supreme Court. I would happily bet $100 that the Roberts court would either refuse to hear the case or rule 5-4 to allow the enforcement of the Pledge. Frankly, I don't have a hard time imaging our newest Justice going on about the immigrant experience and the importance of assimilation.Joelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13141742420717242724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-67988275804627867832009-10-03T20:00:22.081-04:002009-10-03T20:00:22.081-04:00How interesting that you bring up the pledge. Abo...How interesting that you bring up the pledge. About a week ago I heard my child talking with friends, all 6th and 7th graders, about it. Most said they didn't even KNOW it. I found that amazing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-27310442950731554872009-10-03T19:26:42.165-04:002009-10-03T19:26:42.165-04:00To inject a note of sanity concerning the pledge o...To inject a note of sanity concerning the pledge of allegiance and the Massachusetts General Laws:<br /><br />Chapter 71, Section 69 of the MGL requiring each teacher to "lead the class in a group recitation" of the pledge would almost certainly be struck down on first-amendment grounds, if someone had the time and money to bother to challenge it. The relevant 1943 Supreme Court decision is quite clear on this issue, not on religious grounds, but on the grounds of free speech and the inadmissibility of compelled speech and oaths. That decision is the standing precedent and the settled law of the land on this matter.<br /><br />Ah, but the law, the law! We must respect state law! To do anything else would by irresponsible, unethical, hypocritical! Shouldn't we just turn ourselves in and pay the fine for not reciting the pledge in our schools?<br /><br />Well, it may come as a surprise to some, but there are thousands of state laws in this country that are no longer enforced or enforceable but for a variety of reasons have remained on the books. Chapter 272 of the MGL, concerning "Crimes against Chastity, Morality, Decency and Good Order" makes for enlightening reading in this regard. Section 14 outlaws adultery, Section 18 fornication, Section 36 blasphemy (towards God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Ghost or "the holy word of God"), Section 21/21A providing contraception to unmarried individuals, and Section 35 "the abominable and detestable crime against nature, either with mankind or with a beast," an act specifically identified as "sodomy, etc." in Chapter 277, Section 79. Yes, in enlightened Massachusetts, first state in the country to legalize same-sex marriages, sodomy is illegal and punishable by up to 20 years in prison.<br /><br />If these laws were enforced with the kind of severity demanded by previous posters concerning the pledge of allegiance, perhaps 90% or more of the Commonwealth's population would find itself behind bars (since all of these crimes are punishable by imprisonment). Those who have the time, money and inclination might want to challenge them and get them officially repealed. More power to them. Few people will fall into this category, however. That doesn't mean that those who commit these "crimes" are irresponsible or unethical, or that they deserve to be mindlessly condemned as "just breaking the law."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-8221769312526789572009-10-03T14:06:30.503-04:002009-10-03T14:06:30.503-04:00Better be careful Joel, I'm going to write you...Better be careful Joel, I'm going to write you in as a candidate for school committee. Although you make too much sense. That probably won't fly here in Amherst. akbAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-28382542293111112892009-10-03T13:28:56.487-04:002009-10-03T13:28:56.487-04:00Everything Rick says makes sense and he deals with...Everything Rick says makes sense and he deals with the issue head on.<br /><br />Right now, we're just breaking the law.<br /><br />What bothers me as I've noted, and I think gets back to the issues at hand, is that the district has had truly awful leadership from our previous superintendent to the previous FR principal to some of the long serving members of the SC. They made things up as they went along, often more concerned with not offended one particular group or another rather than providing thoughtful leadership.<br /><br />Clearly, the Pledge bothers some people and we need to come up with ways to deal with that and stay within the law. <br /><br />Ignoring the law and having a political bias against something that is legally mandated isn't too far off from what we hear from the far right. They reject the legitimacy of the national government now that Obama is president, so they just choose to ignore some laws and denounce the federal government. Few people in Amherst don't see that as crazy, but they never examine how their actions seem to the rest of the country.<br /><br />You want to break the law for political reasons, then do so. But, do so in a politically responsible and ethical way. Announce why you're breaking the law and face the consequences. Don't just act like the mirror image of the right wing jerks.Joelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13141742420717242724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-56555186235131792952009-10-03T09:45:41.759-04:002009-10-03T09:45:41.759-04:00Boy this has gotten way off the original topic. ;-...Boy this has gotten way off the original topic. ;-)<br /><br />Further to what Joel said, there have also been a bunch of cases ruling on this, which you can see at bottom of the Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance but none that seems to strikes down this law, although the 2006 case in Florida ruled that you cannot force a student to recite it.<br /><br />Here is a possible solution:<br /><br />1. Do the Pledge, so that you’re not breaking the MA law.<br /><br />2. Tell the kids it’s voluntary, and on two levels:<br /><br />a. Don’t say it at all if you don’t want to.<br />b. Say it without the under God part if you want.<br /><br />3. Explain to them what the issue is – separation of church and state – which is a learning experience. I think if its done right, even Kindergarten kids would understand. <br /><br />4. Send something home to parents so they can explain same to their kids.<br /><br />5. Don’t start the Pledge until 2nd week of school to give parents time to talk to their kids.Rick Hoodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04347110422224233217noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-46623616277667011182009-10-03T08:59:45.246-04:002009-10-03T08:59:45.246-04:00It's state law. The individual teachers and p...It's state law. The individual teachers and principals have NO authority in this matter.<br /><br />see here:<br /><br />http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/71-69.htm<br /><br />We violate it and should be paying the fine. What bothers me is the mindlessness of just breaking a law you don't like.<br /><br />There are a lot of laws I don't like, but if I break them I have to face the consequences.<br /><br />I don't particularly like the Pledge, although I think it can serve a nice purpose in a multicultural town. What I really can't wrap my mind around is the decision to do whatever we like because we seem to think we know best. <br /><br />Quite clearly we don't know best because increasing numbers of town residents are sending their kids to the Chinese Charter School, trying to school choice to Hadley, and/or looking into private schools.<br /><br />The other issue the failure to recite the Pledge raises for me is, how many other laws and regulations do the Amherst Schools ignore out of our sense of specialness and that we someone know more than everyone else?Joelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13141742420717242724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-40931712388464418102009-10-03T00:58:43.723-04:002009-10-03T00:58:43.723-04:00whose decision is reciting the pledge? i don't...whose decision is reciting the pledge? i don't care to have my child reciting it because i think it encourages nationalism and we allow our child to explore and celebrate different spiritual traditions, not all of them theistic. in this day and age of increasing interconnectedness, and with Amherst's pledged commitment to multiculturalism, asking children to pledge to "one nation, under god", shouldn't and needn't be part of a quality education.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-26524647076262999682009-10-02T18:27:58.158-04:002009-10-02T18:27:58.158-04:00Catherine, why did you vote to allow a few disside...Catherine, why did you vote to allow a few dissidents to hyjack the September 22 school committee meeting? It's a school committee meeting with a specific agenda to be followed for that evening. To listen to one woman speaking in spanish, WTF??? And then have Jim Oldham yammer on and on rehashing old stuff that's already been decided on??? Didn't we all agree that too much talking, and discussion had been going on in the past, and not enough action? akbAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com