Here’s a list of ten commonly-held beliefs in academia that don’t square with what the rest of the country thinks.

Immediately we realize that this isn’t about whether these “myths” are wrong — just that they aren’t what the “rest of the country thinks”.  We are thus warned to proceed with caution.  Here’s the list itself — though you should go read the article to find out why some of these are thought to be myths:

1. There is no liberal bias in academia.

2. Everybody should go to college.

3. Academia is more noble than the business community.

4. Diversity makes everything better.

5. All faculty research is necessary and/or important.

6.  Academic freedom means anything goes.

7. Higher Education drives the economy.

8.  Natural aptitude doesn’t matter.

9. Morality is relative.

10. All cultures are equally good.

Numbers 2, 6, 8, and 9 aren’t really things that “academics think” — so to the extent that they aren’t true, they’re just myths, not “Myths of the Ivory Tower.”  Number 2 in particular is something that most professors, I think, seriously disagree with.

Frankly, while some academics may think number 1 is true, I’m not sure it’s anything close to a majority.  I think most people recognize the liberal bias, enjoy it, and see it as something weighing in liberalism’s favor.

I doubt that number 10 is something that anyone thinks, academic or not.

Number 5 is trivially false, in the sense that Newton’s work on Alchemy wasn’t “necessary and/or important”.  So I guess it can be called a “Myth”.  But that’s a pretty facile interpretation of the idea.  To the extent that something resembling  “All faculty research is necessary and/or important” is actually thought by academics, I think it’s true.  All research is important — because it’s part of a larger project.  Obviously one could look back at a theory that has been debunked (say… that Knowledge=justified true belief, or Newton’s aforementioned Alchemy) and say “Well, that wasn’t necessary.”  But we don’t know that until someone debunks it.  Schalin likens academic writing to “an infinite number of monkeys typing randomly”.   He means to be pejorative, but (1) that’s sort of how scientific discovery works, and (2) the monkeys that we as a society choose to fund at our typewriters tend to be very, very smart people.  So we’ve got some decidedly above-average monkeys.

Sometimes articles need to be pointed out because they are good articles that raise important points.  Sometimes an article needs to be pointed out because it is really a substandard, slapdash attempt at scoring cheap rhetorical points.  Unfortunately, I think this is one of the latter.

“Kids these days…”

“Nobody makes them like they used to…”

Sometimes, and probably more often than we think, the grouchy old man is right.  Stephen Zelnick examines one of the problems facing young men these days:

As a boy, I revered George Washington and was not baffled by the fact of his slave-owning or his land dealings along the Potomac, as if that was all to be known about him. I hoped I would tell the truth about despoiled cherry trees; I hoped, like Benjamin Franklin walking down Philadelphia’s Market Street as a young man on his own, that I would see the world before me as an open field of possibilities; I believed I would, like Lincoln, chase after the poor woman who forgot her three pennies because it was the right thing to do. How does a boy become a man without these inspirations?

The social and cultural atmosphere has been so polluted one wonders how young people can form life-projects that demand decency and tenacious effort. Everything seems to be for sale, and no one is ashamed by it. The fix is in on the Left and the Right in Washington. Turpitude in the coal and oil industry, with their locust hosts of lobbyists to protect them from those who would protect the environment, is an old story. The new stories are about agri-business and healthcare and education, and now even the green NGOs that take big bucks to moderate their advocacy.

As bloggers oft proclaim: Read. The. Whole. Thing.

One place I might take issue with him is when he says:

Unlike their female counterparts, young men tend not to complain about unpleasant grades and do not chase every stray GPA point in petty obsession to excel.

This has not been my experience at all. But I am not teaching English, and I have been at this for far, far, far shorter a time than Dr. Zelnick, so I’m inclined to either defer to his greater experience or chalk it up to the difference either in discipline or in region.

H/T  to Jane Shaw at Phi Beta Cons.

But in case you haven’t been following it… the lawsuit has begun!

The lawsuit seeks a court order for the school to hold the prom. It also asks that McMillen be allowed to escort her girlfriend, who is a fellow student, and wear a tuxedo, which the school said also violated policy.

The school’s decision was a shameful example of pure spite.  They didn’t have the courage of their convictions to simply tell the girl she couldn’t go (and there’s no way they would have gotten away with that legally, anyway).  So instead, they cancel the prom.  Cowards.

Look, I tend to think that most proms could use some canceling.   But this was just an educational institution lashing out in a very nasty way at a young girl, and I hope that they get their derriere handed to them by the ACLU.

A little context: Michael Newdow has made a cottage industry over suing various government entitites for using the word “God”.  On Thursday, the 9th Circuit gave him a kick in the teeth over the Pledge of Allegiance.  I obviously have a view (a positive one) about the Court’s opinion, but the case should be of interest to people on both sides of the debate, such as it is.  The key lines, I think, are:

The Supreme Court held that as long as recitation of the Pledge was optional, then the Pledge was constitutional. The same principle applies here.

* * * *

In the context of the Pledge, the phrase “one Nation under God” constitutes a powerful admission by the government of its own limitations.

* * * *

Thus, the Court drew an explicit distinction between patriotic mentions of God on the one hand, and prayer, an “unquestioned religious exercise,” on the other. Therefore, we hold the School District’s Policy providing for
the voluntary recitation of the Pledge does not violate the Lee coercion test.

* * * *

We recognize some school children who are unaware of its history may perceive the phrase “under God” in the Pledge to refer exclusively to a monotheistic God of a particular religion. A reasonable observer, however, aware of the history and origins of the words in the Pledge would view the Pledge as a product of this nation’s history and political philosophy.

* * * *

The dissent’s analysis would grant a heckler’s veto to anyone who made just enough noise in support of an enactment so as to defeat an otherwise valid measure. That is not the law.

The majority of the opinion is Reinhardt dissenting.  (Pun intended.)

UPDATE: In other news… the fight against graduation prayers continues on, with the promise of much success.

Here’s what I consider to be the essential quote from the essay:

[T]here’s considerable daylight between a reform-oriented policy and its faithful implementation.

My take on this: the problem with educational reform is that it presumes that the schools exist in order to educate students.   This is much like presuming that parents exist in order to care for their children.   Now I don’t want to get to deep into difficult teleological terrain — this is an education blog, not a philosophy blog — but there’s a difference between “parents exist and should take care of their children” and “parents exist in order to take care of their children.”

The fact is that a parent’s existence is prior — both logically and temporally — to their obligation to their children.   The parent will exist (or not) somewhat independently of the existence of the child.

Likewise, schools have an existence apart from their students.  You could eliminate the students entirely, and the schools would still be there and paychecks would still go out.  If all students disappeared, someone would have to do something else in order to shut down the schools.  (And shut down they probably would be… for if there were no students, the taxpayers would be loathe to spend money on nothing, we might presume.)

There is thus a difference between the purpose of schools and the purpose of the taxpayer decision to fund them.  Schools don’t exist for their students — institutionally they exist, like almost everything else, for themselves.  We should not be surprised that the first $100 billion went to self-preservation, not for the benefit of students, and we should not be surprised if the next $5 billion goes in much the same direction.

East Palo Alto Academy Elementary School, started three years ago, was reorganized with a new principal last fall. It ranks in the bottom 5 percent of schools in the state, according to the California Department of Education’s preliminary list. The school serves a low-income community that’s primarily Hispanic, black and Pacific Islander.

Stanford New Schools, a non-profit, runs the elementary and a high school, which is somewhat more successful but still posts below-average scores compared to schools with similar demographics. The high school does send 90 percent of graduates to college.

The elementary school hasn’t met expectations, Stanford Education Dean Deborah Stipek told the Weekly in December.

“In a lot of ways we’ve been very successful in the kind of emotional and family support, but our kids’ skills are not up to what they need to be. It just takes time to get things right.”

In petitioning for renewal of the elementary and high school charter, Stanford New Schools conceded, “We were not satisfied with our students’ achievement gains,” and pledged to redesign “all levels of our system, from governance and management structures to instructional practice and the use of data to drive decision-making.”

Stanford’s Education School has focused on secondary education, so perhaps they have  a lot to learn about running an elementary. I visited the high school when it was new:  Turning theory into practice was proving a challenge. I give Stanford credit for putting its reputation on the line.

Some East Palo Alto charter schools are thriving, including the very successful EPAC, where I once tutored.

The new curriculum stresses the Christian beliefs of the Founders.  

Thomas Jefferson, disliked for coining  “separation of church and state,” was dumped from the list of people “whose writings inspired revolutions in the late 18th century and 19th century.” He was replaced by St. Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin and William Blackstone.

Mavis B. Knight, a Democrat from Dallas, introduced an amendment requiring that students study the reasons “the founding fathers protected religious freedom in America by barring the government from promoting or disfavoring any particular religion above all others.”

It was defeated on a party-line vote.

Board members decided students should learn about “the conservative resurgence of the 1980s and 1990s, including Phyllis Schlafly, the Contract With America, the Heritage Foundation, the Moral Majority and the National Rifle Association.”

Students also will study “the unintended consequences” of the Great Society legislation, affirmative action and Title IX legislation.

Because Texas buys so many textbooks, it influences what’s available in other states.

Update: The changes are fair and balanced, writes Greg Halvorson on American Thinker.

K-12 reading standards are “pretty damned impressive,”says Fordham’s Checker Finn.

Besides doing justice to the “skill side” of English language arts (from early reading on up through sophisticated writing), they’ve taken language “conventions” and content seriously–and cumulatively–in a dozen ways. They’ve devised deft ways of incorporating literature (including means by which monitors of state/district curricula can gauge the quality and rigor of what students are actually asked to read). They’ve delicately balanced between “traditional” and “modern” approaches, between “basic” and “21st Century” skills, etc. They’ve imaginatively incorporated the reading sides of science and history as well as English per se. They’ve supplied plenty of compelling examples of what kids at various levels should be reading. And they haven’t overpromised. Indeed, they state plainly at the very start that proper implementation of these standards hinges on also having a topnotch curriculum in place.

Lynne Munson, who feared the standards would emphasize skills over content, gives the draft an A-, saying it has far exceeded her expectations.

 In the reading standards for literature for grades 3-5 students are required to “compare and contrast thematically similar tales, myths, and accounts of events from various cultures” and “compare the treatment of similar ideas and themes (e.g., opposition of good and evil) as well as character types and patterns of events in myths and other traditional literature from different cultures.”  This cannot be done without reading and deeply comprehending mythological stories. 

The standards “push schools, teachers, and students hard in the direction of reading the best of the best, Munson writes.  The appendix lists examples of works students should be able to read at each grade as well as historical and literary documents, including the Declaration of Independence, the Preamble to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Federalist Papers.  

The English Language standards have an “elegance” and “leanness” that most state standards lack, writes Rick Hess, who sees many challenges ahead in changing testing, data systems, teaching and training.

Tom Vander Ark praises the math standards, but warns that implementation is difficult and states are broke.

. . . we’re about to make a big mistake.  Instead of designing new assessment systems that take full advantage of technology, most states will adopt another version of paper and pencil bubble sheet standardized tests.

On the negative side, Sandra Stotsky critiques the “content and culture-free” reading standards and Ze’ev Wurman thinks “too many pieces are missing” from the math standards to prepare students for algebra.

Some states — notably Virginia and Minnesota — are signaling they prefer theor own state standards. That’s OK, writes Finn. There’s no need for everyone to jump in at once.

Jay P. Greene, blogging at Education Next, is surprised that so many have jumped on board the common standards train, which he predicts will derail.

The standards will inevitably be diluted and made even more 21st century skill-like to gain sufficiently broad support.  The standards-based reformers at Fordham and Core Knowledge will end up renouncing the final product, but will continue to believe that if only the right standards were adopted all would be well.  And we’ll start this all over again in about a decade. 

On Pajamas Media, Andrew J. Coulson faults the false premise of national education standards, pointing out that kids learn at different rates.

Another nay sayer is Neal McCluskey of Cato, who predicts the standards will be ignored or dumbed down. His real fear is a slippery slope toward centralization of education.

The Alliance for Childhood thinks standards ask too much of young children.

I’m blogging from Australia’s Hunter Valley. We’re staying with Silicon Valley refugees turned winemakers.  Saturday we’re going to a rodeo.

CS Monitor    Kansas City to close 26 schools. Unprecedented move in US?

NY Times       Board’s Decision to Close 28 Kansas City Schools Follows Years of Inaction

Rod Dreher   Why did Kansas City’s public schools fail?

Tony’s Kansas City  YouTube on Kansas City School Closings

KMBC                Teachers React to School Closings

KCTV                  School Board Candidates Answer Tough Questions

Glenn Sandifer  Kansas City Locals Defend, Mourn School Closings

Founded on the Reggio Emilia Approach of education,  Muse features student-directed learning.  Amis told the LA Times

Last year, students had a discussion about bees that were swarming around them during snack time. That curiosity turned into a full-blown course of study throughout all grades. “We went from, ‘What is a bee?’ to ‘Why is the bee hive shaped that way?,’ which led to architecture and geometry, Amis Cameron says. “In other schools, they would be told to wait years for the scheduled geometry or biology classes.”

Fans of Avatar will be disappointed that no classes in Na’vi are offered.