If professors make chapters of a book available as e-reserves in the library, or get that material to their classes via Blackboard, students don’t need to buy the book, and the professors may get out of having to pay a permission fee to the publisher.
To resolve the problem, presses “are going to have to start making it easy for people to ask for permission,” said Alex Holzman, director of Temple University Press and president of the Association of American University Presses. “It’s something we really need to start thinking about.”
Mr. Holzman said that his July and August textbook sales were down about 15 percent, in dollar terms, from a year ago. “My gut is telling me that electronic downloading is adding seriously to what would normally be just a straightforward economic downturn,” he said. “There’s something more going on here than in the past.”
Emphasis mine. It’s finally occurred to them to make it easy to get permission??? Nearly three years ago Slate mentioned a nonprofit venture started by Peter Osnos and backed by the MacArthur Foundation with a group of university presses:
[Books would be published] in five formats simultaneously—hardcover, print on demand, digital, audio, and by the chapter. Osnos is trying to ensure that serious nonfiction books are available at different price points. But he’s also bringing some of the insights of Frederick Winslow Taylor to an industry that still works half-days on Fridays in the summer. “The problem with publishing is that you print 10 hardcover books and only sell six,” Osnos said. By moving closer to a system of just-in-time publishing, “we can significantly improve the business and margins by getting rid of the problem of excess inventory.”
I searched for more on that venture back then and found nothing. Since that time I’ve heard nothing. And today I read that the president of the Association of American University Presses thinks it’s time they start making getting permission easier for professors!
Apple’s had incredible success with iPods and iPhones. Both are ideally designed for purchasing chapter-by-chapter audio books through an iTunes store the students are already intimately familiar with.
If they’re offered the right product at the right price point the student set is willing to pay. And if they feel gouged by a monopoly market in which they’re required to buy, does it surprise us that they go looking for alternatives?
August 21st, 2008 By JOE WINDISH, Technology Editor
Nearly $1 million in private funds was paid out to 1,161 New York City students yesterday for scoring well on Advanced Placement exams. Still, the number who passed declined slightly:
Students involved in the program, financed with $2 million in private donations and aimed at closing a racial gap in Advanced Placement results, posted more 5’s, the highest possible score. That rise, however, was overshadowed by a decline in the number of 4’s and 3’s. Three is the minimum passing score. […]
The organizers and underwriters of the program said they were encouraged by the increase in test-takers and student survey results. They said they never expected to see significant change in the first year, noting that the program was announced after the school year was under way and students had signed up for Advanced Placement classes.
Roland G. Fryer, the city’s chief equality officer, runs the program. It also pays students prizes of up to $50 per test for taking and passing other standardized tests. In another, middle school students are rewarded with cellphone minutes for good behavior, attendance and homework along with test scores.
Programs like Fryer’s are being tried across the country. The big question is do they work? There have been only a few studies. Results have been mixed. A new study that’s being watched closely examines the 12-year-old program in Texas. It finds that rewarding students for doing well on tough tests can work:
The research, by C. Kirabo Jackson, an economics professor at Cornell University, found that over time, more students took Advanced Placement courses and tests, and that more graduating seniors attended college. Most of the gains came from minority students in the 40 high schools studied, accounting for about 70,000 students in all. […]
But exactly how much the cash incentives contributed to the improvements remains unclear. Teachers in these districts received additional training and bonuses of up to $10,000 when their students scored well. So it’s inconclusive whether paying the students, rewarding the teachers or a combination of these led to the improved test scores.
The movement called the Amethyst Initiative began quietly recruiting presidents more than a year ago to provoke national debate about the drinking age.
Bloggers are more than happy to oblige. Atrios says let them drink, then adds a proposal of his own:
Perhaps they should consider my cunning plan to let 18 year olds have a drinking license or a driver’s license but not both, which would have the added benefit of helping my plot to make everyone move to Manhattan increasing the appeal of less car dependent locations.
Demanding that kids refrain from drinking for three years after they become legal adults and, in most cases, leave their parent’s supervision, is a bit odd. “Welcome to adulthood, except when it comes to beverage choice!” But this could point the way towards a grand new education policy scheme: Drinking age is 18…if you attain a college-worthy GPA. Otherwise, 21. Implement that and you’ll blow those other, way lamer, educational attainment proposals out of the water.
Andrew Sullivan says Ezra’s a genius! Overlawyered’s Walter Olson says lowering the drinking age is a good idea. “MADD, of course, is having a fit.” He’s got good links; one of which led me to The Volokh Conspiracy’s vigorous comment debate thread. Ryan Grim says, “Fine with me, but can we keep the 18 year olds out of my local bar, at least?”
That statement by Defoe’s attorney Wednesday was the one thing on which he and his courtroom opponent agree in the legal battle over the Anderson County school system’s quarter-century-old ban on the display of the Confederate flag.
It was 18-year-old Defoe who was suspended from Anderson County High School in 2006 after repeatedly refusing, albeit politely, to take off or cover a T-shirt and belt buckle bearing the Rebel battle flag. It was Defoe who has been sitting at the table in U.S. District Court this week as the plaintiff in a lawsuit that labels the ban an unconstitutional violation of the teenager’s right to free speech.
If you are inclined to believe he should be able to wear his t-shirt and belt buckle would you then also say he should be free to show up in hot pink knee-length boots?
The boy’s parents, Dawn and Gregory King, along with his younger brother, Rocky King, are seeking unspecified damages related to the fatal shooting of the 15-year-old boy as he sat in English class at E.O. Green School on Feb. 12. …
In the claims, the Kings say school and county staff members failed to enforce the middle school’s dress code.
That put the feminine-dressing King at particular risk at a time when staff members knew he had “unique vulnerabilities” and was “susceptible to abuse” because of his perceived sexual orientation, the claim says. …
King had told friends he was gay, and he wore makeup, jewelry and high-heeled boots with his school uniform — something Dannenberg said the teen had the freedom to do under his First Amendment rights.
The school’s dress code prevents students from wearing articles of clothing considered distracting. Much broader — and thus more likely to survive a court challenge? — than the specific Confederate flag ban in Tennessee.
My own thought is that dress codes for kids are fine. I see us demanding that schools do more and more of our parenting, so we shouldn’t take away their tools.
For those following the case of Brandon McInerney (the teen who shot King), he entered a not guilty plea last week. The judge has ruled that his lawyers may view records documenting King’s behavior.
A debate coach for Fort Hays State University, in Kansas, is under review by the institution after he swore at officials and mooned judges at a tournament earlier this year, in an incident that was recorded and uploaded to YouTube.
The coach, William Shanahan III, a professor of communication, got into a shouting match with a judge—and at one point briefly dropped his pants—during the national tournament of the Cross Examination Debate Association, which was held in Kansas this spring. A video recording of the incident was posted to YouTube last week, drawing thousands of views, attention from the national news media, and calls to the university from alumni and others demanding that it fire the professor for his behavior.
WARNING: the video is so full of profanity I would not dare post it here!!! I work in academia and love the academy. Usually.
“Fort Hays State University does not condone such behavior or the language Bill uses in that video,” said Larry Gould, the university’s provost, in an interview on Wednesday. “His appointment is under consideration here. We’re investigating at this point, and we want to make sure everybody’s rights are protected.”
This guy is the debate coach!!! The least they can do is prima facia suspend him from that position until the matter is resolved! Without the video, what would the consequences be?
Mr. Shanahan may not have faced an investigation at the university had the video not become public. No one complained to officials there until after the video hit YouTube. “You wouldn’t have seen this five or six years ago,” Mr. Gould said.
But officials for the debate association said they began an investigation before the video went public because someone filed a complaint against Mr. Shanahan’s behavior soon after the tournament.
What with all of the excitement swirling around the Olympics and the ongoing drama in Georgia, I’m sure that the prospect of another heavily wonkish discussion of domestic policy issues might have you checking to see if you couldn’t schedule a quick root canal. But that won’t stop me urging you to check out a recent piece at BlogHer written by Nancy Pfotenhauer on the subject of education. I’ve interviewed Nancy before and she’s a seriously hard hitting wonk from McCain’s team on domestic issues, particularly education.
She sums up the main thrust of McCain’s education policy in three bullet points. First, accountability and individual achievement should be the cornerstone of any metrics when measuring success in our schools and student performance. Second, parents need more options rather than less, and an increasing measure of control over their own children’s education. And last, government should be providing real incentives and training opportunities to get skilled, qualified teachers into some of our most-challenged schools.
I’ll leave it to you to follow the jump and read the full analysis, but there is some good, common sense material here, well worth your consideration. If you have any additional suggestions for government tinkering in the educational process, feel free to toss them out here. Cheers!
August 5th, 2008 By JOE WINDISH, Technology Editor
Georgia Republican Congressman Paul Broun will win reelection in November. In April he introduced a bill to prohibit the sale of pornography on military bases. He followed that up in May with a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. Then last month he fought off his primary challenger by questioning his religious convictions. (His opponent was an active Christian who, among other church duties, served as chairman of the board of deacons.)
That’s how you win in Georgia’s 10th Congressional District, among the most conservative in the state. That and this:
Rep. Paul Broun, R-Athens, has proposed legislation to withhold federal funds from any school that lets students sing The Star-Spangled Banner or say the Pledge of Allegiance in a language other than English.
He introduced the PLEDGE - Pledge Language is English Declaration and Government Endorsement - Act of 2008 on Friday. Requiring immigrant students to say the pledge and sing the national anthem in English will help them assimilate, Broun said. […]
Schools in New Mexico, Arizona and Wisconsin allow and sometimes require students to recite the pledge in Spanish or another language, according to ProEnglish, a Virginia-based nonprofit that pushes English as the official language of the U.S.
RELATED: All of the seven Republicans representing Georgia in Congress voted against the education bill passed last week by overwhelming bipartisan majorities in both the House and Senate.
Last week, in an unprecedented action, the House of Representatives voted to pass a non-binding resolution to apologize for slavery and Jim Crow laws that were used to keep African-Americans from using their political rights for almost a century after the Civil War. As an African-American, I am pleased and perplexed by this vote and wonder who stands to gain from this warm and fuzzy moment.
The sponsor of the bill, Representative Steve Cohen, represents a majority African-American district and is running in his first re-election campaign. While I do not think that his bill (H. Resolution 194) is a total political maneuver, it does not hurt his chances of winning a second term.
A more interesting question is why forward an apology at this time? Perhaps it may have something to do with a possible occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. It would be in bad form to elect a person of color to the Presidency if our government never formally addressed the historic legacy of slavery in this country. But what does this apology really mean? Is it going to address the inadequate schools in our cities or help in rebuilding a sense of economic viability in the African-American community? Probably not, so what is the next step in the process of racial reconciliation?
There are two examples of steps taken by States and the Congress to provide financial reparations to ethnic groups that were mistreated by our government. Native Americans were offered tax breaks and the ability to own casino gaming licenses which they have used to their advantage. In 1988, the Congress apologized to American citizens of Japanese descent and offered $20,000 per person to each of the 60,000 detainees held against their will during the Second World War.
So how much is the apology for slavery and Jim Crow laws actually worth in 2008? In 1865, freed slaves were promised 40 acres and a mule through Special Field Orders No. 15 by General William T. Sherman. Of course, by the end of 1866, President Johnson had repealed Sherman’s order that was authorized by President Lincoln. How much is 40 acres and a mule worth today? The reality is that if it took 140 years to get a written apology do not look for the African-American stimulus package to hit your mailbox anytime soon.
In the meantime, how about just getting forty textbooks for forty students AND a competent teacher in each classroom…I’ll just have to wait for my condo and my hybrid.
I was reading the full text of John McCain’s speech to the Urban League today, but when I went to look for the media coverage of it, what I found was, shall we say, disappointing. The primary buzz in both newspapers and television was about the “cool” reception he received for some remarks concerning the policy proposals of his opponent, Senator Barack Obama. (Though the majority of reports were generous enough to note that Senator McCain received a respectful standing ovation from the attendees at both the beginning and end of his remarks.)
I will grant you that the specific audience was not tailored to McCain from a political perspective. The Urban League is largely an African-American organization and nobody - including McCain’s team - is under the impression that one speech is suddenly going to swing 50% of the nation’s black voters to his banner. We could also reasonably expect that Obama would receive a rousing welcome for his remarks. (Which he did, and his speech was both well crafted and skillfully delivered.)
What was most disappointing to me, though, was the lack of coverage of a large portion of McCain’s speech on a very pressing domestic issue - education. The audience was a good fit, given their motivation to assist lower income persons to move into the economic mainstream. And McCain’s remarks were very much on point. He talked about the need for options by parents with students in troubled or failing public school districts. He spoke persuasively about programs in place, both in Washington, DC and New Orleans, which provide such choices and opportunities and the benefits they are providing to parents and children. Current education policies have clearly been failing families, and the proof is in front of you all around the country. (Though never more obvious than in so many of our inner city school districts.)
I would ask you to take a moment and read the full portion of the speech which the media was not covering and judge for yourself.
Observing the McCain campaign this week is becoming uncomfortably akin to watching a New York Jets game. Even if you really, really want them to win, you get a sick feeling in your gut as you see them drop passes, fumble and throw the ball to people wearing the wrong jersey. Opportunities are there, but flailing, wild swings are taken in the wrong direction. And now we see McCain comparing Obama to a pop star such as Paris Hilton or Britney Speares?
“This is a typically superfluous response from Barack Obama. Like most celebrities, he reacts to fair criticism with a mix of fussiness and hysteria,” says McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds
Really? This is the new approach? The move is already being ripped to shreds. It is once again time to track down the person on McCain’s campaign staff who keeps feeding him these ideas. Previously I had felt that firing them would be enough. No longer! This individual must, I fear, be dragged into a steel cage on pay per view, drawn, quartered and hided, with their limbs sent to be displayed on bridges at the four corners of the country and a stern warning to future advisers stamped on their skin which should be hung on the wall of McCain’s war room.
This bewildering move immediately delivered benefits for Obama, as the press caught up with him boarding his bus. He smiles broadly, as if McCain were nothing more than a housefly buzzing around him and takes advantage of the opportunity to say, “He doesn’t seem to have much positive to say about himself, does he? He’s just talking about me. You need to ask John McCain what he’s for, not just what he’s against.”
The networks are already running that clip in an endless loop.
Meanwhile, the answer for McCain is right in front of him. He had a good week hitting the swing states and talking about the Three E’s - Energy, Education and the Economy. There is new ammunition coming into his arsenal every day. You want to run some new advertisements, Senator McCain? Talk about this. A majority of Americans now want more drilling for domestic oil production. Hell’s Bells, even in California more than half of the residents are willing to look into drilling off their own shores. (This helps to take some of the wind out of the sails of the “Not in my back yard” arguments brought up by some opponents of domestic production.)
This is one of the winning issues where you can pin your opponent’s considerably large ears back and you know he can’t back down on it. But instead, you’re spending time and resources on ads trying to link him to pop music divas? It’s not as if this election wasn’t going to be tough enough to start with. There’s no need to make it harder on yourself.
Last week a California judge ruled that trying a 14-year-old boy accused of murder in an adult court does not violate the constitution:
“I cannot say that this is unconstitutional,” said Ventura County Superior Court Judge Douglas Daily.
Teenage defendant Brandon McInerney of Oxnard is charged with first-degree murder and a hate crime in connection with the Feb. 12 killing of classmate Larry King, 15, who sometimes wore makeup and told friends he was gay.
Today a Ventura County Star editorial pleads with District Attorney Greg Totten to use his discretion to rethink that decision:
The Star Editorial Board respectfully asks Mr. Totten to step out of his office, ask for counsel outside his prosecutor peers to lessen the real influence of groupthink, look at the question anew and reflect again on the circumstances before making a final decision. (His initial decision was made within just two days of the shooting and his office had left open the possibility it could change as more facts were learned.)
We hope Mr. Totten also considers the information that has come forward recently in the national discussion of whether children should be tried as adults. A November 2007 report by the Equal Justice Initiative, a nonprofit law organization in Montgomery, Ala., stated that the United States is one of the few countries in the world that allows children to be prosecuted as adults and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole.
The majority world opinion of civilized nations is that juveniles should not be subject to dying in prison — certainly not 14-year-olds.
There is science on the competence of 14-year-olds that ought to inform our legal and ethical decision as to whether or not we should declare kids adults fit for trial. William Saletan, for example, has reported:
In a forthcoming review of studies, Laurence Steinberg of Temple University observes that at ages 12 to 13, only 11 percent of kids score at an average (50th percentile) adult level on tests of intellectual ability. By ages 14 to 15, the percentage has doubled to 21. By ages 16 to 17, it has doubled again to 42. After that, it levels off. […]
Steinberg reports that on tests of psychosocial maturity, kids are much slower to develop. From ages 10 to 21, only one of every four young people scores at an average adult level. By ages 22 to 25, one in three reaches that level. By ages 26 to 30, it’s up to two in three.
Emphasis mine. The case at hand presents a psychosocial challenge that was daunting for all involved. In fact, the evidence indicates it pretty much overwhelmed all of the adults involved.
Arguably, what we have here is the scapegoating of kids for the inability of adult individuals and institutions to cope with the complexities of psychosocial challenges of our own making. We built this society; we birthed those kids; we raise and educate them!
Some of the indicators become clear in last week’s Newsweek Cover Story — no matter what your political persuasion (or perspective on the objectivity or lack thereof of the reporters of the story). Extended illustrative excerpts follow. Read the rest of this entry »
Among the oddities that has emerged during the course of the present Presidential election, is that both candidates - John McCain and Barack Obama - are left-handed.
Previously, we translated an Arabic article from Iraq about the phenomenon, and today we have this from France’s Rue 89.
“The proportion of left-handed (per country) is directly proportional to the tolerance accorded left-handers. It was 3 percent in early 20th century France. It’s now around 15 percent and in the United States, it’s approaching 25 percent. It [the U.S.] is historically a more permissive country, more concerned with individual rights, which has lifted the stigma from left-handedness much earlier than in our Old Europe.”
Observing the McCain campaign this week is becoming uncomfortably akin to watching a New York Jets game. Even if you really, really want them to win, you get a sick feeling in your gut as you see them drop passes, fumble and throw the ball to people wearing the wrong jersey. Opportunities are there, but flailing, wild swings are taken in the wrong direction. And now we see McCain 