Page 299 of 394
1 297 298 299 300 301 394

Estados Unidos declara a las abejas como especie en peligro de extinción

América del Norte/Estados Unidos/Octubre de 2016/Fuente: Noticias Ambientales

El Servicio de Pesca y Vida Salvaje de Estados Unidos ha incluido por primera vez a las abejas como especie en peligro. Además de estos insectos, otras seis especies con contarán con una protección especial en virtud de la Ley de Especies en Peligro.
Entre los motivos de la diminución de las poblaciones de abejas están la reducción de su hábitat, los incendios, las especies exógenas, los pesticidas y la pérdida de diversidad genética.
La norma es efectiva a partir del 31 de octubre. La situación es especialmente grave, puesto que las abejas polinizan numerosas especies vegetales, incluidas las utilizadas en agricultura.
Los polinizadores nativos prestan un servicio esencial en Estados Unidos a la agricultura, lo que está evaluado en más de 9 mil millones de dólares anuales según señaló el codirector de la Xerces Society, Eric Lee-Mäder. Este organismo había solicitado incluir las abejas en la lista de especies protegidas.
En este sentido, un estudio realizado por el Centro de Ecología e Hidrología de Reino Unido, que apuntaba que los insecticidas neonicotinoides estaría tras la aceleración de la muerte de abejas.
Entre 1994 y 2011, al menos en Inglaterra, las abejas que tuvieron contacto frecuente con este compuesto redujeron su población tres veces más rápido que el resto.
Fuente: http://www.noticiasambientales.com.ar/index.php?leng=es&nombremodulo=ANIMALES&id=8216
Comparte este contenido:

EE.UU: ¿Qué es y para qué sirve la «materia exótica»?, el descubrimiento por el que tres científicos británicos ganaron el premio Nobel de Física 2016

América del Norte/EE.UU/07 de octubre de 2016/www.bbc.com

¿Qué pasa en un mundo desconocido en el que la materia puede asumir estados muy extraños?

Esta es la premisa que mueve a los británicos David Thouless, Duncan Haldane y Michael Kosterlitzal, que acaban de recibir el Premio Nobel de Física 2016.

El Instituto Karolinska de Estocolmo, en Suecia, anunció este martes el galardón y dijo que los científicos fueron premiados «por sus descubrimientos teóricos sobre las llamadas transiciones de fases topológicas de la materia».

Thouless, Haldane y Kosterlitza han estudiado más específicamente la «materia exótica«.

Si en un principio este concepto puede sonar muy extraño, no es otra cosa que el estudio en profundidad de lo que ocurre más allá de los conocidos estados líquido, sólido y gaseoso de las cosas que nos rodean.

Lo que les interesó a estos científicos que trabajan en universidades de Estados Unidos fue ver qué es lo que ocurre cuando la materia se somete a temperaturas extremadamente altas o bajas.

David Thouless, Duncan Haldane y Michael KosterlitzImage copyrightNOBELPRIZE.ORG
Image captionLos tres científicos son de origen británico pero su trabajo lo han hecho en Estados Unidos.

Es aquí donde la materia adopta estados exóticos y abre las puertas a un mundo desconocido (y aparentemente con muchas posibilidades).

Thouless, Haldane y Kosterlitzal utilizaron métodos matemáticos avanzados para estudiar estas facetas o estados inusuales de la materia.

Lo «bi» y «uni» dimensional

Una vez que se conoce el ambiente y las condiciones en que la materia existe, entonces es posible estudiar la materia misma. Eso es lo que se conoce comotopología: un campo de la matemática que describe las propiedades que sólo cambian de forma escalonada.

Gracias a ella, Kosterlitzal y Thouless demostraron en los años 70 que la superconductividad podía ocurrir a bajas temperaturas y así lograron explicar el mecanismo que ocurre cuando esa propiedad desaparece a altas temperaturas.

Computación cuánticaImage copyrightTHINKSTOCK
Image captionCon su trabajo, los científicos demostraron lo que parecía imposible

Ambos científicos se concentraron en el fenómeno dentro de las formas planas de la materia, en superficies o capas que son tan finas que pueden considerarse como bidimensionales.

(La superconductividad es la capacidad intrínseca que poseen determinados materiales para conducir corriente eléctrica sin resistencia ni pérdida de energía en determinadas condiciones).

Por su parte, en los años 80 Haldane pudo determinar cómo estos conceptos topológicos de cambios escalonados podían usarse para entender las propiedades en las cadenas de pequeños magnetos que se encuentran en algunos materiales.

Este científico estudió materia que forma hilos tan delgados que pueden ser considerados unidimensionales.

¿Para qué sirve?

Si bien hace tres décadas estos conceptos eran meramente teóricos, en la actualidad tienen aplicaciones en el día a día, como el desarrollo de nuevas generaciones de dispositivos electrónicos y superconductores.

«La avanzada tecnología de hoy en día -como nuestras computadoras- se basa en nuestra habilidad para entender y controlar las propiedades de los materiales involucrados», explicó el profesor Nils Martenson, presidente interino del Comité del Premio Nobel.

«Y los laureados de este año, en su trabajo teórico, descubrieron una seria deregularidades totalmente inesperadas en el comportamiento de la materia».

Mujeres leyendo en tablets y teléfonosImage copyrightTHINKSTOCK
Image captionEl trabajo de estos premios Nobel es vital en la vida moderna

Martenson agregó que esto ha allanado el camino para el diseño de nuevos materiales con propiedades novedosas.

«Hay grandes esperanzas de que esto sea de gran importancia en la tecnología del futuro«.

«Este puede ser el camino para construir computadoras cuánticas«, dijo por su parte Thouless en una llamada telefónica que le hicieron desde el Instituto Karolinska.

Este científico fue galardonado con la mitad del premio, mientras que la otra mitad fue dividida entre Haldane y Kosterlitz.

La distinción será entregada el 10 de diciembre.

Tomado de: http://www.bbc.com/mundo/noticias-37549666

Comparte este contenido:

EE.UU: Una escuela para entender la educación de los hijos de inmigrantes

América del Norte/EE.UU/07 de octubre de 2016/www.laopinion.com/Por: Gardenia Mendoza

Mónica Haydee Ramos, activista a favor de la educación de los inmigrantes, habla del miedo. Del temor de muchos mexicanos a ser descubiertos como indocumentados y deportados o a no saberse comunicar en inglés para ir a preguntar cómo va su hijo en la escuela, si se porta bien, si hace tareas o los pasos a seguir para crecer profesionalmente.

“No deben paralizarse porque entonces dejan a su hijo solo”, argumenta esta activista nacida en Jalisco que empuja desde hace décadas el concepto de “educación para la vida” y hoy es parte de la Red Global que organiza la cancillería mexicana para aglutinar a mexicanos de alto nivel para apoyar a otros.

“Ellos como padres tienen derecho: no les va a pasar nada y yo lo que les digo es que tienen que entrar a sus escuelas, preguntar a los maestros todas sus dudas y sobre sus derechos como padres”.

A través de su organización Familia y Comunidad, Ramos ha instalado desde hace unos años una serie de talleres y conferencias que apoya el consulado mexicano que ayuda a entender a los padres de familia cómo funciona el sistema educativo estadounidense: sus periodos académicos, el sistema de becas, el de calificaciones.

“Lo que sigue es demasiado bueno porque vamos a tener familias con hijos en el colegio y esa generación que entiende el sistema será un modelo para las siguientes”, dice.

Se trata de empoderar a las nuevas generaciones sin descuidar a las de emigrantes con los que hacen labor de convencimiento de que la educación “es un deber para toda la vida: no importa que ahora tengan tercero de primaria, si siguen estudiando primero en alfabetización, luego en el Comunity College y así cada vez van a poder estar mejor”.

De acuerdo con una investigación de Pew Research Center en 2013 sólo el 4% de los inmigrantes mexicanos dominan totalmente el inglés y presentan los niveles más bajos de educación que el grueso de la población en Estados Unidos con sólo un 10% que ha obtenido un nivel de licenciatura.

Tomado de: http://www.laopinion.com/2016/10/03/una-escuela-para-entender-la-educacion-de-los-hijos-de-inmigrantes/

Comparte este contenido:

EE.UU: The Cost of Child Care in America Is Even More Outrageous Than You Thought

América del Norte/EE.UU./07 de octubre de 2016/www.slate.com/Por: Ruth Graham

Resumen: El tema del costo del cuidado infantil se ha convertido en tema de conversación favorito en la campaña electoral de los candidatos de EE.UU. Hilary, por ejemplo, propone la limitación de los gastos de cuidado de niños en el 10 por ciento de los ingresos de una familia, por su parte, Donald Trump, ha expresado que permitiría a los padres deducir el costo del cuidado infantil de sus impuestos sobre la renta, excluyendo de este modo a las familias de bajos ingresos que más necesitan del cuidado de niños. Sin embargo, hoy en día, un nuevo informe conjunto del grupo de expertos New America y Care.com ilustra porqué el costo del cuidado de niños en Estados Unidos es indignante. El coste medio de la inscripción a tiempo completo de un niño de 4 años o menos en un centro de cuidado de niños en Estados Unidos es $ 9,589 al año, lo que es más alto que el costo promedio de la matrícula universitaria estatal. Una familia que gana el ingreso medio por hogar gastaría el 18 por ciento de la misma en el cuidado de niños. Para un solo padre ganando el salario mínimo, llevar a su hijo a un cuidado de niños sería comer hasta 64 por ciento de sus ingresos. Por supuesto, los EE.UU. sigue siendo el único país industrializado que no requiere a los patronos proveer siquiera un solo día de licencia de paternidad remunerada, y la Familia y los mandatos de la Ley de Licencia Médica sólo otorgan 12 semanas de licencia sin sueldo para las madres después del parto. Eso significa que muchos padres que trabajan tienen que poner a sus hijos en algún tipo de centro de atención en cuestión de semanas. Y los costos de la atención infantil son 12 por ciento más alto que para los niños mayores, de acuerdo con el nuevo informe. Mientras tanto, sólo el 11 por ciento de los centros de cuidado infantil y centros de atención en el hogar están acreditados, una medida de seguridad básica y tanto la calidad educativa en lo que se entiende cada vez más como un período de desarrollo crucial. Mientras tanto, los trabajadores de cuidado de niños mismos se les paga salarios de pobreza. A nivel nacional, los salarios medios son menos de la mitad de la media de los maestros de preescolar, de acuerdo con un informe publicado en julio de este año por el Centro para el Estudio de Empleo de cuidado de niños.

Noticia original:

One of the stranger policy twists in this very strange election season is that the high cost of child care has become a favorite talking point for both the Democratic and Republican nominees for president. Hillary Clinton proposes capping child care expenses at 10 percent of a family’s income. And Donald Trump has said he would allow parents to deduct the cost of child care from their income taxes—thereby excluding the low-income families who most need help, but never mind. Forty-five years after President Nixon vetoed a universal child care plan because of its “family-weakening implications,” today both major-party nominees see child care costs as a problem that benefits them to address.

Today, a New Joint Report from the think tank New America and Care.com illustrates why. In short, the cost of child care in America is outrageous. The average cost of enrolling a child age 4 or younger full-time at a child care center in America is $9,589 a year, which is higher than the average cost of in-state college tuition. A family earning the median household income would spend 18 percent of it on child care. For a single parent earning minimum wage, child care would eat up 64 percent of her income. And that’s for one child. For perspective, child care is considered affordable if it doesn’t exceed 10 percent of a family’s income, according to standards from the Department of Health and Human Services. Not only are current costs way beyond that for many parents, but they have risen at nearly twice the rate of inflation since the end of the recession.

Of course, the U.S. remains the only industrialized country that does not require employers to provide even a single day of paid parental leave, and the Family and Medical Leave Act mandates just 12 weeks of unpaid leave for mothers after childbirth. That means many working parents need to place their children in some kind of care setting within weeks. And the costs for infant care are 12 percent higher than they are for older children, according to the new report. Meanwhile, only 11 percent of child-care centers and home-based care settings are accredited, a measure of both basic safety and educational quality in what is increasingly understood to be a crucial developmental period.

The report addresses quality and availability of care along with cost. All vary widely in what the report describes as the country’s “fragmented, patchwork system.” With expenses so high and availability so spotty, many families decide to rely instead on the “gray market” of unregulated options: care provided by family, friends, or neighbors, which is often unreliable and even unsafe. In other cases, women (yes, usually women) cut back on their hours or simply opt to stay home with their children, making the reasonable calculation that it makes little financial sense to work if your income is effectively being funneled into the child care that you need because you’re going to work.

Meanwhile, child care workers themselves are often paid poverty wages. Nationally, their median wages are less than half of the average for kindergarten teachers, according to a report released in July by the Center for the Study of Child Care Employment. In 2015, almost half of early childhood workers in the U.S. relied on public assistance. When it comes to child care in America, parents, children, and providers are somehow all getting the short end of the stick. The “family-weakening implications” of our current broken system deserve attention during this presidential election—and afterward.

Tomado de: http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2016/09/28/cost_of_child_care_in_america_still_outrageous_yet_somehow_more_so.html

Comparte este contenido:

Universal language and the strange cyclical nature of the news

Por: Russell Smith

The aged linguist and activist Noam Chomsky is suddenly back in the news, not because of his political pronouncements, but because of the highly technical linguistic theories he enunciated more than 50 years ago.

We are all talking about universal grammar again. Why are these theories back in the news? Because a flamboyant and also aged journalist and novelist named Tom Wolfe has attacked them in a recent book. Why has Wolfe decided to attack Chomsky’s late-1950s linguistics now? That we will never know for sure. But it’s a great excuse to talk about linguistics.

The media work in strange ways. I am loath to reveal some of our more embarrassing secrets, on the principle that the general public does not want to know exactly what is in a hot dog, but these do help to explain the torrent of Chomsky articles right now.

See, a basic concept in journalism school – especially in classes where opinion columns are taught – is that of a “peg.” A peg is the story in the news that makes your idea relevant. Opinions are supposed to follow from news – from pegs – but columnists with a hobby horse to ride will often reverse the process: Desirous of exploring a pet theory of theirs, they will seek a peg for it. If I want to talk about Chomsky’s universal grammar and its opponents, for example, I peg it to Wolfe’s new book. And writers always want to talk about linguistics – more than the general public does, usually.

Wolfe’s new book, The Kingdom of Speech, is not even primarily about Chomsky, but it is being billed as an attack on him. It promises, the personality-driven media say, an epic bitter political duel with plenty of insults in either direction. (“A row that promises to be the literary spat of the season,” The Guardian crowed.) In fact, the book is an attack on the theory of evolution, of which Chomsky is merely the linguistics-department representative.

More daringly, Wolfe is attacking Charles Darwin, in amusingly withering language, as a non-scientist who didn’t do enough field work and created a purely intellectual theory full of gaping holes in practice. (This is one of Wolfe’s idées fixes – in his writing on the failings of contemporary American fiction, he has railed against the failure of authors to do journalistic research – their field work – on real-life milieux.)

But Darwin is not alive, so the media are more interested in the part of the book that deals with someone who might actually be offended. Chomsky is targeted as part of the Darwinian cabal because his widely respected theory on language as an innate human characteristic – “universal grammar” – purports that human language is a part of evolution; it is a biological trait that has evolved with us. But it is also clear from the ad hominem attacks on Chomsky as an activist – attributes entirely irrelevant to linguistic theory – that Wolfe’s opposition to the linguist is very broadly ideological. He just doesn’t like Chomsky – the person, and everything he stands for.

To counter Chomsky’s theory, he adduces the well-known work of a linguist and anthropologist, Daniel Everett, who argued more than 10 years ago that the odd language of an isolated tribe in the Amazon jungle, the Pirahã, disproved Chomsky’s idea of a universal grammar.

If Wolfe has just discovered this controversy, he is not very interested in linguistics. Everybody knows about it. It was the subject of a lengthy and quite technical New Yorker article. I myself hosted a radio documentary on the CBC about it in 2006. And everybody who knows about it knows that the matter is far from settled. There were serious problems with Everett’s research and universal grammar purists are still not convinced that the language he described is truly so idiosyncratic or that the exception it demonstrates is enough to destroy the larger theory. Chomsky has addressed it and done a pretty good job of defending himself.

What is more interesting than the Pirahã dispute is the fact that new opposition to the universal grammar theory has arisen in the meantime from quite another quarter: the field of developmental psychology, where scientists studying very young children say they learn language in roundabout ways that don’t quite support Chomsky’s theory of a natural and universal acquisition. This long, nuanced and highly technical debate – most of it utterly unreadable to lay readers – is possibly a more serious challenge to universal grammar than the Pirahã were, but it does not surface in Wolfe’s book or in any of the media attempts to make a colourful clash of ideologies or personalities out of this.

(A recent article in Scientific American, “Evidence Rebuts Chomsky’s Theory of Language Learning,” by Paul Ibbotson and Michael Tomasello, the two most vocal proponents of the psychology-based approach, does its best to explain in non-technical terms the “usage-based” theory of language acquisition, but it is still pretty dense stuff. It does not mention Tom Wolfe.)

Wolfe is a reporter and an entertainer, an opinionated raconteur rather than a scientist, and that is why we will always report on his jocular provocations. And if they serve as an excuse to explain what universal grammar was in the first place – as it has done – then Chomsky should be thrilled.

What Wolfe’s peg was for this broadside, a journalist can only speculate. See, the media are weird. There is often no clear reason for anything to be splashed across your headlines for a few days at a time – and then vanish again for 50 years.

Tomado de: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/books-and-media/universal-language-and-the-strange-cyclical-nature-of-the-news/article31904271/

Comparte este contenido:

Chomsky: EEUU y Rusia avanzan hacia una guerra atómica que acabará con la humanidad

América del Norte/EE.UU/6 de octubre de 2016/Fuente: hispantv

El célebre politólogo estadounidense Noam Chomsky dice que el aumento de las tensiones entre Rusia y Estados Unidos podría desencadenar una guerra nuclear que pondría fin a la humanidad.

“EE.UU. (…), por su parte, cuadruplicó los gastos militares. Los rusos están haciendo algo similar. Hay colisiones cercanas y constantes, los jets se acercan para chocar entre sí (…) Las tropas estadounidenses virtualmente están llevando a cabo maniobras cerca de las fronteras de Rusia. Esa amenaza es cada vez mayor y muy grave”, advirtió Chomsky durante una entrevista concedida a Democracy Now y publicada el lunes.

La amenaza nuclear existe en la frontera rusa, indicó antes de hacer hincapié en que ambas partes están actuando como si tuvieran en mente una guerra atómica, además de que las tensiones entre Moscú y Washington han puesto al mundo al borde de la “desaparición de las especies”.

EE.UU. (…), por su parte, cuadruplicó los gastos militares. Los rusos están haciendo algo similar. Hay colisiones cercanas y constantes, los jets se acercan para chocar entre sí (…) Las tropas estadounidenses virtualmente están llevando a cabo maniobras cerca de las fronteras de Rusia. Esa amenaza es cada vez mayor y muy grave”, dijo el célebre politólogo estadounidense Noam Chomsky.

El célebre politólogo estadounidense Noam Chomsky.

Según el intelectual norteamericano, el exjefe del Pentágono William Perry recientemente también estimó que la referida amenaza es mucho mayor de lo que lo fue durante la década de 1980.

Las tensiones entre Moscú y Washington aumentaron el pasado abril, después de que un caza ruso Sujoi Su-27 interceptara, de una “manera peligrosa”, un avión de reconocimiento RC-135 de Estados Unidos sobrevolando las aguas internacionales del mar Báltico

Por otro lado, Chomsky añade que aparte de la proliferación nuclear, el cambio climático y el calentamiento global también plantean una grave y seria amenaza para la humanidad.

De igual manera, dice que las mencionadas amenazas se verán afectadas directamente por el resultado de las elecciones de Estados Unidos, que se celebrarán en noviembre de 2016, pues todavía son ignoradas en los debates de los candidatos presidenciales.

Las cosas empeoran, ya que las elecciones en EE.UU. se acercan, continúa, y las peores amenazas que ha enfrentado la especie humana todavía «están ausentes en las discusiones y debates» de quienes buscan ser el presidente de ese país.

ftn/anz/rba

Fuente: http://www.hispantv.com/noticias/ee-uu/255851/guerra-atomica-nuclear-eeuu-rusia-chomsky

Imagen: 217.218.67.233/hispanmedia/files/images/thumbnail/20160517/13252974_xl.jpg

Comparte este contenido:

Estados Unidos: Education Secretary John King: Homeschooled Students Not ‘Getting the Range of Options’ They Should

Estados Unidos / 05 de octubre de 2016 / Por: DR. SUSAN BERRY / Fuente: http://www.breitbart.com/

U.S. Secretary of Education John King says he is worried that homeschooled children aren’t “getting the range of options that are good for all kids,” a remark that is drawing strong reactions from homeschooling parents across the nation.

The Heritage Foundation’s Lindsey Burke provided Politico Pro’s (subscription only) report on King’s recent remarks to reporters at a breakfast hosted by the Christian Science Monitor. Burke writes at the Daily Signal:

King—although he conceded that there are homeschooling families who are doing well—told the audience he worries that homeschooled students aren’t “getting the range of options that are good for all kids.” According to Politico:

King said he worries that ‘students who are homeschooled are not getting kind of the rapid instructional experience they would get in school’—unless parents are “very intentional about it”.

King said the school experience includes building relationships with peers, teachers and mentors—elements which are difficult to achieve in homeschooling, he said, unless parents focus on it.

Burke herself observes that King’s statement “assumes homeschooled students are not in school.”

“As Milton Friedman famously quipped in Free to Choose, ‘not all schooling is education and not all education is schooling,’” she notes, pointing out that about 3.4 percent of children in the United States are now homeschooled, up from 1.7 percent in 1999.

Reacting to King’s remarks, Naomi Riall, who homeschools in North Carolina, tells Breitbart News she wonders if the education secretary has “some master list containing this mysterious range of options.”

 “Perhaps I fall into the ‘very intentional’ category, but there are so many opportunities,” she says, explaining:

In the next two months, we’re planning to visit the capitol building, attend a Native American festival, explore a rock quarry, see a theatre production, and visit the museum or park anytime we want. Oh—and there’s our weekly co-op park day, where we have organized sports, friends, and free play awaiting us.

If “the school experience includes building relationships with peers, teachers and mentors,” then the home education experience includes building relationships with family, friends, and the surrounding community. My children are not limited to engaging only children their own age. How silly would it be if after being hired at a new job, the employer separated us into work areas by age? The public education system has fabricated this fantasy that a classroom is equivalent to the real world, which only serves a student as far as graduation. Homeschoolers learn and live life in the real world. We provide an individual instruction experience, instead of “rapid instructional experience.”

Homeschooling parent Amber Shellenberger also reacted to King’s comment that homeschoolers don’t have a “rapid instructional experience.”

“I’m sure Mr. King meant this statement to be a negative aspect of homeschooling, but I believe this can actually be an incredible benefit,” she tells Breitbart News, explaining:

My kids and I are under very few time restraints when it comes to their schooling, so we can take our time to talk things over and actually learn rather than just memorize and move on to get a good grade on a test. I see this as building a very strong foundation for them when they are young. When they get older, they’ll have a complete understanding of the educational basics so that they can build on that. Once my children have a good grasp on a subject, we move on. This can be five minutes or three days, but I don’t see a point of rapid instruction if there isn’t complete understanding by all students.

Shellenberger says she doubts King has done much research on homeschooling:

Just in our small community, we have a wonderful homeschool group that offers support, field trips, spelling bees, science fairs, dances, holiday festivities, and various tutorials. There are opportunities for music lessons, sports, theater acting, choir, art, career research and mentoring, 4H, and many, many more. Honestly, there is an equal number of opportunities for homeschoolers as there are for public schoolers, but the difference is that homeschoolers tend to have more time to get involved and take part in the extracurricular activities offered to them.

Like Riall, Shellenberger also asserts that it’s time to put “the socialization myth” to rest. She points out that homeschooled children can interact with others of a variety of ages – not simply those born in the same year. However, she also values that her children’s social skills aren’t “learned by a group of kids who have no social skills of their own, but by my husband and I – two adults who can guide them and teach them social norms, good habits, manners, and conflict resolution.”

“In this kind of safe environment, I’ve also noticed that my kids can each be themselves and aren’t swayed by the influence of their peers,” she adds. “They can build relationships with others by being themselves and sharing their interests rather than being afraid that someone will criticize them for being different. This is probably my favorite thing about homeschooling my kids!”

Wisconsin homeschooling parent Sara Lehman says King’s remarks suggest he presumes he knows what’s best “for all kids.”

“That’s exactly the problem with the state of government schools,” she tells Breitbart News. “What’s also ironic is that his statement is in direct contradiction to why we choose to homeschool. We didn’t want ‘rapid (one size fits all) instruction’ meant to push kids along regardless if they were actually gaining knowledge.”

“The quality of public education is a joke and I have to believe that these politicians know this,” Lehman continues further:

Why else would their main argument against homeschooling be, continuously, about the “social” aspect? My children are interacting with a broader range of people – a broader age range of children. They are actually getting a broader range of education than in public school as well. King’s argument about that is debunked easily. Does not each school have a list of classes that students get to choose from? Based on funding, schools could have few options or many. Homeschoolers, however, are not restricted at all! Our options are limitless. Our children are getting a well- rounded education that focuses on learning – not grading, testing, and “socializing.” For many parents, the social aspect of government schooling is exactly what they don’t want! In short, they have seen “the village,” and don’t want it raising their children.

However, Karen Braun – a Michigan homeschooling mom of six – says that while homeschoolers may be tempted to reflexively react to King’s comments with the response that they actually have the “most options,” she sees a looming threat in the education secretary’s remarks.

“He is actually saying something I have been talking about for quite a while,” she tells Breitbart News, explaining:

Understanding his statement as it pertains to the transformation in education currently taking place is essential. This isn’t as much about the parent being “intentional” as we might think of it, but more as the student being a part of the system with the intent of “career readiness”. Those that are part of the system have the range of options; those that aren’t, do not. The reference for King’s remarks is the competency-based system of education.

Braun warns homeschoolers “will have limited options in a competency-based education system – and that is by design.”

She continues:

This is a system based on what is “earned,” not what is learned. It’s Pokémon Go! for all learners. Students learn to earn “digital badges” that allow them to advance higher in the system. Those that play their game advance, and those that don’t, won’t.

Homeschoolers don’t play the feds’ game, align to their standards, or compete for badges. Homeschoolers are driven by a desire to develop the mind and hearts of their children, not develop skilled workers.

Braun cites the example of a Michigan homeschooling student who was invited to attend the upcoming homecoming dance in the Wayne-Westland Community school district. Areport last week at Michigan Capitol Confidential, however, says the school district responded with its policy that only homeschooled students coming from an “accredited” homeschool may attend dances within the district.

“That would effectively ban homeschoolers from attending dances held by the district since homeschoolers have no reason to be accredited and the state doesn’t require it,” says the report.

“This is a concrete example of ‘limited’ options based on accreditation,” says Braun – who was quoted in the news report. “If the state can restrict homeschoolers from a dance based on accreditation, they can restrict or limit them elsewhere.”

Like Braun, Wisconsin homeschooling parent Tina Hollenbeck also responds to the fact that the U.S. education chief is making a judgment about homeschooling – a clear violation, she says, of the Constitution.

“What is really irksome is that he feels he has a right to an opinion at all,” she tells Breitbart News. “The bottom-line fact is that his job, and the very existence of the Department of Education, violates the 10th Amendment, which means that anything he says about any form of schooling is actually illegitimate.”

Hollenbeck asserts King was “grossly out of line to express any public opinion about homeschooling – which falls far out of the realm of anything for which he is ostensibly responsible.”

“The focus shouldn’t be on arguing against his ignorance,” she asserts. “Instead, it should be on pointing out that he has irresponsibly spoken in an official capacity about something over which he has absolutely no authority.”

Fuente noticia: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/10/03/education-secretary-john-king-homeschooled-students-not-getting-the-range-of-options-they-should/

Comparte este contenido:
Page 299 of 394
1 297 298 299 300 301 394