Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
To you guys who are bitching about the Koch "influence" in education: you need to get off that and look at who is really influencing education practice and setting education policy. In that context the Koch brothers are almost subliminal background noise.
And that influence has one motive and one motive only, to turn public education at all levels into a profit center for a select group of companies.
Which will play out in an interesting way here in MD. The MD State Department of Education awarded a no bid contract to Pearson Education for testing. The new Governor has now forbidden no bid contracts and suspended implementation of any entered into in the 6 months prior to last November's election.
Yeah I'll agree with that. And the folks supporting this takeover are from both sides of the aisle.
People with money and "vision" on both sides are pushing changes to further the agenda of their chosen parties.
Whether it's Gates or Koch, doesn't matter because it's WRONG.
But the FedGov is letting it happen. Money talks.
Commenters here are letting their political bias show by defending and dismissing what "their side" does and ranting on what the other side is trying to do.
It's wrong from either side. And there is nothing we can do about it.
Who is analogous to the Kochs from the liberal side? And if you say Gates, then we fundamentally disagree on Gates' influence and viewpoints on education.
Re-read your post I initially responded to. It screams of hatred towards conservatives using slogans usually used by far leftist. As for myself, I'm registered as an independent. I tend to vote Republican for federal candidates but vote for either party candidates for state or local elections. I believe the US Constitution should be followed strictly including how to amend the constitution if something needs to be changed. I consider myself to be a fiscal conservative, strong on national defense, and moderate (as in don't really care politically) about most social issues.
As for schools, with the exception of civics or social studies, check the politics at home. When it comes to politics for civics or social studies, give equal critisim and facts towards BOTH political parties instead of hyping your favorite party while making insulting comments about the other party and students that say they support that party. History should be taught honestly based upon the age and maturity of the class. That includes teaching the good, the bad, and the reasons at the time for both the good and the bad. Don't let your personal hatred towards American historical figures (like our founding fathers for example) color your assignment towards the students. If you hate the military, keep your opinions out of the classroom. Some teachers in Maine in 2003 verbally harassed students whose parents were being called up to active duty. And leave your personal politics or social commentary out of math word problems.
Sometimes it seems the biggest bullies in public schools are the class teachers.
People who use terms like "far leftist" are rarely truly independents.
As for the rest of your post, I agree in general, except with the very last line which is complete unsupported by evidence.
Who is analogous to the Kochs from the liberal side? And if you say Gates, then we fundamentally disagree on Gates' influence and viewpoints on education.
George Soros is one. And Gates has way more influence than I think you realize, as does the Broad Foundation for administrators.
The model both want to use is a teaching force of relative short timers who are facilitators more than teachers.
No need to learn History (of any type) you can look it up on your IPad. Same with learning Math or Science formulae. What's being lost is basic knowledge.
George Soros is one. And Gates has way more influence than I think you realize, as does the Broad Foundation for administrators.
The model both want to use is a teaching force of relative short timers who are facilitators more than teachers.
No need to learn History (of any type) you can look it up on your IPad. Same with learning Math or Science formulae. What's being lost is basic knowledge.
I went through education in a relatively liberal area (Long Island, NY are all liberal Democrats or Rockefeller Republicans) and for math, we might have had graphing scientific calculators but we learned to do algebra by hand before we learned the short cuts on the calculator of find and seek with Y1=. And this was say early 2000s. I have no clue what they do now. I do disagree though with history though unless you have a bad teacher and bad teachers are not exclusive to their political leanings.
Actually another poster took care of it for me. Howard Zinn's People's History is a perfect example. I just don't want to get dragged into the minutiae of how accurate Zinn is, or whether he is even widely used these days and therefore isn't a good example, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
I think if students are encouraged to think about the People's History, it can be a good resource. They should not take anything in any textbook as pure truth.
The book is a counterpoint to the various texts that take a standard approach. It can start conversations about justice, the honesty of our leaders, etc.
I think if students are encouraged to think about the People's History, it can be a good resource. They should not take anything in any textbook as pure truth.
The book is a counterpoint to the various texts that take a standard approach. It can start conversations about justice, the honesty of our leaders, etc.
The fact that you're defending that waste of paper tells me all I need to know.
It can start conversations about justice, the honesty of our leaders, etc.
Lots of different curricula can do that. In your first post on this thread you remarked that you didn't think the 17th Amendment was controversial and you asked rhetorically why it should even be discussed. I submit that the Koch-backed curriculum is doing exactly what you say the left-wing Zinn curriculum does, which is to start conversations you haven't thought of.
Lots of different curricula can do that. In your first post on this thread you remarked that you didn't think the 17th Amendment was controversial and you asked rhetorically why it should even be discussed. I submit that the Koch-backed curriculum is doing exactly what you say the left-wing Zinn curriculum does, which is to start conversations you haven't thought of.
I think these topics are better off talked about in specific college courses and not general courses such as 101 or 102 and APUSH. 101 is the foundation of the colonial days into the civil war, 102 is the reconstruction into about the 1980's (in most cases) with APUSH following these two courses. That don't mean you can't have the discussions on is the amendment needed or not BUT, it isn't as necessary in these base classes unless you are doing your term paper on it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
