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.
One reason why so many find this believable is we've seen so many other instances where teacher personal beliefs bled over into the classroom. Esp around the last election and afterward there were many teachers taking sides and expounding on those beliefs to the point my kids were uncomfortable in some classes and felt their grades would suffer for not supporting the teacher's beliefs. Having seen it, I'm not as skeptical about wild claims as I once was.
Like posting Bible verses in a public school classroom?
Yeah, personal beliefs do sometimes spill over; teachers are human. I am still just as sceptical of this as someone claiming teachers were forcing student to hold crosses up and chant "Jesus!". Both are equally extreme and pretty implausible in my opinion.
Like posting Bible verses in a public school classroom?
Yeah, personal beliefs do sometimes spill over; teachers are human. I am still just as sceptical of this as someone claiming teachers were forcing student to hold crosses up and chant "Jesus!". Both are equally extreme and pretty implausible in my opinion.
You might find this surprising as a conservative, but I'm no more in support of one than the other. Teaching religion, as in history of religion or comparative religion is legit so long as taught in a respectful and thoughtful academic manner. Proselyting however is not. The same holds true if it's the American political system (facts, history, positions, etc are good, but presenting only one side is not) or, as in the present topics, LGBT issues (biology, psychology, history, is legitimate study; advocacy is not appropriate in the classroom).
I fully support academic freedom and academic discussion of these and other topics at an age appropriate level. In any topic with n sides there are probably (n+1)! points of view. In class all those points of view with facts, pros, and cons are fair game.
You might find this surprising as a conservative, but I'm no more in support of one than the other. Teaching religion, as in history of religion or comparative religion is legit so long as taught in a respectful and thoughtful academic manner. Proselyting however is not. The same holds true if it's the American political system (facts, history, positions, etc are good, but presenting only one side is not) or, as in the present topics, LGBT issues (biology, psychology, history, is legitimate study; advocacy is not appropriate in the classroom).
I fully support academic freedom and academic discussion of these and other topics at an age appropriate level. In any topic with n sides there are probably (n+1)! points of view. In class all those points of view with facts, pros, and cons are fair game.
My point was only that the situation presented by the OP was extreme and implausible and I presented something equally extreme and implausible just in the other direction.
One reason why so many find this believable is we've seen so many other instances where teacher personal beliefs bled over into the classroom. Esp around the last election and afterward there were many teachers taking sides and expounding on those beliefs to the point my kids were uncomfortable in some classes and felt their grades would suffer for not supporting the teacher's beliefs. Having seen it, I'm not as skeptical about wild claims as I once was.
I was in high school when Obama got elected to his first term. There were quite a few teachers on both sides who made their beliefs known and were quite outspoken about it. And mind you, I was a staunch conservative back then (no doubt a product of my entire family being conservative). I wanted McCain to win badly. Especially since I was just a year and a half away from voting age but wouldn't be able to vote against Obama til 2012. But despite feeling outnumbered (including by many left-leaning classmates), there was never a sense that my teachers would suddenly become impartial in their grading. Even in a class like language arts where subjective grading scales on writing assignments would have made it very easy to deduct points without raising suspicion.
I don't want to flat out call you kids liars by any means, but it wasn't that long ago I was a student (and even a substitute teacher); I know how common it is for students to embellish, even if not on purpose. And that's a big jump from displaying political beliefs in the classroom, to having students join in a chant, especially in a spanish classroom.
Plus, it's 2019, even when I was a sub 4 years ago smartphones in middle school classrooms were very common. I even caught a few taking pictures or videos in class. If this did happen, there's no way not one student took a picture or video.
It's true that most colleges require students to take some FL. Doesn't mean they actually learn the FL. Personally I think part of the problem is we spend way too much time on mechanical things like parts of speech and conjugating verbs and not on actual conversational language. I think that's a backwards approach. If you look at how kids learn to talk, they learn words and basic sentences long before they enter school. Then in school they start learning the technical aspects of the language.
When I finished my FL requirement in college I could conjugate the heck out of any verb in that language. Couldn't actually speak a coherent sentence.
The real limitation on ability to use a foreign language that is learned in the U. S. school system, is not in reading or writing it or even in being able to speak it. The weak point is the students not being able to understand it when it's spoken to them. The ability to do that only comes by using the language extensively in real-life situations.
Meh, if the teachers not giving equal time to other lifestyles, then she probably is pushing an agenda.
That said, if we take little Johnny or Jane out of Spanish class over it, who are we hurting?
Reality is little Johnny or Jane need to know about ALL lifestyles, and more importantly, they need to study a foreign language for college if nothing else. I guess your cousin could try switching her child up to French or Latin and see if she can avoid the things she doesn't care for that way. Otherwise, I would let little Johnny or Jane continue chanting LGBTQ in Spanish.
I was in high school when Obama got elected to his first term. There were quite a few teachers on both sides who made their beliefs known and were quite outspoken about it. And mind you, I was a staunch conservative back then (no doubt a product of my entire family being conservative). I wanted McCain to win badly. Especially since I was just a year and a half away from voting age but wouldn't be able to vote against Obama til 2012. But despite feeling outnumbered (including by many left-leaning classmates), there was never a sense that my teachers would suddenly become impartial in their grading. Even in a class like language arts where subjective grading scales on writing assignments would have made it very easy to deduct points without raising suspicion.
I don't want to flat out call you kids liars by any means, but it wasn't that long ago I was a student (and even a substitute teacher); I know how common it is for students to embellish, even if not on purpose. And that's a big jump from displaying political beliefs in the classroom, to having students join in a chant, especially in a spanish classroom.
....
There environment was very different post 2016. They've graduated now but things got very tense in school for a while.
You might find this surprising as a conservative, but I'm no more in support of one than the other. Teaching religion, as in history of religion or comparative religion is legit so long as taught in a respectful and thoughtful academic manner. Proselyting however is not. The same holds true if it's the American political system (facts, history, positions, etc are good, but presenting only one side is not) or, as in the present topics, LGBT issues (biology, psychology, history, is legitimate study; advocacy is not appropriate in the classroom).
I fully support academic freedom and academic discussion of these and other topics at an age appropriate level. In any topic with n sides there are probably (n+1)! points of view. In class all those points of view with facts, pros, and cons are fair game.
Shall we support debate over racial IQ too as that is academic freedom??? What utter nonsense.
There is a difference between teaching acceptance, tolerance, and open mindedness, and pushing an agenda.
I agree! I'm a very open minded person, but this has nothing to do with teaching Spanish. She's sliding it all in under the radar IMO.
There is a time and place and class to be an advocate, and this isn't it.
She should be teaching this in Sex Ed classes if it's so important to her that she has to add this to her Spanish lessons agenda.
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.
