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.
You're distorting the story and the facts. The fact is culturally important literature is discussed in English classes. Discussing a book is neither an agenda nor is its discussion in the classroom the use of a bully pulpit.
The fact that you and like-minded people can't handle certain books or topics being discussed is probably a good enough reason to exclude from the class. You're certainly not capable of arguing about the controversial topics that the teacher has brought up. That is the root of the problem that the teacher brings up. Some people have beliefs that can't be argued with with facts. It is like religion or politics.
I used to teach English, 7th grade and 12th grade. So ... you're WAY off base about my capability.
In those years, I was very aware of the responsibility I had as an authority figure, and I knew better than to use that influence to psychologically change the kids in my charge. That's some manipulative BF Skinner-type BS.
Guess what ... it's their parents JOB to influence them and mold them into the people they will become. It's not a distortion to say that this teacher goes into the classroom believing the kids are inherently prejudiced and homophobic and that it's his duty to change that, because it's right there in the article.
You're distorting the story and the facts. The fact is culturally important literature is discussed in English classes. Discussing a book is neither an agenda nor is its discussion in the classroom the use of a bully pulpit.
The fact that you and like-minded people can't handle certain books or topics being discussed is probably a good enough reason to exclude from the class. You're certainly not capable of arguing about the controversial topics that the teacher has brought up. That is the root of the problem that the teacher brings up. Some people have beliefs that can't be argued with with facts. It is like religion or politics.
The "facts" are listed right in the article.
From the article..this is what an English teacher's job is now ?
While Kay acknowledged that "damage can come from the left too," he noted that "conservative parents" are his chief concern when teachers are engaging “in the messy work of destabilizing a kid’s racism or homophobia or transphobia.”
... when teachers are engaging “in the messy work of destabilizing a kid’s racism or homophobia or transphobia.”
Yeah, this phrase ^^^ is so troubling.
That he thinks he has that power of judgment to "destabilize" is incredibly presumptuous, as it would be if he were trying to convert kids to born-again Christianity.
Yesterday there was a short segment showing Biden stating that he thinks schools should teach more about the muslim "religion". But our kids can't pray in school?
Parents should pay very close attention to how kids today are being taught to hate our country and Americans resulting in the rioting, looting, and destruction of our cities. Pay very close attention to what they indoctrinating your children with.
You can't win. The teachers unions are too strong. They are now supporting BLM in our district. Makes me sick.
Who's to say this teacher isn't doing that? His reluctance to have other adults hear what he has to say is pretty telling.
A classroom is not a bully pulpit from which teachers dispense their own agendas that are only marginally related to the class subject.
It is here where I live. My kids 8th grade science teacher taught her class that the world was going to end in 12 years and it was their parents and grandparents' fault. He has climate change posters all over the place and he was an Elizabeth Warren supporter. You do the math.
Exactly, and that should not include bowing to a socialist way of life when Americans are born free to chose our own future. If anyone believes teachers don't pander to the left, they need to study current events and learn about commissioned sales people who say anything to get what they want. Just watch how the commissioned sales people circle the wagons, shouting they are of high moral standard who never bend the truth. If that were true, teachers should not be teaching the children so much hate for the U.S. and the people who have lead our great nation.
They don't pander to the left. They ARE the left. Mostly.
Thank you. Let me try to answer with the same numbering system.
1). I agree it should be a neutral expert. I think we both agree on that. My issue is I don't believe you will find a neutral historian who is also an expert on various religions that can teach in a school system. At least in sufficient numbers for the number of schools in this country. So the job would more likely fall to whomever get's stuck with the job, bringing their bias and prejudice with them.
2) I would disagree that religion be taught in schools at such a young age. It's a mature subject and the students need the maturity to discuss it as such. Perhaps advanced high school students could, but even that age group with have many who aren't prepared for dispassionate study of such a mature subject.
3) Agree that a fundamental requirement.
4) You're speaking of an ideal situation. I don't believe most parents would be concerned about facts taught in an ideal academic situation. The most fundamental concern of parents is specifically that the teacher won't remain objective but will insert his or her own belief system or anti belief system as "fact" and all others as false.
5) Again, you're approaching this as a dispassionate academic situation. The reality however is kids will pick up and learn that "A" is better than "B" because that's what it takes to answer the test the way the teacher wants.
6) These last several questions are really linked. But my point here is that most kids in school don't have the maturity and understanding to have the dispassionate academic discussion you are advocating. Rather they will be more about pleasing the teacher so they can be heavily influenced by the teacher's beliefs. By college they have a little bit more world experience, often learned the hard way, and are a bit more ready for these discussions.
Here's the thing out of all of this. I actually agree with you that world religions should be taught in schools and taught without bias just as you say. I think all your points are technically correct. Where I disagree is I don't believe the school system can be trusted to teach from an academically unbiased position but rather too many teachers will use the bully pulpit to push their own agenda, as indicated by the article that kicked off this whole thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoisite
I've numbered the questions you asked so I can address them in order.
(1) I'm guessing you are asking me who would I approve of to be teaching about religions in Social Studies classes? It would have to be a neutral historian who demonstrates no bias either for or against any religions and who espouses no religious beliefs of their own when teaching in the classroom. It absolutely cannot be any kind of acknowledged religious person such as you have suggested, (you said some kind of preacher or imam), that would be wrong. An acknowledged religious teacher of any kind would defeat the purpose of teaching about the origins and histories of the world religions in a classroom setting.
(2) What age group? Whatever age group kids these days begin social studies and history lessons as part of their regular curriculum.
(3) It cannot go from teaching information to indoctrination or teaching about anti-religion or in favour of any particular religion. That would be bias, and bias cannot be allowed in the classroom setting. It MUST remain neutral at all times.
(4) Well now, who said parents should not have a say in how their children are taught their religion? Teaching kids about their own religion is the responsibility of the parents to do in the privacy of their homes and in their families' places of worship. Isn't that what parents already do? However, what parents teach to their kids about their personal religions has nothing to do with children being taught a set curriculum at school about the histories of world religions in an unbiased, neutral setting in their social studies and history classes.
(5) I agree to a large degree with your statement that a child is not an adult to make his or her own decisions and I don't believe young children should be expected to make adult decisions. By the time children are teenagers they are expected to be capable of making numerous adult decisions. But who said anything about children making adult decisions? That has nothing to do with anything I have said so I won't address it since I don't believe it is relevant to school curriculums for children.
(6) I also agree that what can be taught and discussed in college classes of adults is far different, and of course it is much more advanced than what would be discussed in classes of impressionable young kids. That goes without saying and I think everybody already knows that, so again it's not something that needs to be addressed.
I used to teach English, 7th grade and 12th grade. So ... you're WAY off base about my capability.
In those years, I was very aware of the responsibility I had as an authority figure, and I knew better than to use that influence to psychologically change the kids in my charge. That's some manipulative BF Skinner-type BS.
Guess what ... it's their parents JOB to influence them and mold them into the people they will become. It's not a distortion to say that this teacher goes into the classroom believing the kids are inherently prejudiced and homophobic and that it's his duty to change that, because it's right there in the article.
He's wrong.
I agree, minus the Skinner reference. Skinner was primarily concerned with behaviors.
My dad always taught me to question everything. Question the government, your teachers, your boss. I was shocked when I realized in highschool that they truly did have an ulterior motive.
I agree, minus the Skinner reference. Skinner was primarily concerned with behaviors.
My dad always taught me to question everything. Question the government, your teachers, your boss. I was shocked when I realized in highschool that they truly did have an ulterior motive.
As did Socrates with his students. Perhaps that is what the teacher meant when he used the word "destabilize." The professor in my Honors College class would do the same thing when he would injure his students to question the beliefs and assumptions that they had grown up with. It wasn't necessarily to get us to change our beliefs. Rather it was an attempt to get us to examine them and then choose whether to hold those positions or not. Acceptance of your parents' way of thinking without reflection is another form of indoctrination.
Interestingly, on the topic of religion in schools, I was fascinated many years ago to read that the curriculum for Religion, a required subject in the UK where there is a state church, holds that children should be able to learn about other religions and make their faith decisions independently from their parents. In other words, parents should not be the ones making the decisions about their children's faith, but it should be the children themselves. I don't know if this is still the practice in Britain. It was certainly a perspective that I hadn't seen before.
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.
That's some manipulative BF Skinner-type BS.
