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.
I would be happy to discuss the topic with you but I need you to engage in good faith as well. If you are going to respond with short quips lacking content then I will do the same.
Anyway let me know if you think it would be worth either of our time to resume discussion. If not that is fine too, no one is obligated to care about anyone elses perspective.
I think you are the one not arguing in good faith.
Certain literary classics can be used to augment a student’s historical perspective. To learn about the Great Depression in history is aided by Steinbeck novels like The Grapes of Wrath and Of Mice And Men. There are many other examples of classics that can help a student to understand a piece of what life was like during certain historical events and periods. Even classic novels that show an ugly part of historical truth can be helpful. But when a teacher like the one in the article chooses the literature to be read and discussed would he not try to use his own personal choices to push an agenda even if the works were not on an official school approved list? A more generic message to oppose discrimination would be to show what happens when one group of people believe another group of people are less than human. The evils people do upon others in history are linked to believing those other people were less than themselves. It’s fine to “believe” something is wrong and immoral as long as you don’t go into believing it’s your job to change their way of thinking to match your own or that they’re less than yourself because of how they believe.
A lot of the politically vocal people don't know how to read. They get the soundbites from their network channel. They can't read beyond the headline of a story to get the background. A lot of the people on here are confusing English in high school with EASL.
The teacher has experience with these kinds of people. These people tend to argue by repeating their mantras and can't be moved by facts or logic. It's not the kind of discourse that's useful in teaching, except to hold up as an example of people who've become intellectually lazy.
A lot of the politically vocal people don't know how to read. They get the soundbites from their network channel. They can't read beyond the headline of a story to get the background. A lot of the people on here are confusing English in high school with EASL.
The teacher has experience with these kinds of people. These people tend to argue by repeating their mantras and can't be moved by facts or logic. It's not the kind of discourse that's useful in teaching, except to hold up as an example of people who've become intellectually lazy.
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.
Every single World History text I used (at least 5, maybe 6) or reviewed for potential adoption (at least twice the number used) had at least one unit concerning the Big 5 religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism) and the Protestant Reformation was a major component after that as well is the expansion of Islam.
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.
Rereading this, "injure" should have been "enjoin." Sorry about the brain freeze. Although Dr. Halsted wouldn't hesitate to injure either (metaphorically).
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.
Every child ought to have a basic understanding of the various major world religions. If they're not familiar with the basics of those religions, they're uneducated and ill-equipped for making political decisions in their adulthood.
Knowledge is NOT faith.
Your kid can't pray at home? At church? Silently to himself or herself in school -- schools do still allow freedom of thought.
I don't want teachers teaching anything but the subjects they are hired to teach. This indoctrination is getting out of hand - it is the parents job to instill in them the values they want. It's called raising your child. That is the parents responsibility, not the teachers. The child most likely has access to world and current events and can then make up their own mind about what they feel is right/wrong/acceptable or open for discussion.
33 years in education as both a teacher and administrator, and I only saw an attempt at religious indoctrination once, and it was in a school that was very multi-cultural, and one christian teacher insisted that we should have a biblical christmas festival that students would be required to attend, and, as she stated, "We can do anything we damn want to because we are majority".
Go back to when I was in elementary school in the 1950s, and children from certain mainstream religions were allowed to get out of school an hour early every Wednesday to attend church schools.
Yes, there are attempts at indoctrination, and it's pretty clear from which side of the equation those attempts mostly come from.
The above post says it all. If this teacher is "worried" about conservative parents, he/she probably has a right to be worried. After all, just what was he/she planning on teaching these children? A teacher with a mindset like this should give everyone concerns when it comes to what personal views are being shoved down the throats of our kids.
Let me tell you a little (true) story.
In my school we had a top-notch gifted program history teacher in the 8th grade. She had kids debate various topics throughout the school year (e.g., should we have dropped the atomic bombs on Japan). Kids could take either side of the debate. Sometimes, if no one took a particular side of a debate, she would represent that side of the argument. I used to keep a tally each year of the complaints I received about her (I was the principal). Roughly half of the complaints were that she was a liberal trying to indoctrinate students. Roughly half of the complaints were that she was a conservative trying to indoctrinate students. In other words, overall, she was balanced, despite what an individual parents wearing blinders might think.
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.
