|
|
Post by Josh on Oct 8, 2009 8:35:36 GMT -8
Great follow up question. I have some ideas, but I'm curious what Robin would say.
|
|
|
|
Post by robin on Oct 9, 2009 6:55:14 GMT -8
It would be an abuse of authority if I were taking advantage of children that are not my own. However, as a parent, it is my duty to raise my children as I see fit. This is simply expanding on the point that you made earlier, when you said "Parents are more responsible for education than schools are". You are correct. It is my responsibility as a parent to teach my children in areas like religion, morality, and even politics. However, I would be no better than this teacher if I were to undermine another parents authority is force unsuspecting children to accept my world view.
Robin
|
|
|
|
Post by Kirby on Oct 9, 2009 7:47:47 GMT -8
Just to be clear, I think that's OK! I definitely think that parents have the right to teach children as they see fit regarding politics and religion.
However, I'm guessing you entrust your children to others on occasion, and they might be exposed to different beliefs and points of view. Would you accuse that babysitter or Sunday School teacher or whatever of abusing authority if they came home with a concept that was different or contrary to your own point of view?
I fail to see how the Obama song is doing that to the children. Yes, it may be partisan, and maybe unethical and inappropriate, but while that teacher certainly has influence on the children, he/she is not "forcing" anything.
On another note, I have been a cautious supporter of Obama, but this morning's announcement that he won the Nobel Peace Prize is asinine. He should have declined it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Oct 9, 2009 8:06:44 GMT -8
Just want to throw something in:
There is a big difference between a teacher teaching "different points of view" and a teacher "advocating a certain point of view". The role of a teacher should be the former. For instance, I can teach about religion in history class but I can't proselytize.
I can teach about political parties or candidates but can't advocate for a particular one. That's why this teach should at the very least be reprimanded.
|
|
|
|
Post by robin on Oct 9, 2009 8:50:27 GMT -8
I have been very cautious as to who I trust my children with. It took me a long time to find a Church community because I was concerned with how my kids would perceive church. I trust those in my church community with my kids which says a lot for our church and those trusted to teach my children. School however is to a choice in the way churches and Sunday School may be. As for babysitters, I would never imagine allowing anyone to watch my children without full confidence that they will be respectful enough not to undermine my wife and I. For this reason there are very few who I have allowed to babysit for us. Mostly just family (Grand Mothers and Father, some siblings, and a few very good friends).
When it comes to education, most have no choice but to enroll their kids in public school, leaving there kids education in the hands of people who hopefully won't abuse their position. If a parent objects to something the teacher is teaching in class, they don't have to option of just leaving that school, and sending their kids elsewhere, like they would if they had problems with a Sunday school teacher.
OK, I will change my wording. The teacher is denying a proper education in favor of push their personal ideology. Does that seem to fit better with whats going on?
I'm still trying to figure out what Obama did to earn the Nobel Peace Prize. Could they not find someone more deserving?
|
|
|
|
Post by Margot on Oct 12, 2009 18:24:48 GMT -8
Don't know what's scarier--singing to BHO or RR! Yeech!
Neither of those guys should be idolized--nor any of the rest of the presidents IMO. I know Josh is a little off the rails when he lets his kids fly around the class in capes....(lol).....but for the most part, the teachers I know are extremely balanced in what they present in the classroom. I resent it when people act like teachers teach because they want to brainwash kids! As if they had time to do anything but TESTING!!!!!!!!! Believe me, they don't spend their hours plotting how they can sneak ideas into kids' heads! The truth is, most schools are in such fear of the NCLB police that if anything, teachers DON"T let their kids see the fact that they are human and have their own opinions. That teacher should not be fired because of the message of the song. She should be fired for using such a weak lesson! No teacher I know could get away with teaching kids something that lame at my school without a severe scolding from the principal.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kirby on Oct 12, 2009 19:44:05 GMT -8
Robin wrote:
That does fit better, I think.. but I disagree. I would hold that the teacher is providing a better education by diversifying points of view the children may or may not be exposed to. If the teacher did nothing but rail on and on about Obama, that would be a problem. Perhaps he or she does. I just don't understand why you seem so fearful about opposing points of view. Sure, it could cause confusion if things were not discussed, and it would be unethical of the teacher to only teach one point of view. I just think kids will be better prepared for life if exposed to diversity. I sure wish I had been.
Margot wrote:
I agree! There are great teachers and there are bad teachers, just like any profession. I think teachers should be held accountable, but we need diversity of all kinds in teachers.
Josh wrote:
True. But depending on the teacher, it may be a very fine line, and depending on the audience, there may not be a big difference. Some folks would be upset for presenting a different point of view. A few years ago, there was a group of parents at PC who were upset that the theory of evolution was being presented. Of course, the teacher is a staunch creationist, but presented the theory so students could A) be prepared for college, and B) know what they were up against. But these parents felt as if origins in science class should stick to Genesis 1 and that's it!
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Oct 12, 2009 20:13:56 GMT -8
Super lame. Can we say get your head out of the sand, people?!  |
|
|
|
Post by robin on Oct 13, 2009 7:40:40 GMT -8
Yes.
You think the teacher that had these kids sing praise to Obama, also rails against him? I don't think that is even remotely possible.
People who know me best would never make this comment. I don't fear opposing points of view, rather I love to engage them, with the hope of learning something, or convincing those who hold opposing views to consider my position. That is why I like to participate in discussions just like this one we are having.
Diversity in what sense? There are certain things that I would prefer to teach my children within our home and family (sex, ethics, and morality, to name a few).
In my opinion, issues like politics should be reserved for a more mature audience. One that is capable of critical thinking (perhaps in high school). These kinds of courses could be offered as an elective classes, and not mandatory.
Robin
|
|
|
|
Post by Kirby on Oct 13, 2009 8:25:43 GMT -8
First of all, it is a silly little song about the current president of the US. Of course it is going to be positive. Can you imagine the controversy if the song had lyrics like "Obama sucks, Obama sucks, he is racist, he has no clue." In my perception, it was a celebration of a man. It was probably only sung at one event. I doubt the teacher has the kids sing it everyday. Most likely the teacher is an Obama supporter, but maybe it is the administration we should be suspect of.
I don't know you that well. Only some of what you have written on this board. Perhaps that comment was misworded. I should have said "You seem fearful about your kids hearing opposing points of view." You certainly seem like you discuss issues with your kids. If your child would have been in the classroom that sang the Obama song, how would you have handled it with your kids? Wouldn't it have been a great teaching moment for you? One that otherwise would not have been available? That's my whole point. I would think you would appreciate the opportunity to supplement, expand, and/or replace what the kids have been taught in school, sunday school, at a friend's house or whatever.
In all senses.
Certainly there are items that are age-appropriate, but critical thinking skills need to begun to be taught at early ages. A presidential election is a great way to do that. Again, it may be a slippery slope, but what would be wrong with a 1st grade teacher doing a thinking exercise about which candidate a student would select and why? The teacher could talk about some basics of their platform, and ask challenging questions.
I'm glad you are willing to do that. Unfortunately a lot of parents don't. That's where schools come in. It will never make everyone happy, but it's the way it is. We can do a better job at it, and I think adding more diversity to the instruction will reach more kids, and prepare them for life.
|
|
|
|
Post by robin on Oct 13, 2009 13:00:43 GMT -8
Again, you would be incorrect. I allow my children to hear opposing views, and then explain how I come to formulate an opinion on the matter, using logic. My oldest son Cameron has benefited from this approach, and loves to be in on and listen to conversations that most 10 year olds have no interest in. He like politics and enjoys learning about theology. He is very inquisitive. But hear is the problem. You asked "If your child would have been in the classroom that sang the Obama song, how would you have handled it with your kids?". Cameron and Cory (my youngest son) would have never uttered a word of the "cute little song". Then my kids would be forced to single themselves out and explain the their classmates and teacher why they will not participate in praising this wonderful leader, Obama. Why should my children or any children be forced into this position by a teacher? As a parent I would completely back up my kids choice not to participate, and if need be obtain legal counsel to see to it that it never happens again. And that makes it better, how? The administration is at fault for not responding properly and suspending the teach, or firring him or her. But the administration, I'm sure, did not force the teacher to make these kids sing the song. Really?! I wonder how many glowing songs were taught to children when President Bush was serving? And if it did happen, I'm certain that the ACLU, and the left would have had an conniption fit. Even diversity in sexual education? Would you put any limits on on the diverse opinions being taught? Fine. But how is it that what this teacher was doing contributed to teaching the children to think critically about their political leaders, and specifically the President? The issues that are involved in deciding a President are too complicated to discuss with a 1st grader. First grades will have problems understanding issues like tax policy, and foreign policy. Beyond that you would need to get into conversations about abortions, capital punishment, and gay marriage. A teacher discussing these issues with a young mind where opinions have not yet been formed, may very well undermine a parents right to teach their children at home concerning these topics. Not to mention that some parent, including myself prefer to let kids be kids as long as possible and not concern themselves with issues in which they are not mature enough to deal with. This is simply a Trojan horse for the government to begin to influence our children for their gain. There is no reason in the world that Schools should ever go beyond teaching the basics of math, science, history, reading, spelling and so on. If the schools want to make this education available to their students, then there should be an opt in policy where parents and student must elect this education, and not have it mandatory. It should also be detailed what will be taught to the students in these courses. This would allow for parents like myself who do take an interest in their kids education to determine what there child is learning. My overall point is that Parents should have the final say on what their children are learning, and not the State. |
|
|
|
Post by Kirby on Oct 13, 2009 14:48:45 GMT -8
I see your point.
Especially in sex ed.
I disagree, and think that is a little extreme. Do you really believe our government is organized enough for such a conspiracy?
I emphatically agree. But many parents do not care, are not educated enough, or lack the critical thinking skills themselves to know what they are talking about. Is there a role for government involved education in those situations? Or do we let those children (usually non-white, poverty level or below) slip through the cracks? Even though you and I disagree on this issue (and probably others) I will support your rights as a parent, because you are informed and intelligent. But what of the uninformed and less intelligent? What about their kids? They are not getting moral or political education at home. Who eduacates these?
You got me there. Although, I think that any of these issues can be simplified enough for a young mind, and should be. They live in this world too, and have a voice.
That said, I will have to admit you have a unique perspective that I will never have, since you have kids. I imagine my point of view would change if I had kids to protect.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Oct 13, 2009 16:05:23 GMT -8
robin wrote:
I think schools should also teach general "social skills" and universal values- honesty, integrity, hard work, trustworthiness, etc.. In fact, if we didn't teach these kind of things to many of our students, no one would.
|
|
|
|
Post by Margot on Oct 13, 2009 16:43:24 GMT -8
robin wrote: Omigosh! From your lips to God's ears, Robin! If there were only some way this could be true! What a wonderful world it would be... In the past nine years I figure I have gone "beyond the basics" by teaching 5th and 6th graders: why 10 -13 year olds should know their address and phone number; why it is not ok to fart purposely and repeatedly in public; why a girl shouldn't hate herself for letting it slip that her parents beat her; how to purchase and use deodorant; why I shouldn't take home their clothes and sew them, (no one else wanted to;) why it could be a problem for a well-endowed 5th grade girl to come to school flaunting her cleavege or wear see-through blouses, ("my mother bought it for me!"), why it is NOT okay to call your classmates ass-----, even though your father has repeatedly told you it is; why it is not okay to bring in a novel called Sleeping With Strangers for free reading time (the student's mother loaned it to them;) why school personnel can't take children home for the parents. It sure would be great if these little ones had parents to teach them these things. Not only don't they, but fewer and fewer children do, and more and more parents get angry that schools aren't "doing more." Could I have shared my own personal opinions, morals and viewpoints with them while I was teaching them these things? I think so.  |
|
|
|
Post by robin on Oct 14, 2009 7:47:01 GMT -8
Hi Kirbstomp,
By the way it was great to meet you and visit last night.
Why? Would you limit it to certain types of diversity? Would morality be a part of that discussion?
Yes I do. Consider how education has changed over the last century or so. Our schools are heavily influenced by politics, due to the relationship of the NEA to the left wing groups and politicians. It used to be that education became very liberal in collage, however today we see at all levels of education, as made evident by the video.
We have had uncaring and uneducated parent throughout history. Trust me, there is nothing new under the sun. However, We as a society have fail these children by giving the State, through the schools, the responsibility to raise them, and fill in for the parents. As citizens and Christians we should be stepping in to help these children and not relying on the State to do our job. In fact this just gives us an excuse to not involve ourselves in the lives of children in our community who are in need, because we can simply say that the school will take care of it. But are these children really getting what they truly need? I don't think so. What these children need is someone who can consistently be there for them, and not have there relationship with mentors revolve around school hours, and then nothing at the end of the year during the summer, and then have to rebuild a relationship with a new teacher as they move on to the next grade. I think it is noble for teachers who try and meet the need for these children as they come up. However, they should be doing it as people and not teachers, and continue that relationship beyond the school year.
I think that address your post as well, Margot.
Really? You believe that a first grader can comprehend the complexities of the abortion topic? Also, once you start talking about gay marriage you will need to explain the difference between gay relationships and heterosexual relationships. This is not a problem for you? Keep in mind we are talking about 5-6 year olds, who likely have no idea about sex.
I agree. These values are taught by issuing bad grades for a poor work effort (hard work), and punishing children for cheating (integrity, honesty, and trustworthiness) and so on. What I'm talking about is something altogether different. What I object to would be the school teaching my kid that homosexual, and heterosexual relationships are morally equivalent, or that abortion is a viable alternative to abstaining from sex, or using other forms of contraceptives. These are the thinks that I'm concerned with.
|
|
|
|
Post by Margot on Oct 14, 2009 16:29:34 GMT -8
Robin wrote: What these children need is someone who can consistently be there for them, and not have there relationship with mentors revolve around school hours, and then nothing at the end of the year during the summer, and then have to rebuild a relationship with a new teacher as they move on to the next grade. I think it is noble for teachers who try and meet the need for these children as they come up. However, they should be doing it as people and not teachers, and continue that relationship beyond the school year.
I agree with you on a lot of this--especially about rebuilding relationships.
But I get very frustrated with (many) Christians who say these things but do nothing about them personally--except complain.
I am not trying to paint you with the same brush, Robin, because that would be wrong and I don't know much about how you live. But I am curious: how do you find ways to do this with children that intersect with you in your life?
|
|
|
|
Post by sarah on Oct 14, 2009 16:52:07 GMT -8
Just a side note on the ongoing conversation because the last few posts made me think of my mom. She has been a teacher in a very poor rural school district for many years now and will officially retire at the end of November but will likely spend the rest of her life as a sub in the classroom!
My mom has always seen her role as a teacher in this school as a ministry and has formed many long term relationships with the children and parents who have passed through her class over the years. I am ashamed to admit that as a sullen middle schooler I was often annoyed that we often had these youngsters over for weekends, summer breaks and family dinners. My mom has spent countless hours with her kid's mothers encouraging them, teaching parenting skills, helping them with financial needs and in many cases leading them to Christ. She has taken the late night phone calls, reported abuse, and worried about kids who move out of district. I know that there were several kids over the years that she gave serious consideration to taking guardianship over them when their family situations fell apart. Many of these kids have now grown and are bringing a new generation into mom's classroom.
Many people would find her personal involvement with these families unprofessional and grounds for termination in some cases, but I know that these kids and their parents are grateful for her involvement and role in their lives.
|
|
