Running high schools: Should parents butt out?
There is a controversy in Missoula because a teacher at Big Sky High School showed a class some left-of-center propaganda films without providing the opposing point of view. A parent objected and, in general, the school board upheld the parent.
Anyway, Michel Valentin, Professor of French at the University of Montana, has written on opt-ed column in today’s Missoulian (not yet on their webpage). I’d appreciate your comments on his thoughts:
“Parents’ involvement in education should mean making sure that their children do their homework; encouraging their children to be respectful of others and have a positive attitude towards the learning process; discussing with them what they learned/saw/read; encouraging their children to read more and watch meaningful movies; and participating in post school-day activities as established by the traditions of civil involvement and community engagement.
“This should be the extent of parents’ involvement in high schools. The remainder (curriculum, teaching style and methods, courses’ content, etc.) is the business of teachers and school administrators. Education should be left to educators.
“Parochial, denominational or religious schools, home-schooling – all exist for those who want an education that faithfully reflects their private or partisan values. Public schools exist to satisfy public and society’s interest as defined by schools, teacher’s unions, the U.S. Department of Education, accrediting institutions, etc.”
Professor Valentin goes on to say that centralized government systems of school management (such as in France), work well for purposes of academic achievement. For this country, he favors running schools by “a board constituted by peer-elected high-school teachers, peer-elected administrators, peer-elected high school students, and parent representatives.”
Comments?
Education is far too important to leave in the hands of educators, who, as a general rule, come from the bottom-third of their own high school graduating class and are less intelligent than the students, and the students’ parents, they are teaching.
…”courses’ content, etc.) is the business of teachers and school administrators.”…
-
Merde.
-
I wonder if Michel Valentin has any children, or does he just think that the teacher’s certificate is a lifetime pass on all classroom behavior? One might suggest that a French teaher in love with the French system of educating children, ought to be teaching in….France. And to think that the liberal arts department of a public university in Missoula could house such an intellect, amazing.
I wish “the other side of the story” would come out. Such as, the movie was shown two weeks before the nat’l election, at the end of the class period so no conversation could be held by the students. But in Missoula, hate filled letters and late night phone calls are the rule in uber left Missoula populated by progressive facists.
Mr. Valentin probably means well.
I was taught that govt’s authority was derived from the people. Public institution teachers are govt employees. School boards usually are people from all walks of life that have a stake, children, in the schools. Schools answer to the boards. Politicians have to answer to the voters. The suggestion to ring-fence schools from parental involvement is absurd, especially as parents pay taxes. Teachers and school administration should take the opportunity to convince parents of the “what and why” the course they steer is better than what parents otherwise desire. Govt must be responsive to those they serve.
It’s online now, at http://www.missoulian.com/opinion.
So is the column on the same subject by Tei Nash.
I appreciate the lenghts taken by these educators to enhance our childrens knowledge in all things worldly.
Ask yourself, where else would your 15 year old daughter learn condom installation on cucumbers?
I hate to bother you, Rob – I know you’re a busy man and don’t have time to justify most of the claims you make here – but where did you get the idea that the teacher taught this material “without providing the opposing point of view?”
Because it appears to me that you completely made that up. Just sayin’.
Part of the difficulty in teaching these days is paranoid right wingers who are certain you are indoctrinating their children if you show them anything that isn’t right win doctrinaire material. They want to indoctrinate their own children themselves, thank you. That’s part of the reason why we have kids coming out of school absent critical thinking skills and ready to go take a bullet for a lie. They’ve been indoctrinated. You’ve got nothing to worry about Rob. When it comes time to have our wars, the kids will be there for you.
Perhaps when characters like Al Gore suggest to children not to listen to their parents because they know more than their parents, that bows the parents’ backs. http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=88112
Are Mark T and Steve T. related? They seem to argue in the same convoluted way. Just wondering.
I always thought we parents were delegating the responsibility of educating our children to the schools, and that the school boards were representing us in supervising this activity. So then the parents’ and school board’s actions seem reasonable and appropriate to me.
Part of the difficulty in parenting these days is arrogant educators who are certain they are qualified to independently decide what to teach our kids. An education degree is by far one of the easiest to get so what uniquely qualifies the random biology teacher to make up her own curriculum outside of the textbook she is provided by her boss? There should be a high standard for the introduction of non-curriculum material that has political leanings. If the teacher doesn’t like the standard they can always run for the school board or get a job at a school that submits to the educators personal dogma.
Thanks to Tyler Christensen’s link, I read Mr. Valentin’s complete editorial. He writes also:
==========
Perhaps it is time to reconsider the public school board system n unique to America n and rethink its composition. A board constituted by peer-elected high-school teachers, peer-elected administrators, peer-elected high-school students, and parent representatives, would be more sensible. It would also make teachers less vulnerable to ideological/private/parochial pressures.
==========
There is tremendous folly in arrogant elitism insulated from the give-and-take of real life. In Europe that Mr. Valentin praises, there are countries that allow choice by parents and children. This causes competition for those educational funds. Those schools produce highly educated students. See John Stossel’s report: http://abcnews.go.com/2020/stossel/story?id=1500338
====================
In Belgium, by contrast, the money is attached to the kids — it’s a kind of voucher system. Government funds education — at many different kinds of schools — but if a school can’t attract students, it goes out of business.
Belgian school principal Kaat Vandensavel told us she works hard to impress parents.
She told us, “If we don’t offer them what they want for their child, they won’t come to our school.” She constantly improves the teaching, saying, “You can’t afford 10 teachers out of 160 that don’t do their work, because the clients will know, and won’t come to you again.”
“That’s normal in Western Europe,” Harvard economist Caroline Hoxby told me. “If schools don’t perform well, a parent would never be trapped in that school in the same way you could be trapped in the U.S.”
========================
Parents aren’t impressed by dogma, just enabled, educated children.
Ken, to answer your question about the “T’s”, Steve T. is the proud prodigy of Mark T.
Which explains the same convoluted reasoning process.
Mark has limited influence in the real world. Steve, unfortunately, presides over a classroom of impressionable young students.
Swede [ you should spend a day as a teacher (or public land manager) dealing with crazy righties.
Wow — Monsieur Valentin is a voice out of the woods.
As far as I can understand it, it is his opinion that “education” is a science so weighty as to be incomprehensible to non-educators. That is just absurd! As if getting an Ed.D. (what an old teacher of mine calls “an Extra Dense & Dumb”) is the same as getting a PhD in physics! An inexperienced person, but confident in public-speaking and having made some notes and thought up a participatory exercise, can get in front of a class and teach it — not as well as a “professional” but better than they could play “doctor” or “lawyer” or “astrophysicist”.
Does one really need to be a professional educator to judge the appropriateness of what happened in this case?
However, Prof Valentin is right that America’s system of public-education governance is bizarre and wasteful. What he’s missing is that this eccentricity and waste is highly popular among teacher’s unions and parents alike. Imagine if the United States were to establish a system, like France’s, that is brutally efficient — putting into place something like “le Bac,” an exam which essentially controls every French student’s destiny and makes the SAT look like a childish low-stake affair. Do poorly on the exam and you’re a plumber or electrician. Do well and you’re at Sciences-Po on your way to becoming a politician. It’s all faintly reminiscent of that novella “Anthem”.
There is something to be said for this system, if you want to be frugal and precise — some would say factory-like — in your education system. But, to my mind, there are already enough people whining about “teaching to the test” in the United States. (As if this is a ridiculous concept!) I think there’d be gnashings of teeth and solemn invocations of “self-esteem” if the competitiveness and stress that are the tokens of the realm in Europe’s public-education system were to be encouraged here.
If kids were taught critical thinking skills, it would not matter what you put in front of them – they would take it with healthy skepticism. As it is, kids leave skills absent two critical skills – resistance to military propaganda, and resistance to advertising. They become consumers and soldiers.
The benefit of a free public education comes with certain burdens. One of them is giving up the ability to control everything your children see and hear. Parents have every opportunity to furnish their children with their own viewpoint. The state of Montana requires seniors, like the ones in Mrs. Kennedy’s class, to be in school 1,050 hours every year. That’s only 18% of their waking hours. I find it hard to believe parents like Mr. Zuber are unable to counteract whatever bias they see in their children’s education through conversations at home. If that’s not enough, parents can send their children to private school, or educate them at home.
One thing I’ve noticed in this debate is the dearth of discussion concerning the content of The Story of Stuff. Those supporting Mr. Zuber blast it as liberal propaganda. Those supporting Mrs. Kennedy defend it as scientifically backed. I’m not familiar with Mr. Zuber’s fact check so I won’t quibble with him over the details. That said, I’ve watched The Story of Stuff, and I’m not quite sure what the alleged “other side of the story” is. What should Mrs. Kennedy have told her students to balance out this video?
The “other side” of this “left of center” video is normal advertising – consumer propaganda – to which the students are exposed most of every day. The perfesser is defending mindless consumerism.
Ben, I disagree with your suggestion that the onus is on the parents to counteract the bias in their children’s education. Schools are rightfully held to account to provide balance where there are dissenting views. This is the only way young children learn critical thinking skills. I seriously doubt that when young children are forced to watch Al Gore’s movie they are encourage to explore its scientific basis and the competent and authoritative opinion that dissents from it. Children need more than one-sided propaganda that sets them up for conflict with tired parents.
From the far right, it all appears one-sided. That’s your problem, Craig, but you make it everyone’s problem when you attack everything that disagrees with your extreme views as propagandistic. The schools are far more balanced than you imagine, but you’ll never see it.
My kids were forced to watch “silent scream”, which is a pure appeal to emotions, but they got the alternative view at home. They are pro-choice. Parents trump schools.
Ben, regarding the second part of your comment, I found two critiques to the Story of Stuff.
http://www.andybrain.com/qna/2007/12/07/annie-leonards-the-story-of-stuff-review-and-analysis/
http://theresmytwocents.blogspot.com/2008/02/story-of-stuff.html
Make of them what you will as to whether there is another side to the video.
Mark T, given that we have entered Lent I am going to forego the usually rhetorical cannibalism out of respect for those that are forsaking meat. Wear your ashes proudly!
How about we all cool it with the personal invectives for awhile.
“Parochial, denominational or religious schools, home-schooling – all exist for those who want an education that faithfully reflects their private or partisan values. Public schools exist to satisfy public and society’s interest as defined by schools, teacher’s unions, the U.S. Department of Education, accrediting institutions, etc.”
Professor Valentin neglects to mention that a person cannot refuse to fund his violent monopoly. I would love to be able to home school my child, but I am too busy working so I can pay the taxes to run his government school.
I think that the education system should spend a little less time on social issues, and put a little more effort on sending out grads that don’t have a 20% illiteracy rate.
I agree with Mark in respect to “teaching kids critical thinking skills.” If parents look at public schools as a day care, then they really shouldn’t be surprised when their children are returned to them as mindless automatons.
I would encourage anyone who thinks the government education system is a good thing to read Charlotte Iserbyt’s “The Deliberate Dumming down of America”. There is a free PDF copy available on the net.
Steve T.: re your question: where did you get the idea that the teacher taught this material “without providing the opposing point of view?”
Answer: I didn’t make it up. I got it from previous Missoulian news stories on the issue, of which there have been several. See, e.g., http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2009/02/08/news/local/news02.txt
Although the stories were very thorough, there is no report of any serious claim that the teacher had provided any opposing video or comparable information, and a member of the school board that found a policy violation did so stated “I think what it boiled down to was that we didn’t think she’d given a balanced view”.
Just to make it clear: The Missoula school board is not exactly a bunch of raving conservatives. And Michael Moore, who wrote the principal story, himself tends to write from a more liberal point of view. See also “Ayn Rand’s” post, above. So if there were any defense of “balance” (which the local academic policy requires), I’m sure we would have read about it.
As Craig noted, there’s plenty of “other side” to the Story of Stuff video. You don’t get funding from the Soros-funded Tides Foundation unless your intention is to indoctrinate, not educate.
Mark T keeps talking about wanting kids to be taught critical thinking skills. Now, if teachers were using this video and then telling their students: “I want you to do some research, I want you each to check out ten of the claims made in the video, and we’ll compare notes. We’ll see which claims are accurate, which are somewhat accurate, and which are bogus. We’ll analyze this, and debate whether it is a documentary or propaganda.”
In other words, have the students do something like the bloggers did in the links that Craig provided.
So how many teachers do you think use the video in this way? As a tool to teach critical thinking skills?
What? You think like me, that virtually all teachers do quite the opposite, and use it as nothing more than an indoctrination tool?
Surprise, surprise…..
I found several things interesting about Professor Valentin’s post:
* The assumption that government functionaries should run an agency without serious accountability to the families they serve and who pay for it.
* The suggestion that teachers’ unions, which are largely in an adversarial position from the consumers, should have as much or more say than parents.
* His privileging of the federal government over local and state governments, which have the primary responsibility for public education in our federal system.
* Disregard for empirical evidence of all sorts, such as (a) the most effective American schools systems are those that are in market and highly decentralized environments (e.g., the Brookings study, Politics, Markets and American Schools), (b) that unionization of teachers is negatively correlated with student performance (this is a study by Sam Peltzman; I couldn’t find it on the web), and that (c) the French system does not educate students as well as other European public-private systems, which are less centrally controlled. See, e.g., http://econpapers.repec.org/article/ucpjlawec/v_3A39_3Ay_3A1996_3Ai_3A1_3Ap_3A121-48.htm
Accountability by teachers to the families they serve is subject to all sorts of problems. But other systems are open to far more.
We in government sometimes become annoyed with those pesky people who keep reminding us we are accountable to the public. But we are, and we must never forget it.
You appeal to the *fear* that teachers don’t do that, with no evidence at all to support you. What a marvelous display of your own critical thinking skills. Please, bring on the anecdotes and appeals to false authority. You will only prove my point for me.
Interesting choice of words. Funny, I don’t seem to recall any gulags for those who fail to pay their property taxes, nor any vote by force for mills. And I just can’t seem to recall the last time I witnessed a school funding death squad.
they do have “gulags” for people that don’t pay taxes, they are called federal prisons. Stop paying your taxes and see how long it takes before men with guns show up at your house. When they knock on your door, politely let them know that you refuse to pay them. See how long it takes before the muzzle of a gun is leading you into a cage.
Nice try, but wrong. If you don’t pay your property taxes, *they* put a lien against your house, and someone can actually buy it out from under you. No gulags necessary.
And you still miss the obvious. You pay property taxes for education at the will of your neighbors, not so much the government. Ooooohhh how violent!
Wulfgar- School funding comes from income taxes as well as property taxes. Try reading a book once in a while and you would know these things.
So if it is my neighbor’s will to steal from me, then that is ok?
If ten of my neighbor’s get together and want to steal from me, is that ok?
If these ten people go and get a guy with an (R) or a (D) next to his name and HE steals from me (on their behalf), is that ok?
So does funding for all other state functions. Precisely why am I supposed to accept that my neighbor cheating me by not paying his taxes is somehow noble? It is not violence that he be required to pay what the law, as passed by ourselves and our representatives, requires him or her to pay. If they don’t, they’re a tax cheat, and should suffer the consequences for it. The point remains. There are no gulags for tax cheats. There are prisons for criminals, and tax cheats belong there, right? (The overwhelming majority of people who don’t pay thieir taxes are fined and encumbered. They aren’t sent to prison, much as you righties would hope for … when it’s not you. There is no violence involved in paying taxes. There is the law, a law you frackers don’t like, but can’t seem to do anything about.)
Right wing hypocrisy is the greatest joke ever. It never fails to get a laugh. Just ask Jay Leno, Jon Stewart, David Letterman, Conan O’Brien, …
Yes. This has been another episode of simple answers to stupid questions. Say hello to the Constitution, kitten. If you don’t love America, then leave it. Hehe.
Back to the topic at hand, Education World has several ideas to improve parent involvement: http://www.education-world.com/a_special/parent_involvement.shtml
Please site to me where in the Constitution it says that it is acceptable to use the force of government to steal from someone.
Is it before or after:
“nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” ?
Just because the American people have recently been fooled into thinking that mob rule is acceptable, that doesn’t make it right.
I would also appreciate it if you don’t attempt to belittle me by using “cute” pet names, and condescending statements. If you don’t agree with me, that’s fine. If you wish to engage in a discussion, then great. If you truly feel that my questions are “stupid”, then ignore me.
I would ask you to rethink the questions. Does might make right? If 99% of the population thought it was a good idea to kill the other 1%, then is that acceptable to you?
One of the areas that EW highlights is communication: http://www.education-world.com/a_curr/columnists/mcdonald/mcdonald004.shtml
==================
Phone calls are not the only way to keep parents informed of what’s happening in your classroom, however. You also can send home a newsletter, either bi-weekly or monthly, outlining what you will be teaching, upcoming special events or deadlines, and other information you want to share. I like to include an activity parents can do with their child at home, one that reinforces what we’re learning in class. You also might include study tips.
Another form of communication is the academic planner. Many schools provide those for their students. Others simply use a weekly handout to help students stay on top of their assignments. Use a planner to communicate praise and small concerns to parents; for two-way communication, invite them to respond in the planner as well.
You’ll also want to welcome parents into your school and into your classroom. Many teachers do not encourage parents to visit because they fear that they will have “overly helpful” parents. I don’t understand that attitude. I’m routinely swamped with administrative tasks, along with the mundane chores of copying, cutting, pasting, and otherwise preparing the materials I need for my lessons. I welcome with open arms any parent who wants to help me with those tasks.
===============
Perhaps there was a missed opportunity at Big Sky High School.
All the attendant BS aside, am I the only one bothered by the fact that some people feel that parents and schools should be placed in an adversarial, rather than complementary relationship?
That’s a huge chunk of the problem, if you ask me.
Local control, local standards, and throw in some choice, FTW.
Craig, no you are not the only one.
FTW? fillet the witch, fudge tastes weird, fat toads wobble…?
FTW = “For The Win”, sense 3.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ftw
(OT)
Craig, is there one of those alphabet codes for Obama now supporting gun control? http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=6960824&page=1
BOHICA
Most parents are not adversarial in their relations with their children’s schools. That tends to be a conservative tendency – to presume that if the schools are not as right wing as you are, that they are “indoctrinating” kids. Then you get mad and letters appear in the paper and complaints go to the principle – in the end, teachers feel intimidated by the right wing and are timid in their teaching. The kids do not experience as much of the spectrum of knowledge as they should. Preumably kids from right wing homes get a right wing diet fed to them – I did, I know. Schools ought to centrist in their teaching, showing some of everything. But you won’t let them.
This is a perfect example: The simple little film on consumerism. Schools are part of the consumer milieu – advertising is a negative influence on all of us, especially kids. A teacher showed a film about that subject and is accused of not giving your side of the story. Your side of the story – consumerism and advertising, is all over the place. The kids are swimming in it. The teacher offered the kids something different, and you’re all mad about it. The teacher will probably just resist the urge to show the kids something different in the future. Natelson wins again.
Interesting.
Mark T, stop trying to spin things. The problem was lack of communication and coordination. I refer you again to Education World: http://www.education-world.com/a_curr/profdev/profdev124.shtml
dad’s comment about provides a creative idea that may have arisen if parents had been viewed as partners.
What you guys are doing now is exactly what I’m talking about – trying to intimidate a teacher who showed some non-doctrinaire material. This is exactly what the right win gin this country does with the media – it’s called “flak” – you put up so much fuss and have such an echo chamber that you intimidate news outlets into presenting your issues in the light you want them presented. You do the same thing in education – intimidate. That’s all the perfesser is doing here.
Thanks to the hard work of thousands of government workers at the Department of Education and well-paid teachers’ union employees, American schoolchildren perform worse on education tests for every year they spend in a public school.
It turns out that being in U.S. public schools has the same effect on people as hanging around Paris Hilton does.
In fourth grade, the earliest grade for which international comparisons are available, American students outperform most other countries in reading, math and science. Fourth-graders score in the 92nd percentile in science, the 58th percentile in math and the 70th percentile in reading, where they beat 26 of 35 countries, including Germany, France and Italy.
But by the eighth grade, American students are only midrange in international comparisons. (On the plus side, by the eighth grade they’re noticeably fatter.)
By the 12th grade — after receiving the full benefits of an American education — Americans are near the bottom. Let X represent the number of years spent in U.S. public schools, and Y represent average test scores in math and reading — oh, never mind.
With an additional eight years of a public school education under their belts, Americans fall from the 92nd percentile in science to the 29th percentile. While American fourth-graders are bested only by South Korea and Japan in science, by 12th grade, the only countries the American students can beat are Lithuania, Cyprus and South Africa.
Which suggests that if public education were extended all the way through college, by the time a student gets to graduate school he might very well be qualified to be … speaker of the house!
– Ann Coulter, 02/26/09
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?fc_c=1369148×2857178x32377236&id=30860
I have a question.
How exactly is showing the Story of Stuff any different than a US history teacher at Big Sky showing Fox News with Bill O’Reily to the class in order to start a discussion about political or current affairs? (See this letter from a Big Sky parent: http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2009/02/25/letters/tue/tue94.txt)
How exactly is showing the Story of Stuff to high school upper classmen (I’m told Zuber’s daughter is 18) different than Plum Creek Timber, Smurfit Stone, Roseburg Forest products and the Chamber of Commerce taking 400 5th to 7th graders from Missoula County Public Schools into the woods to show them (according to the Mission Statement) “the importance of forestry and forest products within the community?”
If you folks want to make an issue out of The Story of Stuff because it’s “propaganda” or “not balanced” or “doesn’t show the other view” than if you truly believe in the principles you are espousing you must also speak out against Bill O’Reily in the classroom and Plum Creek, et al in the classroom.
Also, as a certified teacher, I can think of numerous ways The Story of Stuff would be a useful teaching tool.
Kennedy was teaching Wildlife Biology. I assume part of an entire class on wildlife biology would be a chapter or section on habitat loss and habitat degradation. It’s undeniable that over-consumption, pollution and over-development (basically The Story of Stuff) is a leading cause of habitat loss and degradation.
Certainly The Story of Stuff is applicable for the Home Economics classroom. Teaching young people fiscal responsibility to live within their means and avoid credit card debit is as important a lesson as any, especially in these troubled times.
Current Affairs, US or World history and Government class would also, in my view, be appropriate venues for the film. After all, if any teacher is looking for a “teachable moment” to liven up any class the current economic crisis, housing collapse, bank meltdown, certainly provides plenty of opportunities. This is especially true given the fact that over-consumption and over-development are the leading causes of this profound economic crisis.
The other point that I think Zuber supporters are missing is the fact that the film was used to generate discussion. Again, how is this different than Bill O’Reily being used in the same school for the same purpose? I want future generations to be critical thinkers. Participating in lively discussions with your classmates, or being faced with something that may challenge you, is one way to help nurture this skill.
Good teachers like Kennedy use a variety of tools to teach and reach students. I’ve even seen her and her students doing hands-on river restoration work in Greenough Park! It’s unfortunate that four members of the MCPS Board of Trustees have decided to ban The Story of Stuff and thereby divert everyone’s attention from real issues facing our public schools.
Matthew, the mistake is revealed in the parents’ reaction and the board’s vote. Lack of coordination, communication, and partnership building with parents. Refer to the keys to success from Educational World I have referenced above. The Story of Stuff was only the flashpoint that highlighted the real problem. In and of itself, The Story of Stuff is irrevelant to addressing that problem.
Is it relevant to note that Chris Palmer (letter to Missoulian) has to write a letter for his “self-described liberal/progressive” daughter explaining her views?
Craig, You state, “the mistake is revealed in the parents’ reaction and the board’s vote.”
Fact is, only 4 of 11 board members voted to ban The Story of Stuff. Also, seems to me that most parents of MCPS students are opposed to the action of these four board members. For example, a recent article stated, “The board has been besieged by e-mail and letter writers – most of whom are unhappy with the board – the Missoulian’s letters page and online comments have been active, and Missoula teachers are wondering what comes next.”
It’s also interesting that Jerry Chung would chose to attack Mr. Palmer’s letter to the editor instead of rise up in anger that segments of Bill O’Reilly are used in the same high school. After all, when conservatives sit back and allow things like O’Reilly and the timber industry field trip in our schools, while at the same time flipping your lids over The Story of Stuff, you clearly demonstrate your hypocrisy to the community. Maybe that’s the real lesson Missoula’s school children will take from this whole affair.
Matthew, I think it is more productive to point at the failure in teacher-parent team building and moving forward with lessons learned to fashion pathways to success. The divisive fingerpointing at people and demonizing rhetoric is a waste. Fix the process problem.
Craig – we get it – OK? You want parent-teacher cooperation. What that entails in part is the right wingers backing off every time something non-doctrinaire comes down the pipe. This is the perfect example. If you believe in critical thought processes, if you beleive in showing many points of view, now is the time to show it, by supporting Kennedy. She done good, and is now being put through the right wing ringer. She did exactly what you say should be done – she showed an alternative view. You wouldn’t mind if it was a right wing view.
“You wouldn’t mind if it was a right wing view.”
No, but you would.
Mark T, thank you for seeing the light.
goof, don’t be a stranger.
From the op-ed piece:
Remind me who’s being adversarial here?
In response to Matthew’s comments (and I wrote this on another blog about the same issue where I was critical of the way the video was handled) I’d be concerned about bringing in anything that had the potential for controversy unless there was some effort to bring some balance to it and there was some effort to get the kids involved in critiquing what they would hear/see. And that applies to this video/ O’Reilly/ timber groups/ environmental groups, etc.
Matthew said there was a “discussion” of the video. I haven’t seen a reference to a discussion in any reports I’ve read, but if there was a discussion, was it mostly the teacher trying to fire up the students about getting organized for Earth Day. Or was she challenging them to check out ten facts in the video to determine if they were true or false or somewhere in between? This is the sort of thing that teaches kids critical thinking. I’d be all in favor of that. I saw nothing in the reports that said she did that, and I’m sure it would have been mentioned by her or her defenders if it had happened. There’s a bit of a false equation here in bringing up O’Reilly, too. The guy is pompous and obnoxious, and I don’t often watch him. But I did see his interviews of Obama and Clinton, and they were quite good. It was the only tough interview of Obama, and Clinton handled him well. I had the impression that both the Obama and Clinton camps were quite proud of how they did. If the students saw these shows, then they learned a lot. (O’Reilly does have people from both sides of the political spectrum, unlike several of the anchors at MSNBC).
By contrast, Story of Stuff is pure and simple, geared to be propaganda, paid for by the Soros-funded Tides Foundation. It makes no pretense at being even-handed.
Still, I would be happy to see it used as a teaching tool, if again, a teacher had his/her students take a good hard look at the claims it makes.
Professor Valentin’s response f0r the role the parents should play in thier children’s education is directly out of the National Teacher’s Certification instruction manual. This doctrine was quietly being implemented during “Goals 2000.” This started during Nancy Keenan’s term as State Superintendent . When she came to the legislature for funding of the implementation of Goals 2000 the legislature turned her down. The next step was spinning the term to “Out Come based Educaiton” or other NEW labels . The final and successful attempt to fund this liberal indocrination of our children came through making new State Standards. The new State Standards enabled the funding of the liberal global indoctrination of our children’s public education.
The current State Superintendent of Public Instruction for the State of Montana stated during her campaign that the “local” role of education was to be of “Interest Only” and the “State” should have the power for all education matters. (which it does through the State Constitution and the State Board of Education) This is why SB-81 is so important to pass . If the Home Schooler’s understood the danger their freedom to have “hands off ” to Home School they would get behind SB-81. Home Schoolers need to move NOW to preserve the freedom to educate your children as you choose. SB-81 is not just about Public Education it is the only way to keep parental freedom to educate your children PERIOD! When the force, by numbers, shows in Helena to block anti Home School legislation it is effective. SB-81 is the most powerful legislation to keep the STATE at bay for parents since we lost it in 1972 in the formation of The State Board of Education. NOW is the time to move with all your might and get SB-81 passed. It will be heard in the next few days or weeks in the House.
I don’t understand how Professor Valentine logically reaches his conclusion that parents should have no say about what goes on in high schools. Parents are a child’s primary teachers from infancy. At great expense to their energy, time, emotions and bank account, a good parent is an active participant in what his/her child eats, what he wears, who his friends are, what he reads, what television shows he watches, what church he does or does not attend, where he goes, what he sees on the internet, if he attends school and home schools, and most importantly, what he learns to accept as truth.
I believe that the term “minor” means that a parent has a say about anything to do with his/her child within legal boundaries until the age of 18 and that parents have the right to dissent to the school administration about classroom material that they believe is harmful to their child/children. There are numerous precidents:
We have seriously considered the concerns of a few relating to other issues. We have not wanted to influence children of a few athiests so no one may pray in school. We have not wanted to influence the children of a few illegal immigrants and anti-government parents so no one may say the Pledge of Allegiance (in some schools) and we have not wanted to influence the children of a few evolutionists so we do not teach creationism in school. How about not wanting to influence the children of a few conservatives by maintining the political center in the classroom?
“…HUKT ON FONIKS WERKT FIR ME…”
Working for a School District myself for the last 10 years, I have seen every day how teachers, the unions and the Administrators are more concerned with adhering to the Government’s idea of educational standards that they have lost the true meaning of education. Many of you seem to forget that it was only about 30 years ago that we had NO national education system. The transition has been frightening and so very detrimental to our children. That we, AS PARENTS put up with it is also a symptom of the malaise and unconcern that has been ingrained into our psyche. We must continue to hold these “mental prisons” accountable for the poor work they are doing in educating our children. Professor Valentin is obviously a Stalinist at heart who desires total control over the minds and thoughts of the children in his charge. Welcome to the New World Order boys and girls….
PARTAY!!!!
I saw the following over at B-birds:
Just A Citizen
March 12, 2009 at 9:55 am
To All:
Doesn’t anyone here know that the Board did not censor the film, and that censorship was not even discussed. The parent testified he was not opposed to the film.
The issue was a teacher who did not follow district policy with regard to lesson plans, allowing research, debate, etc. That would be the learning process you all profess to support.
Did you know the teacher admitted she committed certain policy infractions?
Did you know that some of your friends and supporters have been calling, emailing, etc personal threats to Board members, trying to get them to resign? Is that your idea of an open, informed, educated public and Democratic govt?
Perhaps the Republicans have stayed out of this because they don’t think it should be politicized. Maybe alot of us think the same thing. If only the local Democratic Party had this view. The education of our children should not be held hostage to your political goals of maintaining support from the teachers union.
============================
If true, perhaps it wasn’t parent involvement that was the problem.