Neutrality of Teachers

Evolution cannot describe how life originally began, only supposition. It does not explain how DNA/RNA evolved. It cannot describe the evolutionary thread to humanoids or apes. It cannot explain the Cambrian explosion. It does not explain if random evolution produces far more detrimental changes than accommodating why the lasting changes are all accommodating.

 

A teacher or professor that introduces their own politics in a class should be fired and banned from education for life!!!! It is best to keep politics TOTALLY out of the classroom.

 

Not good enough. Kids shouldn't know the teacher's position, period. And ALL points of view should be given equally weighted air time.

What you're missing here is that they're children ... and the teacher is an authority figure. That supersedes all.

 

I tend to agree that it should be a sackable offence. Taxpayers come in all shapes and sizes, so public institutions MUST remain neutral.

 

Evolution explains how life changes, not how it began.

 

Education should NEVER be more than 'getting a job'. It's a survival tool, that's it. All that other stuff is the FAMILY'S responsibility - entirely. If you want your kids to be 'special and creative', you should be teaching that at home, from the day they're born. And sustaining a train of thought is a product of mental discipline learned via family environment. Nothing to do with school. Kids need the germ of that before their formal education starts.

The "kind of education I'm promoting" is one which most fairly represents the wide range of taxpayers funding it, and most fits our kids for employment or business. Keeping it STRICTLY academics can offend no one, nor does it abdicate from the primary role of education - reasonable survival of our children. And far from it being a dead end, it's the very model most favoured by those who generally fair very well in the First World. NE Asians, Indians, etc.

PS: Consumerism is a private and personal choice - nothing to do with education, wealth, or class. EG, my husband and I are not at all poor, and we're educated in 'hard skills' ... yet we spend next to nothing. Our three kids are the same. No idea how you equate soft skills with resistance to consumerism. You'll have to explain that one to me.

 

It's about approaching an issue objectively, not about presenting the political positions of outsiders to the education process.

Are you defending them against someone else pushing belief in an imaginary friend?

 

No, if your teacher was unable to present an issue to students, it was because he was incompetent.

 

That American teachers have become something of a laughing stock, so a teacher of the year award called TOY just made me laugh.

Defiance against whatever prompted them to take the job. For example, you seem to believe that teachers can make a difference by teaching students how to think outside the box, the ability to appreciate beauty, and all those other wonderful ideas that fresh faced teachers have.

I'll just point to the public's overall desire for school vouchers and charter schools, and the teacher unions that fight against that tooth and nail.

20% opted out means that 80% have no problems with state testing.

I don't know about it being too expensive and inaccurate, but I can certainly understand shifting the financial burden back to the states. Why should tax payers in Texas be asked to dig a bit deeper to help Californians?

Actually, I don't hear too much from politicians or the media about testing, or education in general. I figure they don't have a clue what's going on in classrooms because I did spend 12 years in California's public education system, and quite honestly, even the teachers were oblivious to what was happening.

 

A good employee often requires social skills acquired as part of a broader education.

Why shouldn't students with average parents not have an opportunity to learn from someone smarter than their parents?

What makes you think parents want your program of limited training for their children?

We shouldn't be focused on not offending anyone. Students deserve a good education--one that prepares them for the world of work and for life.

 

Egads. School teachers are typically moderate Democrats and not prone to making wild comments.

Where's the evidence for this claim?

Total BS.

 

What age of children are you referring to?

I'm thinking by high school, they need to be exposed to critical thinking.

 

1) Yes, and social skills are learned at HOME. Those skills are the responsibility of parents, not teachers.

2) Because academic success has nothing to do with how educated or intelligent your parents are. It's entirely a function of self-discipline and effort. How do you think 'peasant stock' refugees who come to the West, manage to produce doctors and lawyers? It's not talent, education, wealth, or IQ - it's sheer determination. And ANYONE can be determined.

3) They may not, but since taxpayers are funding public education, schools should not engage in anything other than education. As in, academics. You might insist that public schools spend hours each week teaching soft skills, but in so doing you compromise the primary (and only) purpose of public education - to ensure our kids acquire the fundamentals for financial independence.

4) If the limited resources and teacher time of a public school is spent on soft skills, or sport, or drama, or music, etc etc - at the expense of practical skills - then it will be 'offensive' to many parents. Parents who are paying for it via tax dollars. And a good education is one which spits your kid out at the end of high school with the highest mark possible .. because THAT is what opens doors. THAT'S what will keep them employed, and able to support themselves throughout life. As for being prepared for 'life', that's OUR job, as parents. Besides, every family has a different idea of what 'life skills' are .. so a school could never do more than indoctrinate in that regard. That's not acceptable at all .. in a publicly funded school.

 

High schoolers.

And "critical thinking" is taught by families - or not, as they see fit. It's absolutely inappropriate in a publicly funded school, to interfere with that.

You are aware that kids from cultures in which critical thinking is actively discouraged, almost always do better academically than kids from cultures which encourage critical thought, yes? Which renders the argument that it's important in education a nonsense. Success in education isn't a result of 'thinking', it's a result of effort, self-discipline, focus, application, etc.

 

I disagree.

If you have proof of this claim, produce it.

 

They don't like social studies class looking at church history, either.

 

Asians are not fans of encouraging 'critical thinking' in their kids. It messes with their familial piety thing, and that famial piety thing is essential to the cohesion and continuence of the culture, and the successes of the culture.

PS: you can disagree all you like, but Asians DO outrank Western kids in academics. Consistently, all around the world.

 

Yet precisely because it is a publicly funded school you have to take into account a variety of different hardships students from all walks of life need to overcome. If you are opposed to having schools teach critical thinking, you have every right to find a private school which is in alignment with your ideas of critical thinking, or the lack thereof.

 

Once again, you are relying on anecdotal evidence, along with your own (bizzare) twist on it. You have a long way to go to make a reasoned argument out of this.

 

What 'hardship' are you referring to? Wealth has nothing to do with academic success.

 

BS!

Access to equal resources improves the odds of academic success.

 

What 'hardship' are you referring to? Wealth has nothing to do with academic success.

And how can anyone in support of public education be okay with usurping parental preferences in non-academic areas? And critical thinking isn't academic, it's a feature of character .. if it's anything at all (and I often suspect it's a mere vanity).