More accurately, you won't expose one of your sacred cows to information that will likely send it into cardiac arrest. Already have. You're welcome. Like you have any idea what that means.
If teachers were neutral then no student would be compelled to recite the pledge of allegiance since the act of doing it would violate the neutral position.
I did not say you did, I just asked if you included the average wage of the state as a comparison to the teachers salary. What california teachers are paid when the cost of living in those communities is factored in. For example in Mississippi the average income is 35,000, which is also the average teacher salary, while the average teacher's salary in Cal is $5,000 less than the average salary in that state. My understanding is that Cal also has the highest percentage of Immigrants, which certainly effect achievement scores. I don't see your point trying to equate pay and performance when not taking into consideration those factors. I cant see how anyone could argue that when all other factors are assigned a neutral value, increasing salary will broaden the applicant pool.
My point was higher pay will draw better teachers. The districts and state DEs can do all the meritocracy crafting you want.
A teacher should never bring politics into the lesson plan at all, as long as they aren't teaching politics. When I went to college in the 1960's, I didn't get any politics at all in the classroom. The professors taught the subject of the course. Pretty simple.
Well lets see - you made an accusation against me that I easily disproved, could not provide a quote on your own - and still have yet to provide a link to this story of yours - nah, I think I'm doing okay here. You, on the other hand ... On top of that, your assertion is ludicrous. Conservative teachers stalking the hallways of academia spying and snitching on Centrists. Hahahaha - like we even have the time to do this. You have no clue as to what teachers actually do. It's hilarious.
I don't get this, we fire teachers all the time. The small town where I used to live just let 17 of 160 teachers go. You have to document that they are not performing vs thier peers. I think we hear about the NYC reading rooms and try to extrapolate that across the nation. Most taxpayers don't get involved. Go to a school committee meeting and see how many parents/taxpayers are there. If it is not Sex education or something "juicy" no one comes. I had about 6 jobs in my 50 years of working. I never had a three year probationary period like teachers do. Union or no Union. The problem is that we never try to quantify what a good teacher is or what a bad teacher is.
Parental involvement generally marks the quality schools: parents are involved and bad teachers leave.
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/teacherbeat/2016/12/study_its_far_too_hard_to_fire.html Study: It's Far Too Hard to Fire Bad Teachers https://indianapublicmedia.org/stat...fire-bad-teachers-even-when-given-the-option/ Why Principals Don't Fire Bad Teachers, Even When Given The Option https://www.publicschoolreview.com/...-fire-an-inappropriate-or-ineffective-teacher Why It Can Take Six Years to Fire an Inappropriate or Ineffective Teacher
Politics, or the culture surrounding political ideas, is very much a part of an English class. Novels such as "1984" or "Huckleberry Finn" are not overtly political, yet you can't escape the politics.
It's good that you had teachers who allowed you to have other opinions, and good you wanted to debate.
You can teach about topics without preaching them. I never liked Ayn Rand's philosophical ideas (nor her writing), but I did use some of her works in class. As was mentioned, encouraging discussion and debate (for critical thinking) is the goal.
Ha! I encountered a lot of the same kind of thing. When teaching American Lit, the texts were usually edited to remove controversial parts. One that stands out in my mind is Frederick Douglass' memoir of his youth. The passages included were fairly pleasant sounding, describing how he traded food with some White boys in exchange for books, and how some treated him as a friend. Douglass' tone in the omitted parts showed a brutal and sadistic side of slavery. It bothered me that this was not included because it led students to see only one side. I always pointed out the difference in tone by reading a paragraph that was edited out.
That's more true than I like to think. I had a friend who taught next to me. She hated Obama, and I could hear her making all kinds of comments about him.
I look upon teaching as a vocation rather than a means to earn money. While most subjects incur straightforward teaching, the ability of pupils to think for themselves plus the right to question all the many views and propaganda thrust on them by politicians and others is vital to them and the country they live in.Our teachers are equipping a future generation which is indispensable to the wellbeing of any nation. I could give vent to my own views but that would only reduce the topic we are discussing to a game of pat ball between left v right we have seen far too many times and gets us all precisely nowhere.
yep, politics and religion are an area many can't control their biases sadly remember the teacher recorded telling his students they would go to hell if they did not believe in Jesus, lied and said he did not say it, but a student recorded it.. What did the school do.. ban recording teachers without the teachers permission
That's why we always have a list of alternate books. Parents who don't want their child exposed to something like "Huck Finn" are free to choose another title.
Sadly, that's pretty much true. With so much focus on the test, things like critical thinking are out the door.