For the sake of a quiet Saturday morning before football starts, I'll bite. "What 'other part' do you speak of, Clyde?"

 

I'm sure he's speaking of how the divide is furthered by the reaction that liberals have when conservatives label them unpatriotic, traitors, thieves, killers, etc.

To me, that is just unbelievable. I am so disappointed. If he was declaring war every TV in every school would be on and listening. But 30 minutes from the President to admonish students to do well. . . the people in the wrong here on this issue are those complaining.

 

Oh, trust me, I've expressed by disappointment in letter form. It's purely political. I asked if I had to document pep rallies in my lesson plans now and was told no, as those weren't controversial. Not my point - if our focus is curriculum and instruction, how could we even think about having a pep rally EVER? (Crickets chirped..........) My point exactly.

 

I hope that your school system sees the validity in allowing its students to listen to someone that is NOT their teacher telling them that education can open many doors for them, doors that some of them may not see if they live in poverty and have no insight into a different life.

I'm sure he's speaking of how the divide is furthered by the reaction that liberals have when conservatives label them unpatriotic, traitors, thieves, killers, etc.

 

OK. I'm sure there is a chicken-or-egg debate to that, but that is certainly fair.

 

However, for purposes of this thread, neither RTS or I have done that. We have been compared to Rush Limbaugh and have been implied to be fear-mongerers, merely because we object to our children's proposed curriculum.

Oh, trust me, I've expressed by disappointment in letter form. It's purely political. I asked if I had to document pep rallies in my lesson plans now and was told no, as those weren't controversial. Not my point - if our focus is curriculum and instruction, how could we even think about having a pep rally EVER? (Crickets chirped..........) My point exactly.

 

I hope that your school system sees the validity in allowing its students to listen to someone that is NOT their teacher telling them that education can open many doors for them, doors that some of them may not see if they live in poverty and have no insight into a different life.

 

Simple question for you TB&G - who should have the final say on curriculum, parents or teacher?

Oh, trust me, I've expressed by disappointment in letter form. It's purely political. I asked if I had to document pep rallies in my lesson plans now and was told no, as those weren't controversial. Not my point - if our focus is curriculum and instruction, how could we even think about having a pep rally EVER? (Crickets chirped..........) My point exactly.

 

I hope that your school system sees the validity in allowing its students to listen to someone that is NOT their teacher telling them that education can open many doors for them, doors that some of them may not see if they live in poverty and have no insight into a different life.

 

Those of us who are not all that excited about the President addressing children during the school day have never said that he couldn't address them when their parents could be there with them. If the broadcast were in the evening then the parents could decide to view it or not. I will say, as I have previously said many times before, I won't show any speech, broadcast, movie, video, etc. without previewing it first. Sorry if you are disappointed.

Simple question for you TB&G - who should have the final say on curriculum, parents or teacher?

 

I think the teacherS should have the final say. Our district undergoes curriculum alignment every few years so that what we teach is streamlined in the most efficient way, from K-12. Never once have we included parents in on this task and never once (to my knowledge) has a parent complained about it.

 

However, this isn't in the slightest a curriculum issue. If Obama was going to present a lesson on radioactive decay, some would still be up in arms.

Nope, I wouldn't like that either.

To be fair, you have no authority to decide who is right or who is wrong on any issue, Ace. This is a free country where people have a choice in matters.

 

Much to his dismay.:sssh:

Those of us who are not all that excited about the President addressing children during the school day have never said that he couldn't address them when their parents could be there with them. If the broadcast were in the evening then the parents could decide to view it or not. I will say, as I have previously said many times before, I won't show any speech, broadcast, movie, video, etc. without previewing it first. Sorry if you are disappointed.

 

And those kids that may need to see it most have parents that couldn't give a hoot about insuring that their kids see it. Many kids avoid home at all costs, since things aren't pleasant there. I have to look out for and think about those kids, too.

 

So, you have never, ever turned your TV on during class? Never shown a live school broadcast? No live 9/11 converage in your class of the event or ceremonies that happened as a result?

I think the teacherS should have the final say. Our district undergoes curriculum alignment every few years so that what we teach is streamlined in the most efficient way, from K-12. Never once have we included parents in on this task and never once (to my knowledge) has a parent complained about it.

 

However, this isn't in the slightest a curriculum issue. If Obama was going to present a lesson on radioactive decay, some would still be up in arms.

 

1. The fact that you believe teachers have the final say illustrates the basic difference between you and me, and liberals and conservatives when it comes to education. I believe that the parents ultimately should control what is being taught at the local level.

 

2. The fact that your school does not include parents in curriculum mapping means they are breaking the law. By law, the ultimate responsibility for setting curriculum and choosing textbooks lies and rests with each school's local site-based council, which should include at least two parent representatives. I just finished a training last week on this and you can confirm this with your local teacher rep. The fact that you don't know that is not unusual but also illustrates a fundamental flaw in the beliefs that many educators hold regarding their autonomy in local schools. Most schools simply bypass the parents on curriculum mapping and textbooks.

 

3. This IS a curriculum issue. Both RTS and I have stated as such and have also stated we would object to ANY President presenting the material this Administration has put forth. This post is about the fifth time we've said it, just in this thread.

For the sake of a quiet Saturday morning before football starts, I'll bite. "What 'other part' do you speak of, Clyde?"

 

One would read that and realizing your intellectual capabilities deduce that the "divide" is caused only by one side. Surely, you didn't intend for that to be the point.

OK. I'm sure there is a chicken-or-egg debate to that, but that is certainly fair.

 

However, for purposes of this thread, neither RTS or I have done that. We have been compared to Rush Limbaugh and have been implied to be fear-mongerers, merely because we object to our children's proposed curriculum.

 

So we can use this thinking on a thread-by-thread basis? Man, I need to go find all of the threads where I've been labeled "socialist" "liberal" and "communist." All that has been missing so far is "limp-wristed."

One would read that and realizing your intellectual capabilities deduce that the "divide" is caused only by one side. Surely, you didn't intend for that to be the point.

 

(Star Trek reference) "Mine is the superior intellect." Yes, I assumed that is what you probably meant. I did intend the one-sidedness of this thread to be a primary point, however.

OK. I'm sure there is a chicken-or-egg debate to that, but that is certainly fair.

 

However, for purposes of this thread, neither RTS or I have done that. We have been compared to Rush Limbaugh and have been implied to be fear-mongerers, merely because we object to our children's proposed curriculum.

If you think I compared you with Limbaugh then you are mistaken. I simply stated that fear is his biggest tool when speaking about politics, unless someone else here said it, please don't put words in my mouth. To be clear, I've also said that I have no problem as to why you and RTS have a problem with this, I simply just disagree with your stance on the matter. The fear-mongering comments that have been made in this thread are pointed towards the use of words like propaganda and the people who think Obama wants to turn all of our nations children into baby-killing communists.

So we can use this thinking on a thread-by-thread basis? Man, I need to go find all of the threads where I've been labeled "socialist" "liberal" and "communist." All that has been missing so far is "limp-wristed."

 

If you feel unfairly categorized, then say-so. Yes, thread by thread.

 

Being called "liberal" should not offend you. I've never had a problem being called a "conservative."

 

And I would never, ever, call a poster with Clyde the Glide as his avatar "limp-wristed."

If you think I compared you with Limbaugh then you are mistaken. I simply stated that fear is his biggest tool when speaking about politics, unless someone else here said it, please don't put words in my mouth. To be clear, I've also said that I have no problem as to why you and RTS have a problem with this, I simply just disagree with your stance on the matter. The fear-mongering comments that have been made in this thread are pointed towards the use of words like propaganda and the people who think Obama wants to turn all of our nations children into baby-killing communists.

 

We need to be realistic:

 

You cannot possibly have interjected Rush Limbaugh into a Limbaugh-less thread unless you intended to imply that the people in this country (RTS and myself included) who object to the President's proposed address have been fomented by Rush Limbaugh. And if you will read my post, I did used the word "imply," so I could not have "put words in your mouth."

 

Noone in this thread has said that "Obama wants to turn all of our nations children into baby-killing communists." That is you putting words into somebody's mouth. Have you actually heard that, or is it just hyperbole?

 

I do believe, and assert, that what the Administration proposes is propaganda, and I have stated my reasons for so believing. I even used the word "propaganda" (I think). So, yes, you are calling me a "fear-mongerer."