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.

 

You ask me who SHOULD have the final say, and then when I give my opinion, you charge me with being wrong.

 

You've made some big leaps here. I've served on my school's SBDMC many times. You don't have to preach the law to me on it, but thanks anyway. The school's council approves the overall curriculum, policies, schedule and budget. The district's curriculum alignment doesn't have to include parents in the planning, just the council in the approval.

 

As to #3, to use your own words, I don't believe you. You've said that you don't object to pep rallies (neither do I) and there isn't a single iota of curriculum and instruction going on there. Class time is wasted.

 

I am unclear as to specifically what you mean by "material this Administration has put forth." I take that to mean a lesson on the value of education.

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."

 

To be clear:

 

While yes, it was in this thread, I made a general statement about Limbaugh and did not compare either you or RTS to Limbaugh.

 

No, I have not heard that phrase specifically on here but I will argue vehemently that I know that is the way that some people feel (not necessarily posters on here) and that bothers me very much. So yes, I am putting words into the peoples mouths regarding this address to the children, even though he is frequently called a baby killer and a communist by a countless number of people in this country on a daily basis.

 

I apologize for not being clearer, but no, I have not meant to imply that you specifically are a 'fear-mongerer'. Like I said, I disagree with the stance that both you and RTS have, but I respect it. It is others who have no rhyme or reason for not wanting their kids to see his address other than pure hatred.

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."

 

I'm going to take a stab at why people get up in arms by being labeled, whether it's conservative OR liberal. Usually, when someone uses one or the other labels, the term is used in a derogatory manner, as if to suggest there is something wrong with holding views of either side.

 

The other reason is that very few people realistically fall firmly in one camp or the other. And what happens (at least on this board), is that people who hold some of both wind up being pigeon holed by one side or the other as "liberal" or "conservative", when they are neither.

 

There's nothing wrong with having liberal beliefs or conservative beliefs. There's nothing wrong with objecting to one or the other. And holding beliefs of either doesn't make anyone a bad person.

 

The biggest objection I have on this board is that many use inflammatory hyperbole to support their views. Most often, it's simply not even true. It's just designed to push other people's buttons.

 

I know that most on this board hold a very dim view of anything liberal. It doesn't matter what that view may be. If it doesn't fall within strict conservative guidelines, it's viewed as an undesirable view. At times, people with liberal views have been called unpatriotic, treasonous, un-American, naive.

 

Speaking only for myself, I can say that I object to being labeled liberal as a blanket statement because it's a negative thing on this board. I can accept that most don't agree with me. I'm a big girl, and very comfortable with my decisions on where I fall on pretty much all issues. I know that I have taken the time to think it through for myself, and taken the initiative to find information beyond what people tell me. Most who post here and are labeled liberal do the same. I believe that most conservative posters do as well.

 

There is no way everyone will agree on everything. But I can respect that someone disagrees with me, when there's a meaningful effort by the party to have (at the minimum) at least taken the effort to find out what the whole story is. But when people start objecting to things and haven't even taken the time to find out what the whole story is, I admit I close up to their view. When the talking points and inflammatory hyperbole start, I feel comfortable knowing where they are on an issue even before it's been discussed.

 

I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. I'm simply stating my thoughts. I realize that my influence is minimal for several reasons. But, as an American, I think it's important that I do express my views even when they are opposite the what may be the main stream audience in this forum.

 

I wish everyone would stop trying to "be" liberal or "be" conservative. Sometimes it's detrimental. I firmly, FIRMLY believe the best for all is in the middle somewhere....sometimes on the left side of center, and sometimes on the right.

I'm going to take a stab at why people get up in arms by being labeled, whether it's conservative OR liberal. Usually, when someone uses one or the other labels, the term is used in a derogatory manner, as if to suggest there is something wrong with holding views of either side.

 

The other reason is that very few people realistically fall firmly in one camp or the other. And what happens (at least on this board), is that people who hold some of both wind up being pigeon holed by one side or the other as "liberal" or "conservative", when they are neither.

 

There's nothing wrong with having liberal beliefs or conservative beliefs. There's nothing wrong with objecting to one or the other. And holding beliefs of either doesn't make anyone a bad person.

 

The biggest objection I have on this board is that many use inflammatory hyperbole to support their views. Most often, it's simply not even true. It's just designed to push other people's buttons.

 

I know that most on this board hold a very dim view of anything liberal. It doesn't matter what that view may be. If it doesn't fall within strict conservative guidelines, it's viewed as an undesirable view. At times, people with liberal views have been called unpatriotic, treasonous, un-American, naive.

 

Speaking only for myself, I can say that I object to being labeled liberal as a blanket statement because it's a negative thing on this board. I can accept that most don't agree with me. I'm a big girl, and very comfortable with my decisions on where I fall on pretty much all issues. I know that I have taken the time to think it through for myself, and taken the initiative to find information beyond what people tell me. Most who post here and are labeled liberal do the same. I believe that most conservative posters do as well.

 

There is no way everyone will agree on everything. But I can respect that someone disagrees with me, when there's a meaningful effort by the party to have (at the minimum) at least taken the effort to find out what the whole story is. But when people start objecting to things and haven't even taken the time to find out what the whole story is, I admit I close up to their view. When the talking points and inflammatory hyperbole start, I feel comfortable knowing where they are on an issue even before it's been discussed.

 

I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. I'm simply stating my thoughts. I realize that my influence is minimal for several reasons. But, as an American, I think it's important that I do express my views even when they are opposite the what may be the main stream audience in this forum.

 

I wish everyone would stop trying to "be" liberal or "be" conservative. Sometimes it's detrimental. I firmly, FIRMLY believe the best for all is in the middle somewhere....sometimes on the left side of center, and sometimes on the right.

 

Just like a tree-hugging, Kumbaya singing, liberal! :lol:

 

And the Best Post in a Long Time Award goes to....RM. :clap:

I usually attach "conservative" or "liberal" to policy.... I am for conservative policy because frankly, no liberal policy has ever been successful...

You ask me who SHOULD have the final say, and then when I give my opinion, you charge me with being wrong.

 

You've made some big leaps here. I've served on my school's SBDMC many times. You don't have to preach the law to me on it, but thanks anyway. The school's council approves the overall curriculum, policies, schedule and budget. The district's curriculum alignment doesn't have to include parents in the planning, just the council in the approval.

 

As to #3, to use your own words, I don't believe you. You've said that you don't object to pep rallies (neither do I) and there isn't a single iota of curriculum and instruction going on there. Class time is wasted.

 

I am unclear as to specifically what you mean by "material this Administration has put forth." I take that to mean a lesson on the value of education.

 

I asked you who SHOULD have the say, and you said teachers, and I said that illustrates our fundamental differences.

 

You, then, made the statement that your school does not involve parents in curriculum mapping, without any provocation by me, and I told you that your school was breaking the law.

 

I never stated that you were wrong.

I asked you who SHOULD have the say, and you said teachers, and I said that illustrates our fundamental differences.

 

You, then, made the statement that your school does not involve parents in curriculum mapping, without any provocation by me, and I told you that your school was breaking the law.

 

I never stated that you were wrong.

 

My school district is not breaking the law in not including parents in the planning of the curriculum. The SBDMC of each school approves the curriculum. Let's get the facts straight.

 

Let's also point out that the SBDMC is composed of 2 parents, 3 teachers and 1 adminstrator, so saying that the parents DO have the final say is misleading. The committee has the final say and things that both parents object to could still be approved.

 

You stated "the fact that you don't know" which has the connotation that I am wrong. I guess it's just the case of an assumption, though.

People don't like being pigeon-holed, defined, or labeled in generality because they frankly don't like truth. I am OK with that, because its human nature, but the philosophical political spectrum (liberal-moderate-conservative-libertarian) is a convenient way to discuss issues. We do it in almost every aspect of our daily lives. I will continue to use those categories for generalizations.

 

Name-calling is entirely different.

My school district is not breaking the law in not including parents in the planning of the curriculum. The SBDMC of each school approves the curriculum. Let's get the facts straight.

 

You stated "the fact that you don't know" which has the connotation that I am wrong. I guess it's just the case of an assumption, though.

 

The bolded is a distinction without a difference. If the SBDM disapproves of the district curriculum policy, and sends it back for review (as they do with, for instance, Principal slates provided to them by the Superintendent), then the parents are involved in the process. If the SBDM is merely rubber-stamping the district curriculum policy, then they are not being properly involved.

Interesting conversation. I have no problem with the broadcast, providing parents do have the opportunity to have their children excused from watching if that is their desire.

The bolded is a distinction without a difference. If the SBDM disapproves of the district curriculum policy, and sends it back for review (as they do with, for instance, Principal slates provided to them by the Superintendent), then the parents are involved in the process. If the SBDM is merely rubber-stamping the district curriculum policy, then they are not being properly involved.

 

The SBDMC is not a committee of parents. Let's not confuse posters on here who might not know. It's made up of 2 parents, 3 teachers and 1 administrator. Items that both parents object to could still pass.

The SBDMC is not a committee of parents. Let's not confuse posters on here who might not know. It's made up of 2 parents, 3 teachers and 1 administrator. Items that both parents object to could still pass.

 

Absolutely. And usually do.

Interesting conversation. I have no problem with the broadcast, providing parents do have the opportunity to have their children excused from watching if that is their desire.

 

Just like sex ed.

My school district is not breaking the law in not including parents in the planning of the curriculum. The SBDMC of each school approves the curriculum. Let's get the facts straight.

 

Let's also point out that the SBDMC is composed of 2 parents, 3 teachers and 1 adminstrator, so saying that the parents DO have the final say is misleading. The committee has the final say and things that both parents object to could still be approved.

 

You stated "the fact that you don't know" which has the connotation that I am wrong. I guess it's just the case of an assumption, though.

 

 

That happened a time or two when I served on a SBDMC...

Absolutely. And usually do.

 

In my experience on the SBDMC, that's not the case. Usually, the whole group involved discussed issues and agreed on them.