There have been several reasons given why the paper would not have gone home and as to the bolded . . . bwahahahahahaha

There have been several guesses, yes. But neither of us really know, do we? Why? Because she won't speak up, that makes her, at the very least, look suspicious.

 

You can yuk it up all you want, but it's true. If I knew what I was doing was OK, I'd certainly speak up. You?

There have been several guesses, yes. But neither of us really know, do we? Why? Because she won't speak up, that makes her, at the very least, look suspicious.

 

You can yuk it up all you want, but it's true. If I knew what I was doing was OK, I'd certainly speak up. You?

 

Not to an outside organization, not at all. When would the questioning then quit? She would be harassed unless everything that came out of her mouth or office was supported by voteGOP. No way she answers to them. TB&G covered whom she should answer to, and she probably already has.

If she teaches at a public school then she has to explain her curriculum to any parent of her students who wants to know....

If she teaches at a public school then she has to explain her curriculum to any parent of her students who wants to know....

 

Good luck with that one?? This reaffirms our decision on the choice for our children's educations!!

Actually that's not true. Conservatives believe the individual is smart enough to handle their own fiscal responsibilities and decisions, but too dim-witted to make their own social choices, while Liberals belive the individual is smart enough to handle their own social decisions, but too dim-witted to make fiscal decisions.

Then you have the great Libertarians, like myself, who believe the individual is generally smart enough to make both decisions.

 

Or Libertarians like me who don't necessarily believe that the individual is smart enough to make those choices but deserves the right to nonetheless.

Or Libertarians like me who don't necessarily believe that the individual is smart enough to make those choices but deserves the right to nonetheless.

 

Classic!! :thumb:

Not to an outside organization, not at all. When would the questioning then quit? She would be harassed unless everything that came out of her mouth or office was supported by . No way she answers to them. TB&G covered whom she should answer to, and she probably already has.

Baloney. She doesn't have to answer directly to GOPVote, she can answer to a local newspaper or news station. She hasn't and the longer she waits the more it looks like she's trying to build a defense. You don't do that unless your guilty of something.

If she teaches at a public school then she has to explain her curriculum to any parent of her students who wants to know....

:thumb:

 

It's no wonder so many people want to home school their kids anymore.

Baloney. She doesn't have to answer directly to GOPVote, she can answer to a local newspaper or news station. She hasn't and the longer she waits the more it looks like she's trying to build a defense. You don't do that unless your guilty of something.

 

Parents individually and the administration. That is it. No reason to go on TV or to the newspaper.

If she teaches at a public school then she has to explain her curriculum to any parent of her students who wants to know....

 

If she teaches at a public school then the state of Texas establishes the curriculum!!!! She likely had zero input on what the curriculum is. To go a step further I believe it was stated that this was an AP Government course. If that's the case, then the curriculum was established by the National College Board. I know this because I teach AP chemistry and AP physics.

 

My point is that teachers DO NOT have any say in curriculum. The only thing this teacher HAS to expain to parents and/or students is her method of presenting information.

Parents individually and the administration. That is it. No reason to go on TV or to the newspaper.

So, the community has no right to know?

If she teaches at a public school then the state of Texas establishes the curriculum!!!! She likely had zero input on what the curriculum is. To go a step further I believe it was stated that this was an AP Government course. If that's the case, then the curriculum was established by the National College Board. I know this because I teach AP chemistry and AP physics.

 

My point is that teachers DO NOT have any say in curriculum. The only thing this teacher HAS to expain to parents and/or students is her method of presenting information.

If that were the case, wouldn't this handout be in the other schools in the state? From the sound of things, her class seems to be the only one.

If that were the case, wouldn't this handout be in the other schools in the state? From the sound of things, her class seems to be the only one.

 

I don't have any idea what the National College Board has set as the "curriculum" for AP Government. An example of what might be in the curriculum would read something like this.......Students will understand the differences between political parties. Students will understand the core beliefs of the different parties. Someone that is a history teacher I'm sure will correct this, but the point is the same.

 

At this point it is up to the teacher to find interesting and engaging ways to get his/her students to understand the material. The teachers job is to understand his/her students and get the information across in a manner that they can understand. That will vary from school to school and from class to class. Honestly from student to student.

 

I dont know if this teacher was trying to indoctrinate her students with her beliefs or not???? What I do know is that this hand-out was part of atleast a 60 minute lesson but more likely a 90 minute block lesson because its an AP course. Before I pass judgement on someone that has devoted her life to teaching children, I want to know what else was taught during that lesson.

I personally think the only thing offensive is the use of the angel and devil cartoons. I think, though, that had they been used differently, they actually wouldn't have been an issue. For instance, had they not been placed each next to a definition of the philosophy, they could have just been ambiguous, open to one's interpretation of which was good and which was evil.

 

On the whole, reading what was written, I tend to agree with most of what the message was.

 

Honestly, I thought the angel and devil symbols could be explained by the two groups views on human nature. Liberals view human nature as good, thus the angel. Conservatives view it as bad, thus the devil. I can certainly see how it comes off upon one look and read through though.

 

I thought the other pictures were worse. The stack of books symbolizing the well-educated, forward thinking, full of ideas liberals vs. the clueless, ignorant, I do it because it's always been that way conservatives represented by the boy with a question mark over his head.

 

Ace was right. Some additional context could shed some light. But, as someone else pointed out, the fact that they weren't allowed to take the papers home is suspicious.

 

Ultimately, teachers "indoctrinating" a child is not likely if the parents are doing their job at home. But, if they rely solely on teachers to educate their children, then they have little control over the result, IMO.

 

I wouldn't improve of indoctrination of any kind, but if a parent is doing their job, they shouldn't have to worry about some teacher(s) leading their children in a direction they don't approve of.

 

:idunno: