Sad.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iybaDyMr1rs&feature=player_embedded#!

 

What a dope.

 

"Hey guys, let's follow the footsteps of the other central American countries...you know...because they're all doing SO well for themselves."

Wonder what Obama will say about this.... http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100512/ap_on_re_us/us_arizona_ethnic_studies

Wonder what Obama will say about this.... http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100512/ap_on_re_us/us_arizona_ethnic_studies

 

From the article,

 

Six UN human rights experts released a statement earlier Tuesday saying all people have the right to learn about their own cultural and linguistic heritage, they said.

 

They are right but the question is, is it the responsibility of the public schools to do that or the parents?

From the article,

 

Six UN human rights experts released a statement earlier Tuesday saying all people have the right to learn about their own cultural and linguistic heritage, they said.

 

They are right but the question is, is it the responsibility of the public schools to do that or the parents?

 

I'd say that it is the responsibility of the school to teach about multiple cultural heritages.

I'd say that it is the responsibility of the school to teach about multiple cultural heritages.

 

Whose get left out? American Indians? African Americans? Irish Americans? Jewish? Christians? Muslims? etc, etc, etc, etc.

 

It says in the article there is a class, Hispanics in the Vietnam War. Are we going to have a class now with EVERY cultural heritage and them in the Vietnam War?

 

The public school curriculum keeps getting spread so thin that everything is included and it will do nothing well.

Whose get left out? American Indians? African Americans? Irish Americans? Jewish? Christians? Muslims? etc, etc, etc, etc.

 

It says in the article there is a class, Hispanics in the Vietnam War. Are we going to have a class now with EVERY cultural heritage and them in the Vietnam War?

 

The public school curriculum keeps getting spread so thin that everything is included and it will do nothing well.

 

There are many times, in a variety of subjects, in which it is possible to tie in multicultural connections.

 

You ask which ones get left out...if we plan on not trying to include a variety of those connections, which cultural perspective do you think is 'the one' that we should present it from?

 

As to the class that you mentioned from the article, I assume it is an elective class. Just like any other elective class (astronomy, political science, journalism) you concentration on THAT specific subject...and it's pretty easy ahead of time to figure out what it is going to be about.

There are many times, in a variety of subjects, in which it is possible to tie in multicultural connections.

 

You ask which ones get left out...if we plan on not trying to include a variety of those connections, which cultural perspective do you think is 'the one' that we should present it from?

 

As to the class that you mentioned from the article, I assume it is an elective class. Just like any other elective class (astronomy, political science, journalism) you concentration on THAT specific subject...and it's pretty easy ahead of time to figure out what it is going to be about.

 

For the point of this discussion, let's look at KY here. How is it determined what cultures we should teach? How in the world can you touch upon every historical event in this country's history through all of the different cultures?

 

Political Science is not an elective but a requirement for senior year SS in our school and I thought state.

For the point of this discussion, let's look at KY here. How is it determined what cultures we should teach? How in the world can you touch upon every historical event in this country's history through all of the different cultures?

 

Political Science is not an elective but a requirement for senior year SS in our school and I thought state.

 

Only three years of social studies and science are required in KY. Of course, individual districts and schools can set up their own criteria.

 

It's impossible NOT to teach history from some cultural perspective. Do you propose that we teach from only one? If so, which one? Again, you can tie in many cultural connections in a variety of cases, if you make it a point to. I actually teach a little native american culture in a unit in Chemistry II on nuclear science. (Try to figure that connection out. )

Only three years of social studies and science are required in KY. Of course, individual districts and schools can set up their own criteria.

 

It's impossible NOT to teach history from some cultural perspective. Do you propose that we teach from only one? If so, which one. Again, you can tie in many cultural connections in a variety of cases, if you make it a point to. I actually teach a little native american culture in a unit in Chemistry II on nuclear science. (Try to figure that connection out. )

 

I thought 1 was World Civ, 1 was US History, 1/2 was Political Science and then the other 1/2 was an elective.

 

I am not saying from "some cultural perspective." I am saying that they would have to be taught from ALL cultural perspectives. That can't be done, realistically. in the time that SS teachers would have and with all the material they would need to cover.

 

Why can't history be taught with the basic facts and that is it?

 

Do I need to know the American Indians cultural perspective on the American Revoluation? And other such examples?

 

While we are getting caught up in this debate, I think my real point is being missed. At some point, they have to quit adding onto what they expect public schools to be doing or they are going to be doing everything halfway.

 

Heck, in Philadelphia, I posted a thread first semester about principals being evaluated on the number of kids that eat breakfast in the morning. It is now the responsibility of their principals to make sure each kid had a good breakfast that morning.

Only three years of social studies and science are required in KY. Of course, individual districts and schools can set up their own criteria.

 

It's impossible NOT to teach history from some cultural perspective. Do you propose that we teach from only one? If so, which one? Again, you can tie in many cultural connections in a variety of cases, if you make it a point to. I actually teach a little native american culture in a unit in Chemistry II on nuclear science. (Try to figure that connection out. )

 

And to put a swerve in there, if we are going to take cultural perspectives on subjects taught in school, that would be a good reason to teach Creationism then. Let's have the Christian view put in the Science curriculum and teach on how one cultural perspective is on Evolution and the Big Bang Theory.

 

Or would that be a cultural perspective that it would be okay to leave out?

For the point of this discussion, let's look at KY here. How is it determined what cultures we should teach? How in the world can you touch upon every historical event in this country's history through all of the different cultures?

 

Political Science is not an elective but a requirement for senior year SS in our school and I thought state.

 

I don't think it's necessarily important that every identifiable historical event or culture be examined, in fact that rote style of teaching is something I am extremely critical of (which could probably be another thread all its own). But, I think it's important to offer another perspective, another lens through which students can examine the world and what's around them. I think that is very valuable.

 

As far as this new bill goes, I'm not sure what it accomplishes other than being "feel good" legislation. Making these classes an issue and removing them from schools probably emboldens the discontent and isolation supporters of the bill think they are preventing by allowing another perspective to be heard.

I don't think it's necessarily important that every identifiable historical event or culture be examined, in fact that rote style of teaching is something I am extremely critical of (which could probably be another thread all its own). But, I think it's important to offer another perspective, another lens through which students can examine the world and what's around them. I think that is very valuable.

 

As far as this new bill goes, I'm not sure what it accomplishes other than being "feel good" legislation. Making these classes an issue and removing them from schools probably emboldens the discontent and isolation supporters of the bill think they are preventing by allowing another perspective to be heard.

 

I understand what you are saying and could be behind it BUT, with the mindset of politicians today and what they expect in public schools and what things should be covered, it is very difficult to teach everything that everybody thinks should be in there.

 

And the basics are glossed over at the expense of how a group felt at the moment something was happening.

 

I could see an argument for how do you think African Americans felt during the American Revolutionary War and how it affected their thoughts of freedom. And that would be a good thing to study.

 

But Social Studies class that is trying to get a person to understand and learn the basics of the American Revolution.

 

One thing that you might also need to understand is that the American Revolution is not taught in HS. We start around the Reconstruction and move forward. So many of these cultural experiences before that time are going to be taught in Elementary and Middle schools.

I don't think it's necessarily important that every identifiable historical event or culture be examined, in fact that rote style of teaching is something I am extremely critical of (which could probably be another thread all its own). But, I think it's important to offer another perspective, another lens through which students can examine the world and what's around them. I think that is very valuable.

 

As far as this new bill goes, I'm not sure what it accomplishes other than being "feel good" legislation. Making these classes an issue and removing them from schools probably emboldens the discontent and isolation supporters of the bill think they are preventing by allowing another perspective to be heard.

 

Does that "allowing another perspective to be heard" carry to Creationism?

And to put a swerve in there, if we are going to take cultural perspectives on subjects taught in school, that would be a good reason to teach Creationism then. Let's have the Christian view put in the Science curriculum and teach on how one cultural perspective is on Evolution and the Big Bang Theory.

 

Or would that be a cultural perspective that it would be okay to leave out?

 

We teach science in science. Creationism is not science. I have no problem with it being taught in religion courses. It just has no place in a science course, as science is based on factual evidence.

We teach science in science. Creationism is not science. I have no problem with it being taught in religion courses. It just has no place in a science course, as science is based on factual evidence.

 

So, cultural perspective of science issues is not relevant.

 

Good in one class, not good in the other. Interesting. Cultural views we are comfortable with are okay. Cultural views we are not are not okay. My point of whose views do we leave out is made when we try and start giving all the different cultural views of things.

 

Interesting that you will teach an American Indian culture in Nuclear Science but wouldn't include a Christian culture view of something that is as reasonable view of how earth was created as the Big Bang Theory is.