Why are people so upset about Common Core?

[Anonymous]

I still don't understand what a legit alternate interpretation to Romeo and Juliet would be, and what it has to do with Common Core.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clearly they had a relationship. That's not what I'm referring to. Is there a test question that specifically refers to Romeo and Juliet's sexuality, or about some other aspect of the book?

When people start to behave like you people are above, it's because you clearly get the point, but have no intelligent retort.

My guess is you same people would be in an uproar if there was a book kids were reading where a character even suggested homosexuality wasn't something he/she believed in.

It's all about the agenda, not about rights and freedom.

I was thinking last night that I will be wholly amused when there's shock and surprise, when progressive policies win out. "They KEPT that teacher that sexually abused children? How could they DO that?". My response? It's what you voted for - you just weren't savvy enough to understand that.

So that's why the Catholic Church didn't get rid of the pedophile priests then? Because its so "progressive?" Really?! Do you even realize how ridiculous you sound?

Are your tax dollars forced into Catholic schools ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clearly they had a relationship. That's not what I'm referring to. Is there a test question that specifically refers to Romeo and Juliet's sexuality, or about some other aspect of the book?

When people start to behave like you people are above, it's because you clearly get the point, but have no intelligent retort.

My guess is you same people would be in an uproar if there was a book kids were reading where a character even suggested homosexuality wasn't something he/she believed in.

It's all about the agenda, not about rights and freedom.

I was thinking last night that I will be wholly amused when there's shock and surprise, when progressive policies win out. "They KEPT that teacher that sexually abused children? How could they DO that?". My response? It's what you voted for - you just weren't savvy enough to understand that.

Is it really necessary for a test question to refer to Romeo and Juliet's sexuality? What would that test question be? "Do you think that the relationship between Romeo and Juliet was romantic? Why or why not?" "Do you think that Romeo and Juliet actually consummated their marriage before the opening of Act 3, Scene 5? Why or why not?" Any reasonable person's answer to these questions would be, "Yes, duh."

And no, I'm pretty sure that I did not vote for policies for not firing teachers who are child abusers. "Progressive" does not mean, "It's ok for anybody to do anything, yay!"

And really, homosexuality is not something you believe in or don't believe in, like Santa Claus or the tooth fairy. Gay people actually, really exist, for real. I personally have known many, many gay people in my life. You probably have too.

No it isn't. Should there.be a test question that says 'Bill and Tom get married?'

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clearly they had a relationship. That's not what I'm referring to. Is there a test question that specifically refers to Romeo and Juliet's sexuality, or about some other aspect of the book?

When people start to behave like you people are above, it's because you clearly get the point, but have no intelligent retort.

My guess is you same people would be in an uproar if there was a book kids were reading where a character even suggested homosexuality wasn't something he/she believed in.

It's all about the agenda, not about rights and freedom.

I was thinking last night that I will be wholly amused when there's shock and surprise, when progressive policies win out. "They KEPT that teacher that sexually abused children? How could they DO that?". My response? It's what you voted for - you just weren't savvy enough to understand that.

Is it really necessary for a test question to refer to Romeo and Juliet's sexuality? What would that test question be? "Do you think that the relationship between Romeo and Juliet was romantic? Why or why not?" "Do you think that Romeo and Juliet actually consummated their marriage before the opening of Act 3, Scene 5? Why or why not?" Any reasonable person's answer to these questions would be, "Yes, duh."

And no, I'm pretty sure that I did not vote for policies for not firing teachers who are child abusers. "Progressive" does not mean, "It's ok for anybody to do anything, yay!"

And really, homosexuality is not something you believe in or don't believe in, like Santa Claus or the tooth fairy. Gay people actually, really exist, for real. I personally have known many, many gay people in my life. You probably have too.

Pretty sure ? Or positively sure. If people didn't , how was that teacher with a known record kept on to molest yet another child?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

No it isn't. Should there.be a test question that says 'Bill and Tom get married?'

Yes, if people are reading something that involves Bill and Tom getting married.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Is it really necessary for a test question to refer to Romeo and Juliet's sexuality? What would that test question be? "Do you think that the relationship between Romeo and Juliet was romantic? Why or why not?" "Do you think that Romeo and Juliet actually consummated their marriage before the opening of Act 3, Scene 5? Why or why not?" Any reasonable person's answer to these questions would be, "Yes, duh."

And no, I'm pretty sure that I did not vote for policies for not firing teachers who are child abusers. "Progressive" does not mean, "It's ok for anybody to do anything, yay!"

And really, homosexuality is not something you believe in or don't believe in, like Santa Claus or the tooth fairy. Gay people actually, really exist, for real. I personally have known many, many gay people in my life. You probably have too.

Pretty sure ? Or positively sure. If people didn't , how was that teacher with a known record kept on to molest yet another child?

Yes, I am certain that I did not vote for policies for not firing teachers who are child abusers.

I marvel at your conclusion that the only possible reason for why MCPS didn't fire a teacher with a known record of child abuse is that progressive parents thought it was just fine and dandy to have child abusers teaching in the public schools.

What is the reason for why the Catholic church didn't fire a Catholic priest with a known record of child abuse? Because parishioners thought it was just fine and dandy to have child abusers in their churches?

Note that whether or not tax dollars go to the Catholic church is completely irrelevant here. The question is, why didn't an organization fire a child abuser.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clearly they had a relationship. That's not what I'm referring to. Is there a test question that specifically refers to Romeo and Juliet's sexuality, or about some other aspect of the book?

When people start to behave like you people are above, it's because you clearly get the point, but have no intelligent retort.

My guess is you same people would be in an uproar if there was a book kids were reading where a character even suggested homosexuality wasn't something he/she believed in.

It's all about the agenda, not about rights and freedom.

I was thinking last night that I will be wholly amused when there's shock and surprise, when progressive policies win out. "They KEPT that teacher that sexually abused children? How could they DO that?". My response? It's what you voted for - you just weren't savvy enough to understand that.

So that's why the Catholic Church didn't get rid of the pedophile priests then? Because its so "progressive?" Really?! Do you even realize how ridiculous you sound?

Are your tax dollars forced into Catholic schools ?

The post implied that it was progressive politics that would leave sex abusers in place. I'm merely pointing out an arguably conservative institution that did just that. So are you saying it's ok to keep pedophiles as long as your tax dollars aren't directly paying for it?

Oh wait, ever heard of school vouchers? Those can be used at Catholic schools.

[Anonymous]

The post implied that it was progressive politics that would leave sex abusers in place. I'm merely pointing out an arguably conservative institution that did just that. So are you saying it's ok to keep pedophiles as long as your tax dollars aren't directly paying for it?

The Catholic church was wrong. They know it. The schools are having to follow the "law" that protects the teachers. Blame the teachers' unions for this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The post implied that it was progressive politics that would leave sex abusers in place. I'm merely pointing out an arguably conservative institution that did just that. So are you saying it's ok to keep pedophiles as long as your tax dollars aren't directly paying for it?

The Catholic church was wrong. They know it. The schools are having to follow the "law" that protects the teachers. Blame the teachers' unions for this.

Ok, so show me the law that protects pedophiles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The Catholic church was wrong. They know it. The schools are having to follow the "law" that protects the teachers. Blame the teachers' unions for this.

Ok, so show me the law that protects pedophiles.

Maybe the PP is thinking as follows:

1. Progressives support labor unions.
2. As a general policy, labor unions defend their members.
3. The teachers' union is a labor union.
4. something something something
5. Therefore, progressives support child abuse.

[Anonymous]

Maybe the PP is thinking as follows:

1. Progressives support labor unions.
2. As a general policy, labor unions defend their members.
3. The teachers' union is a labor union.
4. something something something
5. Therefore, progressives support child abuse.

Didn't say they "supported" them. The unions protect them. Do you really think the school systems wants them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Maybe the PP is thinking as follows:

1. Progressives support labor unions.
2. As a general policy, labor unions defend their members.
3. The teachers' union is a labor union.
4. something something something
5. Therefore, progressives support child abuse.

Didn't say they "supported" them. The unions protect them. Do you really think the school systems wants them?

Again, what law are you referring to?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No it isn't. Should there.be a test question that says 'Bill and Tom get married?'

Yes, if people are reading something that involves Bill and Tom getting married.

Why should a public school deliberately put in a passage on a standardized test about Bill and Tom getting married? What's the point to make?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No it isn't. Should there.be a test question that says 'Bill and Tom get married?'

Yes, if people are reading something that involves Bill and Tom getting married.

Why should a public school deliberately put in a passage on a standardized test about Bill and Tom getting married? What's the point to make?

Speaking as a school administrator, they shouldn't because while I strongly support gay marriage, I also know that there are students for whom that content would be distracting, and others for whom it wouldn't, and the point of standardized testing is to make sure that all students have equal testing experiences.

Having said that, there are references to straight marriage all over our curriculum, and frankly if you took them out the literature units would be gutted. The majority of children's novels at some point include a straight married couple. Including literature that has representations of families headed by same sex parents, or of a child attending her uncles' wedding, or other references that normalize gay families and help students see their experiences represented in print, are important, and districts should seek to add diversity in this way to their curriculum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The Catholic church was wrong. They know it. The schools are having to follow the "law" that protects the teachers. Blame the teachers' unions for this.

Ok, so show me the law that protects pedophiles.

Maybe the PP is thinking as follows:

1. Progressives support labor unions.
2. As a general policy, labor unions defend their members.
3. The teachers' union is a labor union.
4. something something something
5. Therefore, progressives support child abuse.

What I am saying is the progressive agenda prides itself on the concepts of rehabilitation, forgiveness, complete equality, etc. Sounds great, doesn't it? In theory.

So I will ask these folk again, how did this teacher stay on as a teacher in Montgomery County. Who allowed it? Why was it allowed? What decisions led to him being kept on? If it's unions, what politicians are union supporters? Etc.