Political Agenda in FX County Schools - How Much Critical Thinking in Level IV?

[Anonymous]

I thought is the Commonwealth GOP that insisted on all the required history class in our schools. hmmmmm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You should pull your kid and send them to a private school. If difference makes you uncomfortable, you can opt your child out. Or tell the teacher you want your kid reading something different. They can be removed from the class to a study hall during ELA or Social Studies or Math or Science or whatever content you don't want your child to know.

Theoretically you're right, but you can't pull the kid out from half the lessons. These indoctrinated teachings come in all forms, not only in FEL. Kids are discussing the voting process in elementary school as a classroom topic: they are debating on what is nest, the popular or the electoral vote. I bet that almost all kids will pick popular vote, because that's easy to grasp. This is not a topic for 3-6 graders. Maybe 1 or 2 of them per school will truly understand the difference and the effect, and that's a very large maybe. During the '16 election the school held mock elections, and the children were so happy to 'vote' for Hillary because she was the first woman to run for president. I am not against Hillary, but is that a topic for elementary school? Of course children will feel the vibe and excitement when the teacher expresses excitement, and they like to please, do they do.

You say, go to private school! Easier said than done. Private is expensive, and I shouldn't have to spend excessive amounts of money for a neutral education.

There is no such thing as a neutral education. Education involves values about what should be taught--what is needed to function in a contemporary world. All social studies comes from a perspective. Things regarded as "classics" are based on values from a particular cultural and historical viewpoint.

I believe that in elementary school is more important to learn content, such as Math, Science and Language Arts. Social Sciences are very opinion based, and because of the knowledge and maturity of elementary school children, only very basic principles of right and wrong should be taught, only those principles that are universal, such as don't steal, don't kill, don't lie, be nice, etc.

You give me any elementary school kid, and I can change his/her opinion as I please.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
So according to what you are saying, then the school is allowing the parents' political points of view to flow into the classroom. Kids in elementary school could not possibly be having these conversations in a free setting, because except for recess (when they're running around and not philosophizing) they aren't allowed to talk. Even during lunch, they have to stay hush hush, and if they get away with talking, they won't have time to eat.

Kids talk. School would be a dismal place if they didn't talk or couldn't talk. A teacher would be pushing an agenda much moreso if she tried to correct kids' ideas than if she allowed them free expression of ideas. If you don't want your children exposed to the ideas of other children (which would largely come from the children's parents), then you should look for a private school that suits your needs. That would be much more logical than expecting kids to self-censor so as to prevent your snowflake from hearing opinions that you don't like.

Also, you shouldn't assume that kids are running around at recess and not talking. I'm also not sure which school doesn't permit talking at lunch. Most allow kids to talk, right? My kids' schools always have allowed talking during lunch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So according to what you are saying, then the school is allowing the parents' political points of view to flow into the classroom. Kids in elementary school could not possibly be having these conversations in a free setting, because except for recess (when they're running around and not philosophizing) they aren't allowed to talk. Even during lunch, they have to stay hush hush, and if they get away with talking, they won't have time to eat.

Kids talk. School would be a dismal place if they didn't talk or couldn't talk. A teacher would be pushing an agenda much moreso if she tried to correct kids' ideas than if she allowed them free expression of ideas. If you don't want your children exposed to the ideas of other children (which would largely come from the children's parents), then you should look for a private school that suits your needs. That would be much more logical than expecting kids to self-censor so as to prevent your snowflake from hearing opinions that you don't like.

Also, you shouldn't assume that kids are running around at recess and not talking. I'm also not sure which school doesn't permit talking at lunch. Most allow kids to talk, right? My kids' schools always have allowed talking during lunch.

You must be in a special elementary school. We have been to 3 schools, and in neither of them children we're allow to talk during lunch.

In these posts, there has been name calling such as: RWNJ, deplorable, GOP snowflake, snowflake kid, etc.

I am not afraid of anything, and I don't care what kids are saying, but what teachers are saying. Teachers are supposed to be neutral, and to teach neutrally. You are ok with how they're teaching now, but wait until they flip their tracing style, and they convince ly push for things that are not to your liking. I never said that I wanted my child to learn only one side! I want my child to get a complete picture. How are children gonna participate in the debate team if they only discuss one side of the story. Most issues have a dissent opinion as well. The children need to learn how to evaluate each. Instead of discussing big issues with little knowledge, they can discuss litttissues where they have a lot of knowledge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I am not afraid of anything, and I don't care what kids are saying, but what teachers are saying. Teachers are supposed to be neutral, and to teach neutrally. You are ok with how they're teaching now, but wait until they flip their tracing style, and they convince ly push for things that are not to your liking. I never said that I wanted my child to learn only one side! I want my child to get a complete picture. How are children gonna participate in the debate team if they only discuss one side of the story. Most issues have a dissent opinion as well. The children need to learn how to evaluate each. Instead of discussing big issues with little knowledge, they can discuss litttissues where they have a lot of knowledge.

I don't at all disagree with the bolded. I also haven't encountered any teachers who have been pushing any sort of political agenda. If politics are entering the classroom, it's generally the kids who are bringing it there. Unless a kid is factually incorrect, I don't think it's the teacher's place to attempt to correct a child's opinion. It's also reasonable, especially in AAP classes, for kids to discuss major political issues of the day, providing that the teacher truly is supporting free discourse.

Earlier in the thread, someone brought up a discussion of the electoral college. It seems completely appropriate to me to present the history of why the EC is handled the way it is, discuss how it works, and let children give their opinions on it. A teacher "allowing" a child to state that the EC is unfair because Hillary Clinton had more popular votes and thus (in that child's opinion) should have won seems perfectly within the realm of that discussion. A teacher giving her own opinion on the merits of EC without specifically tying it to the 2016 election would likewise be appropriate. A teacher stating that one candidate or party is better than the other, on the other hand, would be completely inappropriate. I really hope you understand this distinction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I am not afraid of anything, and I don't care what kids are saying, but what teachers are saying. Teachers are supposed to be neutral, and to teach neutrally. You are ok with how they're teaching now, but wait until they flip their tracing style, and they convince ly push for things that are not to your liking. I never said that I wanted my child to learn only one side! I want my child to get a complete picture. How are children gonna participate in the debate team if they only discuss one side of the story. Most issues have a dissent opinion as well. The children need to learn how to evaluate each. Instead of discussing big issues with little knowledge, they can discuss litttissues where they have a lot of knowledge.

I don't at all disagree with the bolded. I also haven't encountered any teachers who have been pushing any sort of political agenda. If politics are entering the classroom, it's generally the kids who are bringing it there. Unless a kid is factually incorrect, I don't think it's the teacher's place to attempt to correct a child's opinion. It's also reasonable, especially in AAP classes, for kids to discuss major political issues of the day, providing that the teacher truly is supporting free discourse.

Earlier in the thread, someone brought up a discussion of the electoral college. It seems completely appropriate to me to present the history of why the EC is handled the way it is, discuss how it works, and let children give their opinions on it. A teacher "allowing" a child to state that the EC is unfair because Hillary Clinton had more popular votes and thus (in that child's opinion) should have won seems perfectly within the realm of that discussion. A teacher giving her own opinion on the merits of EC without specifically tying it to the 2016 election would likewise be appropriate. A teacher stating that one candidate or party is better than the other, on the other hand, would be completely inappropriate. I really hope you understand this distinction.

I agree with what you're saying, except for the teacher giving her personal opinion on the electoral college (as an example), because teachers are in a position of authority, and they can easily influence the children's opinions. The teachers don't need to explicitly say they support one side of the issue or the other for them to push the opinion the way they want. Teachers should be teaching established teachings, not discussing their opinions with the kids. Most kids adore most of their teachers and see them as role models, so they'll naturally agree with them.

How many times has your kid told you 'my teacher says so!', 'this is how my teacher wants it!' Etc.?

[Anonymous]

I hope kids are having debates in school. Keeping debates civil is something adults find quite challenging. It would be wonderful if the next generation gets a bit more practice in being able to see other people's point of view and disagree amicably.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I am not afraid of anything, and I don't care what kids are saying, but what teachers are saying. Teachers are supposed to be neutral, and to teach neutrally. You are ok with how they're teaching now, but wait until they flip their tracing style, and they convince ly push for things that are not to your liking. I never said that I wanted my child to learn only one side! I want my child to get a complete picture. How are children gonna participate in the debate team if they only discuss one side of the story. Most issues have a dissent opinion as well. The children need to learn how to evaluate each. Instead of discussing big issues with little knowledge, they can discuss litttissues where they have a lot of knowledge.

I don't at all disagree with the bolded. I also haven't encountered any teachers who have been pushing any sort of political agenda. If politics are entering the classroom, it's generally the kids who are bringing it there. Unless a kid is factually incorrect, I don't think it's the teacher's place to attempt to correct a child's opinion. It's also reasonable, especially in AAP classes, for kids to discuss major political issues of the day, providing that the teacher truly is supporting free discourse.

Earlier in the thread, someone brought up a discussion of the electoral college. It seems completely appropriate to me to present the history of why the EC is handled the way it is, discuss how it works, and let children give their opinions on it. A teacher "allowing" a child to state that the EC is unfair because Hillary Clinton had more popular votes and thus (in that child's opinion) should have won seems perfectly within the realm of that discussion. A teacher giving her own opinion on the merits of EC without specifically tying it to the 2016 election would likewise be appropriate. A teacher stating that one candidate or party is better than the other, on the other hand, would be completely inappropriate. I really hope you understand this distinction.

I agree with what you're saying, except for the teacher giving her personal opinion on the electoral college (as an example), because teachers are in a position of authority, and they can easily influence the children's opinions. The teachers don't need to explicitly say they support one side of the issue or the other for them to push the opinion the way they want. Teachers should be teaching established teachings, not discussing their opinions with the kids. Most kids adore most of their teachers and see them as role models, so they'll naturally agree with them.

How many times has your kid told you 'my teacher says so!', 'this is how my teacher wants it!' Etc.?

OP I'm not sure what your specific gripe seems to be here, but without actual evidence that the teacher is causing harm, your point just seems to be that you dislike schools to discuss anything about politics, period. I don't care for politics and I'm not afraid my kid will be influenced into expressing thoughts other than his own; you should relax more. You as the parent are still in the most influencing position of your young child's upbringing (for now).

Also have you been in a public school lunchroom? It's incredibly loud. It wouldn't be physically possible to make it quiet.

[Anonymous]

Wait, what? Ignoring all the other crazy shit OP thinks...her kids went to TWO DIFFERENT SCHOOLS where children weren't allowed to talk during lunch? Name the schools or I call bullhonky.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I am not afraid of anything, and I don't care what kids are saying, but what teachers are saying. Teachers are supposed to be neutral, and to teach neutrally. You are ok with how they're teaching now, but wait until they flip their tracing style, and they convince ly push for things that are not to your liking. I never said that I wanted my child to learn only one side! I want my child to get a complete picture. How are children gonna participate in the debate team if they only discuss one side of the story. Most issues have a dissent opinion as well. The children need to learn how to evaluate each. Instead of discussing big issues with little knowledge, they can discuss litttissues where they have a lot of knowledge.

I don't at all disagree with the bolded. I also haven't encountered any teachers who have been pushing any sort of political agenda. If politics are entering the classroom, it's generally the kids who are bringing it there. Unless a kid is factually incorrect, I don't think it's the teacher's place to attempt to correct a child's opinion. It's also reasonable, especially in AAP classes, for kids to discuss major political issues of the day, providing that the teacher truly is supporting free discourse.

Earlier in the thread, someone brought up a discussion of the electoral college. It seems completely appropriate to me to present the history of why the EC is handled the way it is, discuss how it works, and let children give their opinions on it. A teacher "allowing" a child to state that the EC is unfair because Hillary Clinton had more popular votes and thus (in that child's opinion) should have won seems perfectly within the realm of that discussion. A teacher giving her own opinion on the merits of EC without specifically tying it to the 2016 election would likewise be appropriate. A teacher stating that one candidate or party is better than the other, on the other hand, would be completely inappropriate. I really hope you understand this distinction.

I agree with what you're saying, except for the teacher giving her personal opinion on the electoral college (as an example), because teachers are in a position of authority, and they can easily influence the children's opinions. The teachers don't need to explicitly say they support one side of the issue or the other for them to push the opinion the way they want. Teachers should be teaching established teachings, not discussing their opinions with the kids. Most kids adore most of their teachers and see them as role models, so they'll naturally agree with them.

How many times has your kid told you 'my teacher says so!', 'this is how my teacher wants it!' Etc.?

OP I'm not sure what your specific gripe seems to be here, but without actual evidence that the teacher is causing harm, your point just seems to be that you dislike schools to discuss anything about politics, period. I don't care for politics and I'm not afraid my kid will be influenced into expressing thoughts other than his own; you should relax more. You as the parent are still in the most influencing position of your young child's upbringing (for now).

Also have you been in a public school lunchroom? It's incredibly loud. It wouldn't be physically possible to make it quiet.

I've been to lunch often! The kids can't get up without raising their hand, and if the lunchroom gets to loud the lunch aide on duty gets on a microphone, starts some lousy clapping, and tells the kids to be quiet, else they'll lose some privilege. Maybe this is not consistent in all FX county, but all of my friends across the country have the same experience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wait, what? Ignoring all the other crazy shit OP thinks...her kids went to TWO DIFFERENT SCHOOLS where children weren't allowed to talk during lunch? Name the schools or I call bullhonky.

First, call on yourself to have some manners. It stinks here from all your foul language.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I am not afraid of anything, and I don't care what kids are saying, but what teachers are saying. Teachers are supposed to be neutral, and to teach neutrally. You are ok with how they're teaching now, but wait until they flip their tracing style, and they convince ly push for things that are not to your liking. I never said that I wanted my child to learn only one side! I want my child to get a complete picture. How are children gonna participate in the debate team if they only discuss one side of the story. Most issues have a dissent opinion as well. The children need to learn how to evaluate each. Instead of discussing big issues with little knowledge, they can discuss litttissues where they have a lot of knowledge.

I don't at all disagree with the bolded. I also haven't encountered any teachers who have been pushing any sort of political agenda. If politics are entering the classroom, it's generally the kids who are bringing it there. Unless a kid is factually incorrect, I don't think it's the teacher's place to attempt to correct a child's opinion. It's also reasonable, especially in AAP classes, for kids to discuss major political issues of the day, providing that the teacher truly is supporting free discourse.

Earlier in the thread, someone brought up a discussion of the electoral college. It seems completely appropriate to me to present the history of why the EC is handled the way it is, discuss how it works, and let children give their opinions on it. A teacher "allowing" a child to state that the EC is unfair because Hillary Clinton had more popular votes and thus (in that child's opinion) should have won seems perfectly within the realm of that discussion. A teacher giving her own opinion on the merits of EC without specifically tying it to the 2016 election would likewise be appropriate. A teacher stating that one candidate or party is better than the other, on the other hand, would be completely inappropriate. I really hope you understand this distinction.

I agree with what you're saying, except for the teacher giving her personal opinion on the electoral college (as an example), because teachers are in a position of authority, and they can easily influence the children's opinions. The teachers don't need to explicitly say they support one side of the issue or the other for them to push the opinion the way they want. Teachers should be teaching established teachings, not discussing their opinions with the kids. Most kids adore most of their teachers and see them as role models, so they'll naturally agree with them.

How many times has your kid told you 'my teacher says so!', 'this is how my teacher wants it!' Etc.?

Being able to deal to the varying expectations of someone with whom you may not always agree is great practice for the working world. Both of our kids have had teachers that had some nutty ideas about things, and we've managed to talk about differing opinions and expectations and how to assess when to burn political capital making a fuss versus rolling with it. Parents are also in positions of authority, and teachers have to spend their days mopping up that mess, too. (Bless the poor teacher who had to deal daily with the kid who keeps telling the Hispanic children that they're going to be deported.) People should probably prepare for the fact that their kids may, in fact, develop opinions and positions with which they disagree and focus on whether or not they arrived at those opinion via facts and critical thinking.

Expecting teachers to be bland, automatons that don't share their opinions with kids is pretty unrealistic - none of the great teachers I had taught that way. One of my favorite teachers and I had zero in common in terms of political beliefs, but she taught me how to dissect an issue and argument and write in a concise and compelling manner. The best teachers are able to give their own opinion and then provide counterpoints to it and hit on the WHY because it should be about thinking critically (including scrutinizing one's own beliefs). I personally thing the electoral college is a dodo bird, but I can still manage to present my kid with an explanation of what it is and why, how it levels the playing field/is unfair, and how some states are proposing splitting their electors (like Maine does) and the pros and cons of these ideas. Sometimes, it's in-depth, and the kid gets it, sometimes we have to walk it back and find an analogy from their life that makes sense, sometimes, we've muddied the waters and drop it for another day.

And "teachers should be teaching established teachings" - good lord. Ideas evolve over time, we gain greater understanding with research and prespective, and "established teachings" aren't the same things carved into the stone tablets of our childhoods. There's not even a consensus of "established teachings" in many subject areas. It sounds like you want an education that includes reading (decoding and light comprehension only - no literary analysis!) and math. Social studies is too fraught with varying interpretations, science is a can of worms, and I'm sure music/art/etc. are wastes of valuable math education time, am I right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I've been to lunch often! The kids can't get up without raising their hand, and if the lunchroom gets to loud the lunch aide on duty gets on a microphone, starts some lousy clapping, and tells the kids to be quiet, else they'll lose some privilege. Maybe this is not consistent in all FX county, but all of my friends across the country have the same experience.

How does the lunchroom become so loud if the kids aren't allowed to talk in the first place? Not being allowed to talk only after the lunchroom has become too loud and rowdy is a completely different rule than not being allowed to talk ever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I've been to lunch often! The kids can't get up without raising their hand, and if the lunchroom gets to loud the lunch aide on duty gets on a microphone, starts some lousy clapping, and tells the kids to be quiet, else they'll lose some privilege. Maybe this is not consistent in all FX county, but all of my friends across the country have the same experience.

How does the lunchroom become so loud if the kids aren't allowed to talk in the first place? Not being allowed to talk only after the lunchroom has become too loud and rowdy is a completely different rule than not being allowed to talk ever.

I should have put 'too loud' in parentheses. You're arguing about semantics. Kids aren't always listening. The expectation is that kids gotta be quiet during lunch. All the nerds in Level IV are reading a book, and not talking to each other, because they know not to get in trouble.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do your Level IV teachers allow and encourage critical thinking as long as it fits their favorite narrative? Are Social Studies a way for brainwashing our children? What should be acceptable topics for discussion?

As your child ages your influence become less and less. The tipping point is in the middle elementary school years. By this I mean that the combined outside influences are bigger than parental ones- it doesn't mean that your influence goes to nil, or that your influence isn't the largest among many. Part of this is normal cognitive development of your child. If you do not want your child to have these outside influences or want to severely limit them. You must homeschool and choose your homeschools groups carefully and no screens.