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

[Anonymous]

This is amerkkka today, where teaching compassion for others is a political agenda.

[Anonymous]

OP, your concerns are legitimate concerns and unfortunately, not everyone is aware of it at the level as you are. Younger the teacher, the more likely to push agendas without understanding what they are doing. In our experience we have come across a teacher in civics that would ask for kids opinions on issues and when a conservative opinion was expressed the teacher would badger that kid until the kid was ready to cry. It is called class discussion.

[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.?

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?

I'm sure the teacher who taught you how to dissect an issue was not your elementary school teacher. There is not much of a complete point of view you can present when all you talk about is love, empathy and pollution. Let me not forget acceptance and tolerance. Ah, these are very important traits in life, and empathy, love, tolerance, acceptance and pollution are universal.

We need to love each other. We need to accept each other. If you don't love and accept in the prescribed way, you are not loving and accepting well enough. You are at risk of becoming an unempathetic person, and you need help with being well rounded in all the right ways, and all the right sides. Who cares how smart and hard working you are. If you're not emotionally intelligent, you're not useful!

Yes, kids need to do more traditional learning. Instead of playing video games while in school, and debating things they can't comprehend, they should learn some cursive, more grammar and more math. Those subjects aren't subjective. Actually being good in math helps you reason better, because you get to take into account what is important and teaches you to discriminate between relevant and irrelevant information. Discussing social issues in elementary school when you can't even vote is bogus and only serves a brainwashing purpose.

[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.

NP. When my DD was at Oak Hill— several years ago, dofferent principal— silent lunch was sometimes a thing. But only sometimes. I don’t remember the exact parameters. But I think it was beginning of the year while they were getting organized and/or misbehavior on a by grade basis. If it gets too loud or out of hand, then silent lunch, etc. They were pushing kids through fast, and it was loud.

[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.

They cram kids in there, and the acoustics suck. They get deafeningly loud with normal talking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.?

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?

I'm sure the teacher who taught you how to dissect an issue was not your elementary school teacher. There is not much of a complete point of view you can present when all you talk about is love, empathy and pollution. Let me not forget acceptance and tolerance. Ah, these are very important traits in life, and empathy, love, tolerance, acceptance and pollution are universal.

We need to love each other. We need to accept each other. If you don't love and accept in the prescribed way, you are not loving and accepting well enough. You are at risk of becoming an unempathetic person, and you need help with being well rounded in all the right ways, and all the right sides. Who cares how smart and hard working you are. If you're not emotionally intelligent, you're not useful!

Yes, kids need to do more traditional learning. Instead of playing video games while in school, and debating things they can't comprehend, they should learn some cursive, more grammar and more math. Those subjects aren't subjective. Actually being good in math helps you reason better, because you get to take into account what is important and teaches you to discriminate between relevant and irrelevant information. Discussing social issues in elementary school when you can't even vote is bogus and only serves a brainwashing purpose.

First, you are underestimating ES aged kids. By a lot. They are smarter and have a better ability to reason than you give them credit for.

Second, my kids have never played “video games” in school. What school are we talking about? What video games?

Third, the world needs kids who can critically think more than they need kids who can write cursive. And my younger FCPS kid in MS AAP Center now demands to know the source of my information. And has been known to whip out an iPhone and real-time fact check me, while trying to figure out if JAMA is a reliable source. It’s a little crazy making. But good for her.

Finally, you showed your hand. If you think that being taught to treat everyone with respect is a “political agenda” you need to not be in FCPS. Full stop. Do everyone a favor and pull your deplorable kids out. They don’t get to bully or publicly condemn the trans kid or gay kid or the ESOL kid. If you want our kid to attend public, they need to treat all kids there with respect. You live in a diverse, multicultural, and yes, liberal environment. Treating all of their peers a s worthy of basic human dignity is the price of admission. You don’t like it? Move to the South, go private or home school.

You would have saved wpeveryine a lot of time if you has posted in general VA schools and said ‘in isn’t fair that FCPS won’t let my kids be openly deplorable. We need MaGA so those other kids know their proper place is shoved into a locker by my kid”.

Deplorable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.?

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?

I'm sure the teacher who taught you how to dissect an issue was not your elementary school teacher. There is not much of a complete point of view you can present when all you talk about is love, empathy and pollution. Let me not forget acceptance and tolerance. Ah, these are very important traits in life, and empathy, love, tolerance, acceptance and pollution are universal.

We need to love each other. We need to accept each other. If you don't love and accept in the prescribed way, you are not loving and accepting well enough. You are at risk of becoming an unempathetic person, and you need help with being well rounded in all the right ways, and all the right sides. Who cares how smart and hard working you are. If you're not emotionally intelligent, you're not useful!

Yes, kids need to do more traditional learning. Instead of playing video games while in school, and debating things they can't comprehend, they should learn some cursive, more grammar and more math. Those subjects aren't subjective. Actually being good in math helps you reason better, because you get to take into account what is important and teaches you to discriminate between relevant and irrelevant information. Discussing social issues in elementary school when you can't even vote is bogus and only serves a brainwashing purpose.

Learning tolerance of others (aka social issues) is of more use than cursive. I am sorry that your snowflakes have to learn that it is not nice to bully other kids because they are different. That your kids should know that everyone -- even the person who was born female but acts like a boy -- deserves a bully free education. Oh, and it is ok to play with people that do not believe Jesus is the savior. But, guess what, this is the county you life in. I was tremendously bullied as a kid in the Deep South for being Jewish and thinking black people were equal. I am guessing you are ok with that too.

I am quite happy with the actions of the school board in prohibiting gender and sexual orientation-based bullying. I am quite happy with my school board member, Pat Hynes, whom I have voted for multiple times. If she is really leaving, I will be sad, but I know the Hunter Mill Districts (Vienna and Reston) will vote for someone good to replace her. Good by my standards not yours.

You probably should leave the blue suburbs and move back to Alabama where your kids can learn to love Guns and the Confederate flags and white people.

[Anonymous]

5.:10 and 6:27!

Thank you for your considerate, acceptant, tolerant and empathetic posts. You are a firsthand example of these traits. You show how to stop bullying by example. You yourselfs have embraced my differences of opinion in such a nurturing way, that I now feel humbled into oblivion. I am glad that you teach your kids these anti bullying ways. Now my children will go to school and feel safe, especially because even if they make the mistake to be perceived in some undesirable light, they'll spend all their school days learning that they'll be deported to Alabama or Mississippi if they don't put their act together. If the
teachers can't get this point across, your dedicated 'better than thou' children will step in.


I am glad you showed me my place and ordered my deplorable and snowflake self and children to move out of your blue suburbs, smack into the guns of my white Alabama. FX county is a better place because of you. I would love to weave more powerful accolades for you, but I am no poet, so please accept my confederate complements.

Please continue your strong efforts. If you see any opinions different from yours, continue nipping it in the bud. Please do not hesitate to call me and anyone like me all the names you need to call me to get your point across.

Humbly and sincerely yours, deserving of all your wrath and epithets!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is amerkkka today, where teaching compassion for others is a political agenda.

+1

2018: facts, science, and compassion are political

SMH

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is amerkkka today, where teaching compassion for others is a political agenda.

+1

2018: facts, science, and compassion are political

SMH

America has always been companionate. Ow it would not have stepped in to either WW to save Europe and the Jews, it would not have accepted so many diverse immigrants throughout the years, and it would not have been built as a country with such great freedoms and no impositions. All of these issues are allowed to be discussed because America is tolerant, accepting and compassionate. Too bad some people do not want to continue the discourse, but instead shout so loud!

[jsteele]

Since everything is apparently political, everything should be posted in the Political Forum. That includes this discussion.