Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

Those are all good questions. Suppose you look into them, and get back to us with the details of exactly who decided what and when they decided it.

I'm not the one that voted for them. I have no such responsibility. I do, however, research the candidates I DO vote for and hold them accountable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

Those are all good questions. Suppose you look into them, and get back to us with the details of exactly who decided what and when they decided it.

I'm not the one that voted for them. I have no such responsibility. I do, however, research the candidates I DO vote for and hold them accountable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

Those are all good questions. Suppose you look into them, and get back to us with the details of exactly who decided what and when they decided it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Did the politicians you support sweep that sex abuser out of the publics?

Progressives inadvertently support this type of thing. That's what progressive politics is - tell the teacher he may not touch another child, then when the teacher does, cry 'but I told him not to - I gave him a chance!' That's what happened.

The tax dollar issue is very relevant. Both situations are reprehensible, but only one takes money from the people through taxation to support tbis nastiness. One can choose not to affiliate with the Catholic Church. Try that with your taxes.

Depends where you live and if your state has a voucher program whether you are supporting Catholic Church with your tax dollars:
http://www.rethinkingschools.org/special_reports/voucher_report/v_chur142.shtml

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

Those are all good questions. Suppose you look into them, and get back to us with the details of exactly who decided what and when they decided it.

Anonymous wrote:
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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Testing is different from curriculum. Test question can't be formed that avoid marriage?

It is not a school's job to use books, etc that normalize gay marriage. That is the parent's job. In the public schools, that's called indoctrination

Agreed. Anything about sexuality (hetero-, homo-, bi-) has no place in the public schools. It is not a school's job to use books, etc that normalize marriage. Or, indeed, any romantic relationships at all. That will leave students with very, very, very few books, etc to read, and their understanding of history will be odd. But principles are principles, and my principle is to oppose the indoctrination of children at public expense.

("To Build A Fire" might be ok. Anything else?)

So you would avoid any books that make reference to a child's mom and dad? I would be fascinated to see how you'd build an elementary school curriculum without such staples as Ramona Quimby, or Little House on the Prairie, or Sarah Plain and Tall or Harry Potter or . . . . All books that normalize heterosexual marriage.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Did the politicians you support sweep that sex abuser out of the publics?

Progressives inadvertently support this type of thing. That's what progressive politics is - tell the teacher he may not touch another child, then when the teacher does, cry 'but I told him not to - I gave him a chance!' That's what happened.

The tax dollar issue is very relevant. Both situations are reprehensible, but only one takes money from the people through taxation to support tbis nastiness. One can choose not to affiliate with the Catholic Church. Try that with your taxes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Testing is different from curriculum. Test question can't be formed that avoid marriage?

It is not a school's job to use books, etc that normalize gay marriage. That is the parent's job. In the public schools, that's called indoctrination

Agreed. Anything about sexuality (hetero-, homo-, bi-) has no place in the public schools. It is not a school's job to use books, etc that normalize marriage. Or, indeed, any romantic relationships at all. That will leave students with very, very, very few books, etc to read, and their understanding of history will be odd. But principles are principles, and my principle is to oppose the indoctrination of children at public expense.

("To Build A Fire" might be ok. Anything else?)

Anonymous wrote:

Testing is different from curriculum. Test question can't be formed that avoid marriage?

It is not a school's job to use books, etc that normalize gay marriage. That is the parent's job. In the public schools, that's called indoctrination

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Testing is different from curriculum. Test question can't be formed that avoid marriage?

It is not a school's job to use books, etc that normalize gay marriage. That is the parent's job. In the public schools, that's called indoctrination

Anonymous wrote:

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 wrote:

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.

Anonymous wrote:

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.