"Teacher" splain this

[knucklehead]

Truth

Flint - if you are interested, there are some good tips on the FAQ page regarding various means of editing and adding "inflection" to posts. Inflection is crucial - for instance, I am not as "wound up" as my choice of words may indicate /w3tcompact/icons/grin.gif. Do not, however, mistake that for a lack of belief in them. /w3tcompact/icons/grin.gif/w3tcompact/icons/grin.gif

<font color=blue>Except surely you must understand that pure fact is not possible outside of maybe math and Mr. Spock.</font color=blue>

I find it refreshing that we have quickly gotten to the crux of the problem (well, after the intital volley, anyway /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif). I wholeheartedly disagree with your statement about fact (i.e., truth), and find it to be one of the foundational sources of error in modern thinking (post-modern intellectualism, specifically). In fact (/w3tcompact/icons/wink.gif!!), I believe you do not believe it, either, because the statement has much more far reaching ramifications than superficially apparent. I believe it is used almost subconsciously to conveniently slip around uncomfortable truths which would otherwise demand a response, or a changes in the way we would like to think, act, and live.

An aside, but in line with our conversation: I echo W-Harv in the responsibility of parents, as I have already clearly indicated here and in other threads. I do not question anyone's intent or desire to teach; their dedication to their craft, or their concern for their pupils. I do believe that the school system exists as an extension of, and under the authority of the parent, as part of my belief that the parent is the ultimate connection between the child (at all ages) and this world. Parents have unfortunately forgotten or neglected this truth, to the ruin of their own children, for several generations. This is not a new problem, and the solutions are not new, either.

When certain truths become moving targets, nothing is foundational; anything becomes acceptable (over time), and society spirals downward. I would be tempted to ask the same question you ask of Wingnut (regarding his planet of origin /w3tcompact/icons/grin.gif), if anyone fails to see the degredation themselves. From where else does the problem stem, if not the abandonment of adherance to truth, to morals, or at least to standards of behavior? Political correctness is only one outgrowth of a factless, beliefless (is dat a werd?) society. Among the next de-evolutionary steps are found a downward spiral to depravity, subjection, repression, slavery, and death. They begin with a rejection of truth. Always have, always will. Check history.

Again, if not the rejection of truth, from where do our problems come? Social injustice - the buzzword of the day? Well, the Israelites conduct themselves under the rule of law, and have remained a productive society despite thousands of years of repression, slavery, and outrageous abuse. They have a longer history of social injustice than any other race or people group in history. Even though the abuse of others has at times been severe, such as slavery, it has not continued for a hundred generations. And we have a glaring example of severity in the treatment of the Jew in this last century, don't we? Are the Israelites perfect? Not at all! By comparison, however, all other people groups have suffered relatively little abuse, yet they have abandoned self rule and become savages in their thinking and ultimately in their actions. We are apparently expected to forget or neglect this in our thinking and opinions, and we teach (oops, facilitate /w3tcompact/icons/grin.gif) that we are to equally consider the claims of groups who have turned to lawless agression in the face of hardship. Does anyone really think socially or materially appeasing any lawless group will solve problems? How many precious little children do we know who have learned good social skills by being excused or even rewarded for bad behavior? And we want to validate the criminal actions of entire adult societies by trying to understand them? I've even heard recent arguments that **** Germany was forced into its behavior by the repressive Treaty of Versailles. This is not tolerant understanding. This is revisionist history. And hence my contention that truth is essential in the governance and literal existence of a society.

Remember the original theme of this post? The truth is, a group of criminals commited a heinous act of mass murder against our society. What's the problem with calling this what it is? Do we really think we should excuse a criminal because they are of a certain race or creed, or because they face hardship - even real repression? And who is their repressor - the U.S., because of some contorted hatred of a society we support? Bullpucky! There exists in the Middle East a large, once beautiful, creative, and advanced society occupying the Lion's share of the local topography, controlling resources the rest of the world is dependent on (oil, that is - black gold, Texas tea /w3tcompact/icons/grin.gif), and they can't take care of their own people because of a little sliver of beachfront property called Israel? Take the whole "nation" of >insert small repressed society Du Jour here< and give them Texas, or even the whole Western part of the US - and under their current attitudes and lawless behavior, it will be a wasteland in 100 years. No, my dear tractor girlfriends (as my wife calls us), the problem is not ours. I refuse to "understand" the behavior, flag-wrapped head or not. /w3tcompact/icons/grin.gif

I must admit, it took a good amount of time (that I should be spending downstairs, wiring up the new lights) to arrange my response. We're again venturing into strong opinions - but I either respond, or let error stand and ignore it (which comprises a large part of our nation's problems). I agree with the comments about being respectful; I believe I have attacked the ideas presented, and not anyone personally. Others' comments, strongly stated or not, should not be personally characterized in any of the ways recently chosen. While I certainly understand how myself or anyone could find motivation to respond strongly in this thread, I was disappointed at the portrayal of others' opinions as close minded, the least of a string of quite insulting descriptions. This is particularly bothersome given the self portrayal of some as tolerant and non-opinionated.

One other thing - and this is meant personally: to bring children into the reply, seemingly to indicate that the opinons of others are aligned with some isolated and infrequent examples of American ignorance and predjudice, is not acceptable. This is the equivalent of plucking up a child, holding their feet to the fire, and accusing the fire-kindler of burning them (or of housing terrorists with families, then complaining about 'innocent deaths"). This is not the first example I have observed of this in conversations online and in person; it serves very weakly as an intelligent response. If your points are valid, they will stand on their own. Please do not continue in this way, as you lower yourself intellectually, and abuse your station in society as an instructor of others.

I assume, once written and off your chest, that you may be now reconsidering your tone. I have heard forgiveness recently defined as giving up the right to retaliate. I forgive you.

 

[knucklehead]

Truth

Chuck

Although I did not directly respond to your contention that there may be some who misconstrue Flint's opinion as support for the attacks, it may become apparent from reading my tedious reply (might's well laugh at myself and join the club /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif) that giving intellectual consideration to the act as anything other than a crime gives it validity. Just a large and ugly example of what our courts do every day. And crime continues to grow. I might add that sometimes, things are just plain simple to understand. Like the terrorist attack (not "event") of 09/11/01.

 

[Chuck52]

Re: Truth

Mark,

If we do not seek to understand our enemies, we open ourselves to further attacks. If someone famous did not say that at some time in the past, I would be surprised, as it seems so incredibly obvious. If, as your reply to Dan makes clear, you do not differentiate between understanding an enemy and sympathising with him, then I see the problem. But there is a clear difference. We need to know why it seems so easy, in some parts of the world, to recruit suicide terrorists to attack the United States. Are we, if we ever achieve such an understanding, going to say, "Heck! You're right! Come on over and blow us up!"? I rather doubt it, but we might very well be able to modify the perception of the US which gives the terrorists so many allies. Your own mention of the Treaty of Versailles and how it is blamed in part for causing WWII, is very apt, though apparently not in the way you intended. We did indeed learn that a defeated nation, subjected to a sufficiently punitive peace accord, can prove fertile ground for extremists, and the peace accords following WWII reflected this understanding. This is not re-writing history. This is understanding history. ****** was good at what he did, but he wasn't so good that he could have taken over a country who's population did not already feel abused by it's neighbors. Does this excuse any of the evil and criminal behavior of the Nazis during WWII? Of course not. Again, if you do not understand what motivates your enemy, you open yourself to his attacks. Understanding one's enemies does not, I repeat, does not equate with sympathy for one's enemies.

Truth. Absolute Truth. I believe in it too, but I'm not sure I know it for all possible subjects. For all wars the United States has ever been involved in, I would like to be able to say that we were right and they were wrong and have that be Absolute Truth. However, even if we take that as a starting point, there are still differing "opinions" or perhaps I could say "points of view" about the details. I recall that in one of my ROTC classes, the instructing officer described the Battle of the Bulge as the largest tank battle of the war. When I asked him about the Battle of Leningrad, he modified his description to be the largest tank battle of the war involving U.S. forces. For those conflicts which did not involve the United States, it is perhaps easier conceptually, and more comfortable, to consider both sides. History is not just a bunch of dates for events. It is also what people who were there thought about those events, and what they meant. I'm fairly sure these are the kinds of "opinions" Dan does a good job of presenting to his students, so that they can form their own opinions.

AAArrrghh gotta go. The Boss just called to say come get her. I hope this stuff is what I meant to say when I thought I said what I think I was thinking. Oh to be clear.

Chuck

 

[Egon]

Re: Truth

Ah Truth????

People who read well and quickly pay no attention to those quigly faces that appear on many posts. They only pick out the important factors and can infer those quigly faces by conotation.

Now my other perception is that you are quite willing to move from your current residence to a tent so a person who has resided in your country from time immorial can occupy it.

Egon

 

[Phred]

Re: open-mindedness

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>

Except surely you must understand that pure fact is not possible outside of maybe math and Mr. Spock

<hr></blockquote>



What in the world do you teach?

Lets see: Netwons laws a matter of opnion?
How many stomachs does a cow have is a matter of opinion?
Students with out verbs in their sentences might be good english after all?
In oregon maybe george washington was not the first president after all?

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>

On the other hand, how in the world do you eliminate the presentation of "opinions" when teaching history, psychology, sociology, or that good old stuff we used to call civics?

<hr></blockquote>



So history is now a matter of opinion?
How much psychology and sociology does a 17 year old that can't read write or solve basic algebra problems actually take?


Flint and chuck you have me even more concerned than when we began this "talk".

All I know is that I have students that come to me after high school and their math skills are poor at best and the writting is terrible. Maybe thats because is all a matter of opinioin and I am just old fashion thinking that a particular differential equation has a unique answer and that complete sentence are the way to go.....

Silly me what was I thinking....


Fred

 

[PitbullMidwest]

Re: Truth

<font color=blue>...the instructing officer described the Battle of the Bulge as the largest tank battle of the war. When I asked him about the Battle of Leningrad, he modified his description to be the largest tank battle of the war involving U.S. forces. </font color=blue>

The largest tank battle of WWII was at Kursk, not Lenningrad, but your point is still valid.

 

[Flint]

Re: Truth

Okay, my last, and some may say thankfully, post on this thread.

To Chuck:
Thanks again!

To Phred: I most certainly should have included a large portion of science, order of presidents, and cow stomachs into the category of fact. (Oregon was admitted to the US on Feb. 14th, 1859, so actually James Buchanan was its first president, but I know what ya meant about George! ) In fact, I believe hard science is truly a thing of beauty. Lack of time and desire to be brief (if you can believe that) can be blamed for the oversight. And while I obviously don't know the students with whom you come in contact with, SAT math scores are the highest they've been in decades. I personally don't put much credence in the belief that in the good old days all students were smarter, more well-behaved and better citizens. I believe that while the students today may be less polite and respectful to adults on the surface, they are as intelligent and knowledgeable as ever. Indeed, I think their breadth of knowledge is greater than at any time in history, but of course individual mileage will vary!

Phred writes:
<font color=blue>"Think about it. In the real world our country is based on perfromance. If you sell cars and you don't sell them well you go hungry. If your job is to fix tractors and the engine keeps blowing up you won't be on the job long. Our current education system has no incentives built in for schools to improve, and no penalties for lack of perfromance."</font color=blue>

I would agree with this to a point. Certainly there are bad teachers and they should be fired. However, I don't believe a student's performance is always an indicator of the teacher's performance. I'm not proud to admit I was not always the best student and I did fail some courses, but in no way was this my instructor's fault. I chose to not do the work and I chose to not learn the material. There are a fair number of students who simply refuse to be a part of the learning process. Certainly part of the art of teaching is to find ways to motivate these students, but ultimately the choice to learn is in their hands. I taught in a very small private Montessori school for 7 years before my current job and we hired licensed and non-licensed teachers alike. I found some of the non-licensed teachers to be excellent and some of the licensed to be poor, and vice versa. The ability to teach effectively is not always tied to a license or to student performance. I would agree, though, that teaching unions are just as guilty at times as doctor's, lawyer's and other professional groups of not facing up to and firing incompetent people. However, holding a teacher responsible for the poor performance of some students is like putting a lawyer in jail with his client if he is found guilty. (Though I bet some wouldn't mind putting all the lawyers in jail! And I say this with my tongue firmly planted in my cheek seeing as how I have two brothers who are lawyers.)
To W-Harv and Mark: I firmly believe in the parent as being my boss. In fact I tell my students this right off the bat. I let them know that if something I assign or the way I do something does not meet with their parent's approval then I will do my best to tailor my instruction to their needs. (One way I do this is to tell these kids that if their parents want me to give them all A's and no work, that is fine by me. This naturally perks them up and some wise one will say, "You mean if mom says that I should get straight A's just for nothin', you'll do it?" I say, "Yup! Now how many think you'll be bringing me that note from mom in the next few days?" This is when they figure out they've been "played".) I also agree with idea that some parents don't do the job of disciplining and preparing their students to become functioning members of society. I don't know if the numbers of these parents is increasing over time, I hope not. One of the things that truly upsets me is having to deal with children who not only are not being helped by their parents but are in fact being harmed. Abuse - emotional and physical - are sadly too common. Children who are refused medical care for "religious" reasons particularly bother me. (I wonder what sort response that opinion might bring!?)

Mark writes:
<font color=blue>"Well, the Israelites conduct themselves under the rule of law . . "</font color=blue>

This is definitely something a great deal of people, Arab, non-Arab, Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, and even Jew would take issue with.

Mark writes more:
<font color=blue>"Remember the original theme of this post? The truth is, a group of criminals commited a heinous act of mass murder against our society. What's the problem with calling this what it is? Do we really think we should excuse a criminal because they are of a certain race or creed, or because they face hardship - even real repression?"</font color=blue>

I do remember the original theme of the post and it was that <font color=blue>"the NEA's entire membership should be fired and banished from the country."</font color=blue> My understanding of why that poster believed they should be fired was because they advocated a discussion of who was responsible for the attacks (yes, attacks - despicable, hateful, vile, murderous acts for those who maybe do question my opinion of them ( and God forbid, I, a teacher, should have an opinion!)). The opinion or fact, I don't care which word you use, that the attacks was heinous does NOT mean there can and should be no discussion who was responsible.

Mark writes more:
<font color=blue>"One other thing - and this is meant personally: to bring children into the reply, seemingly to indicate that the opinons of others are aligned with some isolated and infrequent examples of American ignorance and predjudice, is not acceptable."</font color=blue>

The example of the children I gave was not brought in to indicate anything except that the issue of blame is critical to some people. Some "ignorant and prejudiced Americans" (your words, more or less) believed that the girl and boy in my class were somehow responsible for those attacks solely due to the chance of their being born and raised Arab Moslems. Obviously based on your response you disagree with this label of blame which proves the point that the topic of blame is indeed a complex and crucial one in a classroom of children! In a discussion on this topic of blame some may hold only the hijackers themselves responsible, some the hijackers and those who aided and guided them directly, some may hold those who cheered the results accountable. Now carry this even further (imagine a class of thirty 10 to 12 year olds ) how about airport security which allowed the box cutters on the plane, the religious and political leaders who advocate violence, and so on and so on? Remember, we're talking about children here. My guess is that we might have as many differernt combinations of guilty and not guilty for these "blame holders" as we have readers. Again, this was the point of the NEA lesson plan, not that no one was responsible or that we should not discuss the topic. Quite the contrary, the point was be careful about assigning blame when dealing with children. Children were brought into the issue from the very first post. Children are the ones in classroom and the ones teachers are spending 6 hours a day with. Children are directly affected by the attacks and their aftermath and will be for many years to come. Children are who the lesson plans are written for (though adults certainly could benefit from them as well). I don't know if the opinoins of some posters and readers of these threads are <font color=blue>"aligned with . . . isolated and infrequent examples of American ignorance and predjudice"</font color=blue>, but whether they are or not does not change the fact that children are impacted by topic. My guess is that that particular boy and girl and the many other victims of "ignorance and prejuduce", children and adults, would find their inclusion acceptable.

Mark again:
<font color=blue>"I assume, once written and off your chest, that you may be now reconsidering your tone."</font color=blue>

Absolutely not!


Mark again:
[blue"I forgive you."</font color=blue>

Respectfully, Mark, I neither look for nor believe I am in need of your forgiveness. Nor, I suspect, are you looking for or needing mine.


As I mentioned above this will be my last post on the topic. I'll read any further posts but will close with a request I've mentioned several times:
If you are worried about what is being taught in your local school, go visit a classroom. Any teacher should welcome a visit by any intersted party. I sincerely believe many of you will go home with a change of mind.

Best wishes to all for a happy, healthy and peaceful future!

Dan

 

[Wingnut]

Re: open-mindedness

Dan,
sorry ... I always have to remind myself that American schools are, in fact, no Canadian schools. I have never been in an active American public classroom so my biased opinions on that topic should definitely be taken with a very large scoop of salt.
I guess what I was trying to say was that - based on secondhand information that I've seen since I arrived in Michigan and started reading American newspapers and listening to/viewing American media - the predilication of "teaching" the views of the person at the front of the room has trickled down from the universities to grade schools.
I never have thought that <font color=blue>every</font color=blue> teacher was like that ... since <font color=blue>every</font color=blue> one of us is different. I've also been reminded, frequently, by some friends who are teachers in Texas that not all teachers in the US are members of NEA or are even allowed to be.
I apologize for the tone of my last post ... I always choke on this issue since I'm in the "taxation without representation" class. Never had kids but always paid taxes to educate other's kids ... definitely taints my perception. And I did some interviewing last week .... had to waste hours of my time dealing with some of the end-products of the educational system. I do NOT envy you, sir, and wouldn't trade places with you on a bet!

pete

lesson for today: how to turn a copied paste blue .... after you cut and paste, simply add the html tag for color before and after the post. You can find it in the "markup in your posts" tag at the top of the post screen ... but, [bluex] (without the x) at the front and [/bluex] (without the x) at the end. Hope that helps.

 

[Wingnut]

Re: Truth

<font color=blue>time immorial</font color=blue>
I assume you mean "forever"?
Did you have some education, that I didn't, that proves the previous residents didn't move here from elsewhere and drive off or slay the previous residents? As they did? And the ones before them?
Would this person be willing to fairly compensate me? If so, give me their name, I'm ready to sell.

 

[Chuck52]

Re: Truth

Thanks for the correction, PitBull. I don't remember military history as being covered much in regular history courses, which is yet another plug, I guess, for including different views.

Chuck