[quote]nephorm wrote:
Issues ought to be tackled in order.
If this is an issue, it’s pretty low on the list.[/quote]
Just as an experiment, I clocked myself reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in the traditional cadence - it stretched out to a mind-numbing 12 seconds.
Twelve seconds.
Indoctrination? Well, if anyone is worried about indoctrination, they would probably do well to worry about what is being shoveled as education the remaining 7 hours and 48 seconds of the typical school day - blind nationalism it ain’t.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
So should we ban the pledge of allegiance in schools because it mentions God?
Damn straight! I don’t want my kids pledging allegiance to ANYTHING OR ANYONE. I am not going to raise children who would be brainwashed to think this country is the end-all-be-all or who would be manipulated to recite prose like citizen-robots.
If you want to convince children to appreciate what they have you cannot do it with propaganda material. This is what they do in communist countries. Would you rather your child be made to appreciate this country in all her glory and shame as it is on their own or prodded thru the school systems? Patriotism cannot be taught…in fact it shouldn’t be.
I bet you couldn’t even tell me what the Pledge of Allegiance means?![/quote]
I understand your position, and I don’t know if you understand this or not, but this very country that you don’t want you kids to pledge to is so great and FREE that it allows you to have this position, no matter how asinine it may be. Other countries you would have a short trial and be put in prison or just accidentally shot.
The values that are taught in school allow kids to learn how to operative as productive adults in society. Without this you are just raising kids who will end up in jail.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Without this you are just raising kids who will end up in jail.
[/quote]
… or on Springer.
Pledge of Allegiance = good. It is part of our culture. Besides – what more noble thing is there than to do devote yourself to the ideals of personal liberty and justice? I’d even like to take it a step further and see these ideals celebrated all over the world… making the “libery and justice for ALL” part of the pledge apply to every single human being alive.
If you want to convince children to appreciate what they have you cannot do it with propaganda material. This is what they do in communist countries.
Does this mean we should ship our children of to third world countries to beg with dirty feet and tattered clothes on garbage strewn streets?
If one really wants to nit pick, most educational material is propoganda in one way or another. It is, after all, the winners who write history. Literature is interpreted and passed down as gospel. Science, even unproven theories such as Evolution–not to be confused w/ Darwinism–seem to be etched in stone, because people are afraid to mention a “God” or “Creator”.
Sometimes there is a line that must be drawn though. And if you feel that Reciting the Pledge of Allegiance is way too much mind damaging filth for your child’s numb brain to handle, then woe to that poor child later in life.
Those who stand for nothing will fall for anything.
“We are part of a Narco-syndicate commune. – Come see the violence inherent in the system. Help, Help i’m being repressed!”
[quote]Valentinius wrote:
Science, even unproven theories such as Evolution–not to be confused w/ Darwinism–seem to be etched in stone, because people are afraid to mention a “God” or “Creator”.
[/quote]
No offense, but the mentioning of God has nothing to do with the validity of science. The reason evolution seems etched in stone is because it’s a pretty good fucking theory. If you come up with something better, let us scientific folks know.
PS I have to give you super mad props for having Manbearpig as an avatar.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
So you would be against a school - or district or teacher - taking a stand and teaching in class that slavery was a bad thing?
[/quote]
ummm…a teacher’s job is not to editorialize his or her position. Teach the facts. Let the children discuss them in a dialectical manner. I think they will come to their own conclusion–the correct one. This is the way it is done in university–this is the way it should always be done.
yes–this doesn’t even makes sense.
this is usually not up to the school to decide. This is decided by the fed. And no I don’t care about fed holidays–it has nothing to do with school.
Objectively teaching civics is not the same thing as teaching morality or ethics. Some ideas maybe better than others but that is your job as a parent to teach not the school.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
If a child is advanced enough to question the rational grounds of patriotism, he is advanced enough not to be harmed by the recitation of it.
[/quote]
I am arguing that they are not advanced enough.
So what? What it patriotism? It is the same thing as romance. It is not real. It does not exist beyond peoples ideas and imagination.
No I am not. It is wrong to recite the pledge in school. It is wrong to bring government into school. It is wrong to bring religion into school. It is wrong to preach idealism in school. These are all the same issue. School should be a place for objective learning. Period. Let the Boy and Girl Scouts of America engender those values…my kids don’t have to be apart of that.
If it is vague and abstract then what is the point of teaching it? You cannot teach nonconformism because it requires teaching values of individuality. Unless it is done on a purely academic level then it cannot be done.
[quote]Valentinius wrote:
If one really wants to nit pick, most educational material is propoganda in one way or another. It is, after all, the winners who write history. Literature is interpreted and passed down as gospel. Science, even unproven theories such as Evolution–not to be confused w/ Darwinism–seem to be etched in stone, because people are afraid to mention a “God” or “Creator”.
[/quote]
Not true. There are many ways in which to approach academia to make it objective. This is why we pay teachers to teach–because it consists of more than reciting facts–which any nit-wit that knows how to read can do.
No, it is not too much to handle. They understand why I am aganst it–or at least they pretend to know why–I never said my ideas were the way just here and now this is the way it is going to be.
Where is the line? Would you allow your children to learn about homosexuality in school? I am certain there are many here who don’t want certain topics discussed in the class-room.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
nephorm wrote:
No I am not. It is wrong to recite the pledge in school. It is wrong to bring government into school. It is wrong to bring religion into school. It is wrong to preach idealism in school. These are all the same issue. School should be a place for objective learning. Period. Let the Boy and Girl Scouts of America engender those values…my kids don’t have to be apart of that.
[/quote]
The government provides free public schooling, funded by the taxes you pay to the government. The school system is the government. Private school is always an option. In this case I would recommend you take your children out of the public school system, put them in a nice private catholic school. They won’t get any indoctrination there.
(this last sentance intended as sarcasm).
[quote]BH6 wrote:
The government provides free public schooling, funded by the taxes you pay to the government. The school system is the government.
[/quote]
This has nothing to do with what many educational philosophers will argue point blankly about–that institutions of learning are not institutions of indoctrination. Because I pay taxes to the government for them to teach my children does not make it right for them to enter my classroom and tell me what to teach or how to teach it.
I would never teach values as being right or wrong. There are too many instances where value based lecturing can become a hindrance to education.
For instance, I once sat in on a lecture in the economics department and the lecturer was clearly against the current administration’s policies regarding third world loan debt yet did not make value based decisions on these policies due to her own bias(ie–were they good or bad). She only talked about the effect of these policies.
Now, as a counterpoint, after the lecture portion was over there was a discussion session and the students, faculty and visitors were able to ask questions and bring up other missed points, etc. This is how education is supposed to work. We want to be educated so that we can gain new ideas and perhaps be given a different perspective on the ideas we currently have–maybe we will reaffirm the ideas and opinions we currently hold.
The point is that education is not just about being told facts. It is about an exchange of dialog and ideas and learning from each other about our differences. The only way this can be done is through an objective exchange of ideas.
You are absolutely right…however, you get the school system you pay for. At least we don’t have to send our kids to a government sponsored madrasah where they learn nothing but the Koran.
[quote]BH6 wrote:
You are absolutely right…however, you get the school system you pay for. At least we don’t have to send our kids to a government sponsored madrasah where they learn nothing but the Koran.
[/quote]
and math and science…
[quote]BH6 wrote:
you get the school system you pay for. At least we don’t have to send our kids to a government sponsored madrasah where they learn nothing but the Koran. [/quote]
…why do you think us libs constantly want to keep putting money into the schools…? you DO get what you pay for.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
knewsom wrote:
…why do you think us libs constantly want to keep putting money into the schools…? you DO get what you pay for.
Not when unions are involved.[/quote]
Are you trying to tell me that teachers get paid too much?? because let me tell ya… it isn’t an easy job and there are PLENTY of VERY GOOD, VERY DEVOTED teachers that work their asses off dealing with children from shitty families who don’t even speak English trying to give them the tools to be successful in this dog-eat-dog world, who deserve every penny they get, nay, double that. My mother is a teacher, and let me tell ya - I wouldn’t do her job for TWICE what she’s paid. Sure, there are some slackers out there, but they don’t represent the status quo, and even still, $40k a year ain’t DICK, even WITH summers off.
The teacher’s unions are trying to fight for what’s best for the teachers - that’s their job. The school administration and parents need to fight for what’s best for the KIDS - that’s THEIR job. Balance of power, get me? I’m not trying to say that unions are the shining center of the universe, but they serve an important purpose - balancing power.
[quote]knewsom wrote:
nephorm wrote:
knewsom wrote:
…why do you think us libs constantly want to keep putting money into the schools…? you DO get what you pay for.
Not when unions are involved.
Are you trying to tell me that teachers get paid too much?? because let me tell ya… it isn’t an easy job and there are PLENTY of VERY GOOD, VERY DEVOTED teachers that work their asses off dealing with children from shitty families who don’t even speak English trying to give them the tools to be successful in this dog-eat-dog world, who deserve every penny they get, nay, double that. My mother is a teacher, and let me tell ya - I wouldn’t do her job for TWICE what she’s paid. Sure, there are some slackers out there, but they don’t represent the status quo, and even still, $40k a year ain’t DICK, even WITH summers off.
The teacher’s unions are trying to fight for what’s best for the teachers - that’s their job. The school administration and parents need to fight for what’s best for the KIDS - that’s THEIR job. Balance of power, get me? I’m not trying to say that unions are the shining center of the universe, but they serve an important purpose - balancing power.[/quote]
If there was less admin and overhead, there would be plenty for the teachers. I know a bunch of teachers, and everyone of them have a goal of getting their masters and moving to administration.
That’s where the waste is - and the good pay. Go figure.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
knewsom wrote:
nephorm wrote:
knewsom wrote:
…why do you think us libs constantly want to keep putting money into the schools…? you DO get what you pay for.
Not when unions are involved.
Are you trying to tell me that teachers get paid too much?? because let me tell ya… it isn’t an easy job and there are PLENTY of VERY GOOD, VERY DEVOTED teachers that work their asses off dealing with children from shitty families who don’t even speak English trying to give them the tools to be successful in this dog-eat-dog world, who deserve every penny they get, nay, double that. My mother is a teacher, and let me tell ya - I wouldn’t do her job for TWICE what she’s paid. Sure, there are some slackers out there, but they don’t represent the status quo, and even still, $40k a year ain’t DICK, even WITH summers off.
The teacher’s unions are trying to fight for what’s best for the teachers - that’s their job. The school administration and parents need to fight for what’s best for the KIDS - that’s THEIR job. Balance of power, get me? I’m not trying to say that unions are the shining center of the universe, but they serve an important purpose - balancing power.
If there was less admin and overhead, there would be plenty for the teachers. I know a bunch of teachers, and everyone of them have a goal of getting their masters and moving to administration.
That’s where the waste is - and the good pay. Go figure. [/quote]
The number of administrators has doubled in the last 12 years (don’t remember where I read that). I’d fire 90% of them on Monday morning.
[quote]knewsom wrote:
BH6 wrote:
you get the school system you pay for. At least we don’t have to send our kids to a government sponsored madrasah where they learn nothing but the Koran.
…why do you think us libs constantly want to keep putting money into the schools…? you DO get what you pay for.[/quote]
In a free marketplace, yes. But not after the NEA has hijacked the system.
[quote]knewsom wrote:
Are you trying to tell me that teachers get paid too much?? [/quote]
I never said that. I said you don’t get what you pay for when unions are involved.
I am all for paying teachers more, as long as we can evaluate them and fire them when they suck. Higher salaries, no free rides. Unions don’t like that. They want to have their cake and eat it, too.
