Do political agendas belong in schools?

[Gan]

BENNINGTON, Vermont (AP) -- A high school teacher is facing questions from administrators after giving a vocabulary quiz that included digs at President Bush and the extreme right.

Bret Chenkin, a social studies and English teacher at Mount Anthony Union High School, said he gave the quiz to his students several months ago. The quiz asked students to pick the proper words to complete sentences.

One example: "I wish Bush would be (coherent, eschewed) for once during a speech, but there are theories that his everyday diction charms the below-average mind, hence insuring him Republican votes." "Coherent" is the right answer.

Principal Sue Maguire said she hoped to speak to whomever complained about the quiz and any students who might be concerned. She said she also would talk with Chenkin. School Superintendent Wesley Knapp said he was taking the situation seriously.

"It's absolutely unacceptable," Knapp said. "They (teachers) don't have a license to hold forth on a particular standpoint."

THE REST OF THE STORY (http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/11/25/liberal.quiz.ap/index.html)
_________________________________

The purpose of covering politics in any school should be the objective review of politics in general, the process, and the impact it has to society.

I do not think that it is appropriate to push a particular agenda or slant onto students to whom you are teaching. If I were a parent I would be outraged, regardless of it being from the left or right.

The teacher should be removed for misusing his position for the persuit of his own personal agenda.

[Unique]

Originally posted by Ganalon
The purpose of covering politics in any school should be the objective review of politics in general, the process, and the impact it has to society.

I do not think that it is appropriate to push a particular agenda or slant onto students to whom you are teaching. If I were a parent I would be outraged, regardless of it being from the left or right.


I would agree except that educational subjects are increasingly being dictated by government "standards" that limit the duality of the discourse in topics such as history.

If the teacher told students directly, "Bush is bad, and if you disagree with me you fail this class," I would agree with your comment about dismissal.

The existence of "digs" however is part of freedom of speech, and shows the students that politics is about choice.

We differ.

Unique.

[Latrinsorm]

Anything below high school I'd be upset with Bush digs. By high school, I reckon kids are aware that teachers are not infallible.

I'd say that implying that (the majority of) Republicans are of below-average intellect is a prejudicial remark almost as bad as saying it ensured Bush the black vote.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Ganalon
The purpose of covering politics in any school should be the objective review of politics in general, the process, and the impact it has to society.

The teacher wasn't even covering politics. It was a vocabulary quiz. Political and religious agendas should be left out of high school classes: especially English ones.

Raven

[DeV]

It's not acceptale for an educator to impose their political belief's in any classroom setting. Even on the college level it becomes discouraging to hear a professor take jabs at your country's leader 1/3 of the time, regardless of the student's personal views it is irritating to say the least. Even if its being inserted into the teaching of certain subjects, educators should be making a concerted effort to remain impartial or at least allow students to form their opinions on their own, and still be impartial.

[Hulkein]

Even beyond taking digs at Bush, she's insulting Republican's as a whole for having 'below-average mind[s].' That's inevitably insulting some of the students parents. Not a nice thing to do to kids in a vocab class.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<Political and religious agendas should be left out of high school classes: especially English ones. >>

1. It was a social studies and English teacher -- you don't know what class it was in, or if it was a combined class.
2. Politics are part of social life. Social studies is the study of social life. WTF?

[Ravenstorm]

On a totally related and very coincidental note, a high school in New Nexico has given its students an essay contest. They were asked "to explain why preserving marriage between men and women is vital to society and why unborn children merit respect and protection."

Raven

[Gan]

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
<<Political and religious agendas should be left out of high school classes: especially English ones. >>

1. It was a social studies and English teacher -- you don't know what class it was in, or if it was a combined class.
2. Politics are part of social life. Social studies is the study of social life. WTF?

In response to #2.

Originally posted by Ganalon
The purpose of covering politics in any school should be the objective review of politics in general, the process, and the impact it has to society.

Its one thing to cover the facts objectively, you can even cover the differences of each party and go into detail about mud slinging and other political games. But to distribute material, be it verbal or written, that demonstrates political bias that is not precedented by fact nor approved by the school district and is so obviously opininated and slanted is just a misuse of the teacher's position as an instructor, and totally abuses the concept that the teacher is considered to be the resident expert within that classroom setting. Especially to high school age students or younger.

[Edited on 11-25-2005 by Ganalon]

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
1. It was a social studies and English teacher -- you don't know what class it was in, or if it was a combined class.
2. Politics are part of social life. Social studies is the study of social life. WTF?

It was a vocabulary test, not a social studies test. It doesn't matter if it was a joint class. Plus, it wasn't an objective question about social studies, it was a question that is insulting towards some of the children and their parents; and I'm not talking about the Bush insult, I'm talking about calling Republican's below average intellectually.

[Edited on 11-25-2005 by Hulkein]

[Bobmuhthol]

<<It was a vocabulary test, not a social studies test.>>

Vocabulary tests can, contrary to popular belief, exist in history classes.

Additionally, there's a class in my school that grants both social studies and English credits. That quiz fits perfectly in that situation.

<<It doesn't matter if it was a joint class.>>

Look up. Yes, it does.

<<Plus, it wasn't an objective question about social studies, it was a question that is insulting towards some of the children and their parents; and I'm not talking about the Bush insult, I'm talking about calling Republican's below average intellectually.>>

I guess that's kind of bad to have in a school, no matter how true it is.

[Back]

Well, if people want to have “intelligent design” taught as an alternative to “science” then why not make sure you hire both left and right wing extremists to level the playing field?

As an alternate question, who would you rather have teaching your children, Churchill or Ghandi?

[Hulkein]

<< Vocabulary tests can, contrary to popular belief, exist in history classes. >>

That's fine, but this isn't a social studies test, it's a vocab test. This test isn't asking questions about anything that could've been studied in social studies class.

<< Additionally, there's a class in my school that grants both social studies and English credits. That quiz fits perfectly in that situation. >>

I don't see how getting the correct answer on the definition of 'coherent' has any benefit to social studies, so I disagree that this quiz fits perfectly in that situation.

<< I guess that's kind of bad to have in a school >>

So if it's 'kind of bad' to have in school, you either disagree with the teacher putting it there or you are fine with bad questions on tests.

<< no matter how true it is. >>

You live in Mass., so I guess that part of your response is expected.

[Edited on 11-25-2005 by Hulkein]

[Back]

Originally posted by Hulkein
You live in Mass., so I guess that part of your response is expected.

Stereotypes FTW!

[Gan]

The teacher claims he was attempting to spur debate with the remarks. I dont believe him. If that were so then there would have been equal play given to questions that supported an opposite viewpoint from the questions/impressions/opinions he was attempting to give through the test.

I believe its just another whacko left wing idiot who will attempt to have their voice heard through any channel that they can. Shame he's choosing this forum instead of picking on intellects his own size. Oh wait, perhaps they are his size. :lol:

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Backlash

Originally posted by Hulkein
You live in Mass., so I guess that part of your response is expected.

Stereotypes FTW!

Yeah, get it? He's stereotyping, so I did the same to him?

At least my stereotype has a lot more fact behind it than his.

[DeV]

Positive stereotypes are politically ok.

[Back]

Sorry, I missed the post where he called you a dumb red hick.

If you meant his comment that it was true, well, the young man has his own opinion doesn't he.

Lets be real about this. It was not an elementary school teacher telling kids to dislike Bush or get failed. This is high school and I don’ t know about you but I had plenty of my own ideas about many things by then.

[Hulkein]

<< Sorry, I missed the post where he called you a dumb red hick. >>

WTF?

<<If you meant his comment that it was true, well, the young man has his own opinion doesn't he. >>

And I have mine, your point?

<< Lets be real about this. It was not an elementary school teacher telling kids to dislike Bush or get failed. This is high school and I don’ t know about you but I had plenty of my own ideas about many things by then. >>

This response is priceless.

'I had my own formulated opinion in HS, that makes it ok for teachers to insult people via tests!'

[Gan]

Not to mention that high school aged students are just becomming familiar or even wanting to become familiar with politics and the voting process. Saying that they have their own views formed and therefore immune from being impressed upon by opinionated (and not necessarily right) teachers is delusional at best. Its not responsible teaching or responsible education.

I guess they're so used to it in college that its ok now to do it in high school where the kids dont have as much of a choice. :rolleyes:

[Back]

You guys want to write off people under eighteen as not having minds of their own. Perhaps you guys didn’t and if thats the case then we can all see the danger there.

If it were up to me I’d lower the voting age to 16 and drinking to 18.

[Hulkein]

:banghead:

[Gan]

Originally posted by Hulkein
:banghead:

Seconded.

[Nieninque]

Originally posted by HulkeinI'm not talking about the Bush insult, I'm talking about calling Republican's below average intellectually.

[Edited on 11-25-2005 by Hulkein]

so where was the insult?

[Gan]

Originally posted by Nieninque

Originally posted by HulkeinI'm not talking about the Bush insult, I'm talking about calling Republican's below average intellectually.

[Edited on 11-25-2005 by Hulkein]



so where was the insult?

A barb thrown across the pond. Stick to UK politics, where you have more credibility.

[Edited on 11-26-2005 by Ganalon]

[Back]

Originally posted by Ganalon

Originally posted by Nieninque

Originally posted by HulkeinI'm not talking about the Bush insult, I'm talking about calling Republican's below average intellectually.

[Edited on 11-25-2005 by Hulkein]



so where was the insult?

A barb thrown across the pond. Stick to UK politics, where you have more credibility.

[Edited on 11-26-2005 by Ganalon]

Sad thing is, she knows more about your politiks than you know hers.

[Gan]

Its not sad, its by choice.

I appreciate the UK as allies and trade partners for the US. They are in good hands with Blair and I'm satisfied with their support of our president and his administration/agenda.

I dont need to know anything more about their politics until it affects our ability to trade and to exist as allies.

[ElanthianSiren]

Republicans vs. Republican's. Someone's going to snippet that eventually.

An objective comparison of the two terms yields:

eschewed -- adjective: kept away from; shunned; avoided; abstained from
coherent -- adjective: capable of thinking and expressing yourself in a clear and consistent manner

"I wish Bush would be (coherent, eschewed) for once during a speech, but there are theories that his everyday diction charms the below-average mind, hence insuring him Republican votes."

There are theories about Bush using a 'common man' approach, but I think going so far as to say that the only way to facilitate a major Republican turn out is to speak stupid in formal discourse is over the top. If this was indeed this man's attempt to proliferate his personal opinion, he definitely needs to be reprimanded, however, what the teacher said is open to interperitation (ie; is he quoting a source, is he speaking his personal opinion, is he merely testing vocabulary). In the end, we can't judge his intent, and he accomplished the task at hand (vocabulary quiz).

That said, I do think this could have been worded better.

"I wish Bush would be (coherent, eschewed) during his speeches, but there are theories that his everyday diction charms the masses."

I wouldn't see that as an attack personally as Bush is the one that made the declaration that "he starves his folks!" as a justification for war with Iraq. Note: there is not one word in that sentence above two syllables.

Finally, politics isn't anything that I've seen avoided in a classroom (even in a swing state like PA). To compare this to the potential violation of church and state is wrong IMO, unless you consider George W Bush your God.

-M

[Hulkein]

I agree with that, for the most part, ES.

[Jazuela]

I'm also curious about the teacher's use of "insure." In the context of that sentence, "ensure" is more appropriate. Both are technically permissible. "Ensure" is intended only, and specifically, to mean "to make sure of." "Insure" can mean the same, but is more commonly used when referring to insurance - as in house insurance, car insurance, etc.

For an English teacher, I'd question the motive for using that word over its less appropriate counterpart.

[Edited on 11-26-2005 by Jazuela]

[Back]

Originally posted by Ganalon
Its not sad, its by choice.

I appreciate the UK as allies and trade partners for the US. They are in good hands with Blair and I'm satisfied with their support of our president and his administration/agenda.

I dont need to know anything more about their politics until it affects our ability to trade and to exist as allies.

Translated from American into English: As long as we have these suckers to do our bidding I wont loose a wink of sleep because I am not fighting the war I believe in and neither are my children, so I am safe Why worry?

[Gan]

Originally posted by Backlash

Originally posted by Ganalon
Its not sad, its by choice.

I appreciate the UK as allies and trade partners for the US. They are in good hands with Blair and I'm satisfied with their support of our president and his administration/agenda.

I dont need to know anything more about their politics until it affects our ability to trade and to exist as allies.

Translated from American into English: As long as we have these suckers to do our bidding I wont loose a wink of sleep because I am not fighting the war I believe in and neither are my children, so I am safe Why worry?

Translated from Bullshit into Reality:
They kicked our ass in 1776 so now they're a grown up country who has a political system of their own. The only thing we can do is recognize that we have similar interests and common roots. Therefore we work together to secure those interests for the good of not only our own respective countries but to that of others who are similar. Even to the dismay of some who might disagree and for those who only keep up with the sensationism that is printed in the headlines of the biased media.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
On a totally related and very coincidental note, a high school in New Nexico has given its students an essay contest. They were asked "to explain why preserving marriage between men and women is vital to society and why unborn children merit respect and protection."

Raven

Again another example of pushing an agenda.

If you want to teach politics/social issues you ask questions like:

"Is preserving traditional marriage vital to society?"

"Do unborn children/fetuses merit respect and attention?"

"Is gay marriage a human rights issue?"

I have no tolerance for public school teachers that push their agenda on kids. I think high school kids are still suggestible and it is still unacceptable for a teacher to push his/her agenda be it conservative or liberal.

Obviously the same goes for the moron with the Bush examples.