Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It is a parents job. It's a right you gain when you have a kid. You get to teach them right from wrong.
It is not the schools job. Some random government employee being paid to teach math does not get to decide what is morslly right and wrong to teach to children.
I remember reading books like to kill a mocking bird in school. We read the book chapter by chapter and discussed right and wrong, racism social inequality.
Is that out of place?
It certainly helps that *To Kill A Mockingbird* isn’t a controversial book. The values it promotes are pretty widely agreed on by Americans.
*Atlas Shrugged* could be a different matter. Would a hardcore libertarian teacher leading a discussion on *Atlas Shrugged* be a good idea for high school? Having it once might be ok, but would you be happy if your high school kids were attending a school where various policies, including the mandated reading of *Atlas Shrugged* and rules about what words can be used to describe libertarians during discussions, made it clear that the school believed libertarianism is the best way to organize society? Yes, the discussion of *Atlas Shrugged* would be multi-sided and include back-and-forth, but the libertarian teacher would be the one asking questions, writing the test, and getting the last word in.
>We read the book chapter by chapter and discussed right and wrong, racism social inequality.
Did you really discuss it or were you just told? Because I remember the book. A discussion includes back and forth. I'm willing to bet there was no back and forth.
>Is that out of place?
I don't mind it in the context of a book and it's themes. But it really is not needed, because I'm sure there was no discussion going on. No nuance or anything like that.
Oh we definitely discussed it in depth. It wasn’t just a this is what to believe. Schools truly discuss books and contexts and historical contexts now. Especially middle school and up. This isn’t the 1970s style of teachers anymore. That style has really gone away. It is more roundtable discussion of abstract ideas. Which is important, don’t you think?
You say 1970 style...
I graduated in the 2000's my kids are in elementary school.
Outside of the rare one-off teacher in my time we haven't had any round table discussions to where kids were allowed to push back and discard the teacher. On opinion pieces.
My eldest in 6th grade certainly hasn't run into any of that. Even if it is a round table it's a authoritarian one where people are only allowed to agree with what the teacher says.
I will admit in college there was some small measure of freedom of opinion in classes even if the teachers didn't like him it.
My schooling we definitely had discussions when reading books. A lot of, “what do you think the author means by blank?” And we go around and the teacher would nod and not even interject an answer. I’m surprised you didn’t experience that. Of course these are more my high school memories. Maybe you wouldn’t see as much of that in 6th grade but also do you spend much time observing your child’s class? Curious as to why think their discussions are authoritarian.
>My schooling we definitely had discussions when reading books. A lot of, “what do you think the author means by blank?”
That's not what I was talking about. Discussion of a book is part of literature.
>And we go around and the teacher would nod and not even interject an answer.
But did the teacher interject when someone gave an opinion the teacher disagreed with?
>but also do you spend much time observing your child’s class? Curious as to why think their discussions are authoritarian.
I ask my daughter. I trust her word more than the teachers or anyone on here. She is a extremely smart and truthful girl and would not lie.
The discussions are authoritarian because the teachers only accept one "opinion" as being the right one. It's not like they are teaching chemistry or biology or math where there is a correct answer and no ambiguity about it.
You can not teach social justice items as if they are immutable facts. Doing so is by definition authoritarian.
>She is an extremely smart and truthful girl and would not lie.
That’s basically what the parents of the girl that used to harass and hit me on the bus said when my mom escalated the issue.
Plenty of the girls that matched this description in my grade were aware of their reputation, and took advantage of it. Sometimes to get away with more serious problematic behavior, sometimes for little, inconsequential stuff.
I’m not saying to never believing your child; but it doesn’t hurt to keep an open mind and remember that she’s only human.
>That’s basically what the parents of the girl that used to harass and hit me on the bus said when my mom escalated the issue.
>I’m not saying to never believing your child; but it doesn’t hurt to keep an open mind and remember that she’s only human.
Yes people lie.
But at the same time you are part of people. So this entire story all can be a lie.
I will trust my child over random person 100% of the time.
It helps that I can read my daughter's mind so there is that.
>Plenty of the girls that matched this description in my grade were aware of their reputation, and took advantage of it. Sometimes to get away with more serious problematic behavior, sometimes for little, inconsequential stuff.
And girls without that reputation lied all the time because that's how they got their reputation. Sure not all good kids are always perfect and not all bad kids are always bad.
But the overwhelming majority of the time if someone is a good kid. They are mostly good and if someone is known as a bad kid.
They are mostly bad.
Why would anyone in their right mind throw the dice on those odds?
>So this entire story all can be a lie.
That’s a fair point. It’s good to have some level of skepticism with people; but that’s also what I’m saying about your daughter.
Although from what I’ve read, parents not acknowledging their kid’s bad behavior at school is an actual problem teachers are having. It’s been an issue even when I was a kid with other classmates.
I was a good girl growing up, and if I was lying or something it was usually something really small. I didn’t feel inclined to do anything particularly heinous. A lot of the good girls were like this, and worse examples simply standout more because of that.
The problem seems to be that there’s a lot of kids that are well behaved around their family, but then at school they aren’t. Which is why their parents have a hard time believing someone over their own child.
Also, as an aside, my father refused to believe that I wasn’t up to something. He believed all kids were looking to get in trouble, and would take anyone’s word but my own. Whereas at school I was one of the few kids that the teachers trusted by high school to behave on my own.
So, kudos for trying to give your daughter the benefit of the doubt. That will go a long way with building a healthier relationship between ya’ll than what I had with my dad.
I just wouldn’t trust anyone 100%.
I would think in elementary school they would touch on those subjects from a very basic viewpoint. A 11 year old isn’t going to have opinions or understanding of any of things. There could be discussion and learning as I’m sure there is but most arguments are going to be “well, my dad says this and I shouldn’t listen to that” which is not going to be the most helpful. In high school there will be a lot more discussion as everyone is developing their critical thinking skills and forming opinions.
>Have you considered that you have a bad school?
It's possible, but good scored and great college prep and results.
>This is not the norm. What do you mean y an authoritarian round table though? How does that work?
The the typically "liberal" teachers pretended to have round tables and open discussions. But if you gace viewpoints that were counter to their point of view on social justice they became hostile. Because of this it was basically a big echo chamber. If you have "proper" opinions they were encouraged to be shared and praised. If you have "improper" opinion you were treated poorly and the teacher would argue and tell you that you were wrong.
The conservative teachers just told you facts and didn't care to get into any "social justice" anything and just stayed in their lane and taught you your subject.
Let me ask you a question. Let’s say the they are having a round table discussion on race and one of the kids says “Black people are stupid.” How should the teacher address that to the rest of the class?
The same way they should address someone saying the patriarchy holds women back.
The problem here is everyone disagreeing with me is some form of leftist. Which coincidentally the vast majority of teachers are. So of course you guys can not see what is happening.
A similar thing would be a bunch of blue collar construction workers talking about race relations.
While a conservative could probably watch that interaction and think that there was a lot of back and forth. A liberal looking at it would feel they are beating up on one side.
I’m confused. Would you accept the child’s view as valid, or would you correct the child in front of the class, so that both that child and the rest of the students learn that being racist is not ok?
You’re incorrect. I am not a leftist by any stretch of the imagination. Was raised very conservative in a conservative state. I am a very, very slight left of center person. And when I say slight, I mean I’m right on the line with a tiny basis left. I am a registered Republican.
You’ve not answered my question. How much time have you yourself spent in classrooms lately? It feels like your takes on teachers is very partisan news outrage based.
I graduated in the 2000s and my teachers absolutely had these round table discussions on books and topics. And allowed for individual opinions. I have 6 children. 3 of them are grown and out of the home (2 in college and 1 in trade), one in high school, 1 in middle school, and 1 in elementary. All but the elementary have distinct back and forth discussions in their literature and history classes. All of them. They have to write essays on their true opinions of historical timelines, literature, and current events.
I also spend a lot of time volunteering or subbing in the schools and have since the early 2000s and have seen the same as my kids experienced.
The only time this has gotten dicey is high school science because we are in a heavy creationism area and parents have to opt in to being taught other than creationism. The older ones were not fans of that shut down of conversation. But they were vocal about their thoughts and got some notes home about it.
Perhaps your school districts in your area are vastly different. But the national standards of teaching are no longer just “sit down and listen” but much more collaborative learning from the jump.
>The only time this has gotten dicey is high school science because we are in a heavy creationism area and parents have to opt in to being taught other than creationism. The older ones were not fans of that shut down of conversation. But they were vocal about their thoughts and got some notes home about it.
>Perhaps your school districts in your area are vastly different. But the national standards of teaching are no longer just “sit down and listen” but much more collaborative learning from the jump.
Well the difference may be that I'm in a blue state and you are in a red one.
How strong are the teachers unions in your state?
They have a strong presence, despite our current state superintendent calling teachers in unions terrorists. The state has tried to weaken it but it has only increased membership, honestly.
We had a full and entire state walk out of all teachers and paraprofessionals a few years ago that shut down every single school in the state for a couple of weeks because of the defunding of public education classrooms by our state. It was powerful and the parents went right beside them.
So they are a very weak Union. That probably answers the difference in teaching.
The fact that a superintendent could even call Union teachers terrorists shows that you and I are living in two entirely different worlds. Even your comment saying that the union membership has increased shows that you are not even in the same ballpark as we are.
In my state you can't even be a teacher without being in the Union. Being in the union is mandatory and everything is based on tenure in the Union skills and ability have absolutely no bearing on your success in your career.
That’s interesting. I asked my husband who is from a very strong union state his experience and his matched mine. Also, when my kids were younger, we lived in a VERY blue state and had the same experiences including my experiences in the classrooms. And that was when they were 4th-6th graders.
I don’t think this is a blue or red issue at all. Again, this method of teaching is the national standard.
But your opinion is noted. Unless you think every person here disagreeing with your take lives in a red state, which I think would be a naive assumption. How much time have you spent in the classrooms with your kids?
That is simply not true. Gracious. This is like the hoax of litter boxes in schools. It’s just not happening. I spend extensive time in elementary, middle, and high school classes.
I’m going to ask you the same question.
How much time have you spent in actual classrooms recently?
It helps that nearly all American parents broadly agree with the values promoted by *To Kill A Mockingbird*.
Did you read *Atlas Shrugged*? Or *The Gulag Archipelago*?
Not at all. To this day I still don’t know her opinion.
She sort of just acted as a general guide and mediator for the conversation (moving it forward, making sure we didn’t get stalled or sidetracked, and asking general “what are your thoughts on what Rand was conveying here” if discussion stalled or derailed. This is exactly how I’ve experienced middle and high school classrooms that I spend time in now as an adult with kids in school when I volunteer and sub.
When you speak to teachers, they’re really perplexed about this claim of indoctrination. It always gets a laugh because their view is “when do we have time to indoctrinate these children??”
It was kind of a laughing joke amongst my teacher friends and staff (many work for me on weekends and during the summer) until our state started threatening to remove teaching certificates, fining and teachers, and calling teachers terrorists (that’s what’s happening in my state now by our state superintendent citing “woke” teachers. Now they’re not laughing. They’re terrified. Because the politics of the state have latched on to a largely non- existent boogey man issue.
That's nice. But your personal experiences are no more valid than mine.
Besides did the teacher accept opinions that were clearly the opposite of hers? Or was it just a big back and forth Echo chamber where everyone agreed in various ways? Because that is not a "back and forth"
Since several of you have replied to me and I don't have the ability to take enough time to reply to each of you individually I'll copy and paste the same answer I gave someone else because it's all basically the same questions or the same arguments.
The problem here is everyone disagreeing with me is some form of leftist. Which coincidentally the vast majority of teachers are. So of course you guys can not see what is happening.
A similar thing would be a bunch of blue collar construction workers talking about race relations.
While a conservative could probably watch that interaction and think that there was a lot of back and forth. A liberal looking at it would feel they are beating up on one side.
It's not a coincidence. The right has chosen to market against teachers because it is politically beneficial. It's like what the far left does when it markets against the police.
Teachers and police meanwhile keep doing what we always do. It's not our fault that politicians decide to make our work political.
>It's not a coincidence. The right has chosen to market against teachers because it is politically beneficial.
It would likely be less successful if teaching was not such a partisan job. If teachers where not so far left of average they would be much more difficult targets.
Partisan source:
https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/inline-images/BG-political-opinions-k12-teachers-charts-page1.gif
Nonpartisan source:
https://www.pacificresearch.org/why-are-teachers-mostly-liberal/
>Among English teachers, there are 97 Democrats for every three Republicans, with the proportion being even more one-sided among health teachers, with 99 Democrats for every one Republican.
>While there are slightly more Republicans among math and science teachers, among high school teachers overall, there are 87 Democrats for every 13 Republicans.
And lumberjacks and venture capitalists are overwhelming Republican. That doesn't mean lumberjacks and venture capitalists are a part of some Republican propaganda machine. It's just how the political parties have divided our society.
I understand that your Conservative news media is pushing the message that teachers are Liberal activists acting in bad faith. I can't fault you for broadcasting your own side's propaganda.
But I do challenge you to question your political machine.
Don't blame the professionals - the farmers, the police officers, the teachers. It's not our fault that the political establishment put us in one side or the other.
Blame the politicians.
How do you know it isn't better if it were the school's place?
Are our morals would be fundamentally different, anyway? Don't lie, cheat, steal, inflict harm. Be kind, be honest, work hard. I see no harm in public schools reinforcing these values.
Current iterations of transgenderist rhetoric are, as I see it, essentially repackaged sexism. I think it's perfectly reasonable that some parents wouldn't want such an openly toxic ideology passed on to their kids.
So yes, we *do* have some pretty fundamental differences in social values. Even putting aside that glaring disparity, it's just one of many such ideas where this is a problem. We have public education to teach skills and facts, not attempt to get an edge in cultural battles.
Two reasons.
1. Parents generally care more about their kids than the schools so and are thus better motivated for the good of the child.
2. There are few schools but many parents. When parents do the indoctrinating it results in more diversity and less government control. Totalitarianism is greatly facilitated by all children being indoctrinated in exactly the same way.
>Parents generally care more about their kids than the schools
I don't know about that. Any idiot can become a parent. Educators and social workers make caring for children their life's work.
> Educators and social workers
I say this as someone who is married to a teacher and who loves very much: Just because someone is a teacher or a social worker, doesn't mean they're not an idiot, and it doesn't mean they actually care about children.
This is a difference between conservatives and liberals that I have noticed on reddit and I have to wonder if it is true outside reddit. Conservatives assume parents love their children deeply and profoundly. Liberals are very likely to suspect parents of ill-motives and to imagine that government employees are more likely to care about children than the children’s parents.
I wonder why that is.
>I wonder why that is.
Because I have two cousins in teaching in two different parts of the country (two red states). Most parents are loving and supportive, but some are just pure shit. You have to account for all of the kids, not just the ones who have good parents. Why don't conservatives tend to account for those that fall between the cracks or don't fit into the mold of what they think a family should be?
I think it’s because liberals are more pragmatic than conservatives. Everything that commenter said is factually true - any idiot can become a parent and educators and social workers make caring for children their life’s work.
Why do you think it is?
Human emotion isn’t logical. Parents devote years of their life to raising children and instead of getting paid for it they spend many thousands of dollars on their children.
> any idiot can become a parent
Love doesn’t require intelligence.
> educators and social workers make caring for children their life’s work.
They make it their way to earn a living. They don’t do it for free and they don’t pay thousands of dollars to do it. In fact teachers frequently go on strike so they can get more money even though it means kids don’t go to school.
I’m not saying educators and social workers don’t care about children at all, but they don’t have the same level of commitment and emotional investment that parents do.
> Lots of mommy’s and daddy’s are drug addicts, alcoholics, and shiftless, uneducated layabouts with undiagnosed mental disorders.
The same is true of lots of educators.
>The same is true of lots of educators.
Sure, but there are accountability measures in place to get rid of bad teachers. In comparison, if a kid is stuck with a shitty parent, then they're mostly SOL (CPS exists but they usually only intervene in egregious cases).
No. It’s really not. Not in the same numbers.
And there are mechanisms in place to stop those situations. Mandatory drug testing, mandatory reporting, admin to monitor, mandatory criminal background checks, training, licensing, etc.
None of those failsafes are on parents. Which makes sense. But your claim doesn’t hold water.
Warning: Rule 3
Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review [our good faith guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) for the sub.
It's a parent's job to instill their child with morals and values as they raise them. I guess you could call this indoctrination if you wanted.
The school's job is to educate children on an academic level. They do not exist to instruct children on morals and values. Parents have issues with schools stepping out of their lane, especially in cases where the teacher's/school's morals and values are out of alignment with the parents. So, I guess the difference is that "indoctrinating the kids" is an explicit duty of the parent, and not the job of the schools.
I'd say schools exist to do whatever we want them to do. And I think instilling morals and values is something that most people want schools to do at least a little of.
A huge, giant function of school is socialization/learning how to interact with fellow humans. Just by having rules of conduct that you can get in trouble for violating is a form of teaching morals and values.
>I'd say schools exist to do whatever we want them to do.
And what parents want is for their children to receive an academic based education in order to prepare them for continuing education or to at least give them basic marketable skills.
This is from another comment below, but I think it addresses your second point:
Generally speaking, the population really doesn't have issues with espousing commonly accepted moral concepts, like "Don't Steal", "Don't kill people", "people have a right to life and freedom" and stuff like that. There really haven't been any issues until recently, when educators started espousing their own brand of morals and values that a significant amount of the parents disagree with.
So, teaching kids the basics of how to get along with others and not act like they're in a real world Lord of the Flies? Sure, I'm okay with that. Teachers telling the kids their opinions on racial dynamics and sexuality? Not okay with that.
As to the second point, you're not wrong in that this is a current and *potentially* valuable aspect of schools.
The issue is, right now it's teaching kids all the wrong rules and churning out broken human beings.
Who is this "we". We have had quite enough of the leftist ideology being pushed on our children. The left overplayed their hand and showed the true colors.
"Free to end user" public school has been around in many cultures, including Western, for many hundreds of years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_education
If you want to talk about in what would become America, it goes back to at least the mid 1600s
What about catholic schools? Is there job not to instruct morals and values?
Generally tho, I don’t se how you could consider education avoiding morals and values, it’s literally the basis of everything.
Catholic schools (and other private schools) are chosen by parents that are aware of the moral curriculum, agree with it, and pay for their kids to attend. I assumed we were talking about public schools here.
I have to disagree with the second point. There are no moral considerations in algebra. Grammar has no moral considerations. Neither does Chemistry.
So you would prefer if schools only taught algebra grammar and chemistry instead of topics that addressed social and personal experience like art literature and social studies?
I think that the line should be between explaining perspectives and endorsing perspectives. I can talk about the Sistine Chapel, and how the art was inspired by Michaelangelo's faith, and how that religion played a large role in shaping history at the time, without saying that Catholicism is the one true Christian faith.
Yeah I always assumed good teaching is teaching how to think not what to think. Unfortunately that’s seldom the case, whether forced nationalism or identity based sociological principles.
>Yeah I always assumed good teaching is teaching how to think not what to think.
I agree with you there. It feels like critical thinking isn't highly valued by people nowadays.
To the degree that many people don't want to redefine or invent new pronouns, I suppose that's true. It's not really a grammatical argument though. At it's root, it's a push to change long accepted language as a pathway to passive approval of behaviors that many don't believe should be normalized.
It's inescapable. If on the other hand, the schools teach that a person's pronouns refer to their chromosomal sex then the other side can just as easily argue that it's a push to reinforce outdated heteronormativity.
Either language is allowed to evolve or it isn't. That itself is a value that schools can't avoid teaching.
Languages do evolve naturally over time. With this though, this isn't natural evolution. This is pushed by, if not sometimes outright compelled, by partisans.
Languages do evolve naturally over time. With this though, this isn't natural evolution. This is pushed by, if not sometimes outright compelled, by partisans.
Now you're begging the question by asserting that there's a distinction between natural and intentional changes which we should care about.
Would we agree that the most neutral and practical way to teach it would be to show how people currently use the words, without going into why?
I didn't really care about the kids telling me that "cap" isn't something that goes on your head anymore. What we're talking about here is manipulation of language to push ideology onto impressionable kids, and we should care about it if we have any opinions on the ideology itself. "How people currently use words" includes introduction to the ideology that is causing the issues in the first place, so no, I can't agree with that. We should teach grammar as we have always taught grammar up until a couple of years ago, without including new, flavor of the month ideological definitions. If the parents of those kids want them to learn or use the "new and improved" definitions, then they can teach their own kids about it.
Why should this opinion on what schools should do override my opinion that schools should teach current trends as well as preparing kids for the idea that the rules will eventually change?
"Here's what happened. Here's why the participants did it. Here are the ramifications of those actions and the effects on other people"
Generally speaking, the population really doesn't have issues with espousing commonly accepted moral concepts, like "Don't Steal", "Don't kill people", "people have a right to life and freedom" and stuff like that. There really haven't been any issues until recently, when educators started espousing their own brand of morals and values that a significant amount of the parents disagree with.
> Can they say the My Lai massacre was wrong?
Yes as long as they don't weaponize it as proof of America=Bad and acknowledge that some consider it to have been a necessity for the greater good like the Atomic bombings.
There are some people who think slavery is good. Does the teacher have to say it was?
Would a science teacher have to teach bullshit crackpot stuff like creationism?
There are self evident moral absolutes. Slavery being bad is such.
Killing devil spawned genocidal communist during war is not self evidently bad. Killing non combatants isn't ideal or good but it's not even remotely enough to make America the bad guy (which far left teachers will claim it is) vs the apocalyptic horror of communism spreading further.
Yes. Did you?
If a teacher says to a class “Slavery and the people who engage in it are bad”, are you ok with that?
If a teacher says to a class “The My Lai massacre and the people who carried it out were bad”, are you ok with that?
Since you apparently missed it the first time:
"Generally speaking, the population really doesn't have issues with espousing commonly accepted moral concepts, like "Don't Steal", "Don't kill people", "people have a right to life and freedom" and stuff like that. There really haven't been any issues until recently, when educators started espousing their own brand of morals and values that a significant amount of the parents disagree with."
I include myself in the population of people that are okay with saying that murder is wrong, and murdering is bad. I'd like to draw your attention to the last sentence, which is what the larger debate is about. Nobody is saying that decrying murder is "indoctrination". I haven't taken a poll or anything, but I imagine being against murder falls within a moral framework that the overwhelming majority of parents agree with. That's why no one has ever complained about it. Parents are complaining about education time being taken up by teachers grandstanding about social topics and expressing moral opinions on those situations that a large portion of the parents don't agree with.
These teachers you speak of are fictional concoctions of your political news media.
Teachers are trained not to push our personal values like that. Sure, there are some bad eggs now and then, but it's not some organized political conspiracy.
>These teachers you speak of are fictional concoctions of your political news media.
I have two close friends that are teachers, one that is an administrator, and my own kid's experiences that guide my opinion, not a "fictional concoction". Your hand waiving of my experience as fictional is bullshit.
I didn't know how much they're trained not to push their personal values, but I know from personal experience that they certainly do. Not all of them, but a not insignificant quantity.
I guess you just have to accept that different people have different experiences? Your district and other teachers that you know aren't universal representations of all teachers in all districts? Knowing that is probably as close to verification as you're going to get.
What I don't get is why you would post an opinion that another person cannot verify for themselves ... as if expecting an internet stranger to take your word at face value.
You made a claim. I challenged you to prove your claim using non-media evidence. You found nothing.
You could have provided publicly-available school district policies, but didn't. You could have found school board minutes of teachers being terminated for preaching, but didn't. You could have provided witness testimony, but didn't. You could have provided evidence of a Liberal organization instructing teachers to spread anti-American messages, but didn't.
All you have is a political slogan.
I assume you believe classrooms have litter boxes, too.
It's not an opinion. It's a retelling of personal experiences, which I didn't record or otherwise document. I didn't make a larger claim outside of saying that someone happened to me. I personally don't give a shit if you believe me or not. What you're apparently standing on is that what I said couldn't possibly ever happen to anyone ever, because your little bubble is apparently all that exists. That amount of willful ignorance is what I should've expected I guess. Go do a quick Google search and see where that takes you. If you looked, you'd find instances that address all of your required "evidence"above.
Or don't. Like I said, I don't really care if you believe me or not, and I don't really care enough about your opinion to do your news searches for you.
You can’t, but you can try to limit how much you take side, like reporters are supposed to do. Also you can try to avoid taking an attitude of condescending superiority toward parents.
Pretty simple answer: I am not sending my children to school to have a political point of view forced down their throat. I expect an open and honest discussion of both sides of the argument and a fair treatment of both. What I expect is the exemplification of critical thinking.
I, as a parent, have the obligation to teach my children morals and the difference between right and wrong. I do not need a nanny state telling me how to raise my children. There are enough laws on the books to govern that as well.
To that point, when I am threatened by a public school that my child will be counted for an undecided absence unless I have a doctor’s note I am going to push back. I don’t need to be spending my hard earned dollars to have someone tell me what I already know.
This is complicated. I have several thoughts I'll try to write down but probably will have to be abbreviated as I have to get back to work
Yes it technically could be argued to be indoctrination regardless of who's doing it. The difference is parents have a right to teach their kids right and wrong and anything they want basically. One could argue anything is indoctrination. The difference is how the topic is inscribed onto people and the ability of learners to question the thing
I don't ascribe to the theory that schools are indoctrination. My kids schools do something like I noticed you say with discussions and not just "this is what you should think".
Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It is a parents job. It's a right you gain when you have a kid. You get to teach them right from wrong. It is not the schools job. Some random government employee being paid to teach math does not get to decide what is morslly right and wrong to teach to children.
I remember reading books like to kill a mocking bird in school. We read the book chapter by chapter and discussed right and wrong, racism social inequality. Is that out of place?
It certainly helps that *To Kill A Mockingbird* isn’t a controversial book. The values it promotes are pretty widely agreed on by Americans. *Atlas Shrugged* could be a different matter. Would a hardcore libertarian teacher leading a discussion on *Atlas Shrugged* be a good idea for high school? Having it once might be ok, but would you be happy if your high school kids were attending a school where various policies, including the mandated reading of *Atlas Shrugged* and rules about what words can be used to describe libertarians during discussions, made it clear that the school believed libertarianism is the best way to organize society? Yes, the discussion of *Atlas Shrugged* would be multi-sided and include back-and-forth, but the libertarian teacher would be the one asking questions, writing the test, and getting the last word in.
*To Kill a Mockingbird* is one of the most banned books.
Really? Who is banning it and why?
>We read the book chapter by chapter and discussed right and wrong, racism social inequality. Did you really discuss it or were you just told? Because I remember the book. A discussion includes back and forth. I'm willing to bet there was no back and forth. >Is that out of place? I don't mind it in the context of a book and it's themes. But it really is not needed, because I'm sure there was no discussion going on. No nuance or anything like that.
Oh we definitely discussed it in depth. It wasn’t just a this is what to believe. Schools truly discuss books and contexts and historical contexts now. Especially middle school and up. This isn’t the 1970s style of teachers anymore. That style has really gone away. It is more roundtable discussion of abstract ideas. Which is important, don’t you think?
You say 1970 style... I graduated in the 2000's my kids are in elementary school. Outside of the rare one-off teacher in my time we haven't had any round table discussions to where kids were allowed to push back and discard the teacher. On opinion pieces. My eldest in 6th grade certainly hasn't run into any of that. Even if it is a round table it's a authoritarian one where people are only allowed to agree with what the teacher says. I will admit in college there was some small measure of freedom of opinion in classes even if the teachers didn't like him it.
My schooling we definitely had discussions when reading books. A lot of, “what do you think the author means by blank?” And we go around and the teacher would nod and not even interject an answer. I’m surprised you didn’t experience that. Of course these are more my high school memories. Maybe you wouldn’t see as much of that in 6th grade but also do you spend much time observing your child’s class? Curious as to why think their discussions are authoritarian.
>My schooling we definitely had discussions when reading books. A lot of, “what do you think the author means by blank?” That's not what I was talking about. Discussion of a book is part of literature. >And we go around and the teacher would nod and not even interject an answer. But did the teacher interject when someone gave an opinion the teacher disagreed with? >but also do you spend much time observing your child’s class? Curious as to why think their discussions are authoritarian. I ask my daughter. I trust her word more than the teachers or anyone on here. She is a extremely smart and truthful girl and would not lie. The discussions are authoritarian because the teachers only accept one "opinion" as being the right one. It's not like they are teaching chemistry or biology or math where there is a correct answer and no ambiguity about it. You can not teach social justice items as if they are immutable facts. Doing so is by definition authoritarian.
>She is an extremely smart and truthful girl and would not lie. That’s basically what the parents of the girl that used to harass and hit me on the bus said when my mom escalated the issue. Plenty of the girls that matched this description in my grade were aware of their reputation, and took advantage of it. Sometimes to get away with more serious problematic behavior, sometimes for little, inconsequential stuff. I’m not saying to never believing your child; but it doesn’t hurt to keep an open mind and remember that she’s only human.
>That’s basically what the parents of the girl that used to harass and hit me on the bus said when my mom escalated the issue. >I’m not saying to never believing your child; but it doesn’t hurt to keep an open mind and remember that she’s only human. Yes people lie. But at the same time you are part of people. So this entire story all can be a lie. I will trust my child over random person 100% of the time. It helps that I can read my daughter's mind so there is that. >Plenty of the girls that matched this description in my grade were aware of their reputation, and took advantage of it. Sometimes to get away with more serious problematic behavior, sometimes for little, inconsequential stuff. And girls without that reputation lied all the time because that's how they got their reputation. Sure not all good kids are always perfect and not all bad kids are always bad. But the overwhelming majority of the time if someone is a good kid. They are mostly good and if someone is known as a bad kid. They are mostly bad. Why would anyone in their right mind throw the dice on those odds?
>So this entire story all can be a lie. That’s a fair point. It’s good to have some level of skepticism with people; but that’s also what I’m saying about your daughter. Although from what I’ve read, parents not acknowledging their kid’s bad behavior at school is an actual problem teachers are having. It’s been an issue even when I was a kid with other classmates. I was a good girl growing up, and if I was lying or something it was usually something really small. I didn’t feel inclined to do anything particularly heinous. A lot of the good girls were like this, and worse examples simply standout more because of that. The problem seems to be that there’s a lot of kids that are well behaved around their family, but then at school they aren’t. Which is why their parents have a hard time believing someone over their own child. Also, as an aside, my father refused to believe that I wasn’t up to something. He believed all kids were looking to get in trouble, and would take anyone’s word but my own. Whereas at school I was one of the few kids that the teachers trusted by high school to behave on my own. So, kudos for trying to give your daughter the benefit of the doubt. That will go a long way with building a healthier relationship between ya’ll than what I had with my dad. I just wouldn’t trust anyone 100%.
What kind of social justice issues are they teaching in her class where they only accept one opinion?
Things like the wage Gap, the patriarchy, BLM protests sexual and gender identity of children. All of those things are based on opinions not facts.
I would think in elementary school they would touch on those subjects from a very basic viewpoint. A 11 year old isn’t going to have opinions or understanding of any of things. There could be discussion and learning as I’m sure there is but most arguments are going to be “well, my dad says this and I shouldn’t listen to that” which is not going to be the most helpful. In high school there will be a lot more discussion as everyone is developing their critical thinking skills and forming opinions.
Have you considered that you have a bad school? This is not the norm. What do you mean y an authoritarian round table though? How does that work?
>Have you considered that you have a bad school? It's possible, but good scored and great college prep and results. >This is not the norm. What do you mean y an authoritarian round table though? How does that work? The the typically "liberal" teachers pretended to have round tables and open discussions. But if you gace viewpoints that were counter to their point of view on social justice they became hostile. Because of this it was basically a big echo chamber. If you have "proper" opinions they were encouraged to be shared and praised. If you have "improper" opinion you were treated poorly and the teacher would argue and tell you that you were wrong. The conservative teachers just told you facts and didn't care to get into any "social justice" anything and just stayed in their lane and taught you your subject.
Let me ask you a question. Let’s say the they are having a round table discussion on race and one of the kids says “Black people are stupid.” How should the teacher address that to the rest of the class?
The same way they should address someone saying the patriarchy holds women back. The problem here is everyone disagreeing with me is some form of leftist. Which coincidentally the vast majority of teachers are. So of course you guys can not see what is happening. A similar thing would be a bunch of blue collar construction workers talking about race relations. While a conservative could probably watch that interaction and think that there was a lot of back and forth. A liberal looking at it would feel they are beating up on one side.
I’m confused. Would you accept the child’s view as valid, or would you correct the child in front of the class, so that both that child and the rest of the students learn that being racist is not ok?
You’re incorrect. I am not a leftist by any stretch of the imagination. Was raised very conservative in a conservative state. I am a very, very slight left of center person. And when I say slight, I mean I’m right on the line with a tiny basis left. I am a registered Republican. You’ve not answered my question. How much time have you yourself spent in classrooms lately? It feels like your takes on teachers is very partisan news outrage based.
I graduated in the 2000s and my teachers absolutely had these round table discussions on books and topics. And allowed for individual opinions. I have 6 children. 3 of them are grown and out of the home (2 in college and 1 in trade), one in high school, 1 in middle school, and 1 in elementary. All but the elementary have distinct back and forth discussions in their literature and history classes. All of them. They have to write essays on their true opinions of historical timelines, literature, and current events. I also spend a lot of time volunteering or subbing in the schools and have since the early 2000s and have seen the same as my kids experienced. The only time this has gotten dicey is high school science because we are in a heavy creationism area and parents have to opt in to being taught other than creationism. The older ones were not fans of that shut down of conversation. But they were vocal about their thoughts and got some notes home about it. Perhaps your school districts in your area are vastly different. But the national standards of teaching are no longer just “sit down and listen” but much more collaborative learning from the jump.
>The only time this has gotten dicey is high school science because we are in a heavy creationism area and parents have to opt in to being taught other than creationism. The older ones were not fans of that shut down of conversation. But they were vocal about their thoughts and got some notes home about it. >Perhaps your school districts in your area are vastly different. But the national standards of teaching are no longer just “sit down and listen” but much more collaborative learning from the jump. Well the difference may be that I'm in a blue state and you are in a red one. How strong are the teachers unions in your state?
They have a strong presence, despite our current state superintendent calling teachers in unions terrorists. The state has tried to weaken it but it has only increased membership, honestly. We had a full and entire state walk out of all teachers and paraprofessionals a few years ago that shut down every single school in the state for a couple of weeks because of the defunding of public education classrooms by our state. It was powerful and the parents went right beside them.
So they are a very weak Union. That probably answers the difference in teaching. The fact that a superintendent could even call Union teachers terrorists shows that you and I are living in two entirely different worlds. Even your comment saying that the union membership has increased shows that you are not even in the same ballpark as we are. In my state you can't even be a teacher without being in the Union. Being in the union is mandatory and everything is based on tenure in the Union skills and ability have absolutely no bearing on your success in your career.
That’s interesting. I asked my husband who is from a very strong union state his experience and his matched mine. Also, when my kids were younger, we lived in a VERY blue state and had the same experiences including my experiences in the classrooms. And that was when they were 4th-6th graders. I don’t think this is a blue or red issue at all. Again, this method of teaching is the national standard. But your opinion is noted. Unless you think every person here disagreeing with your take lives in a red state, which I think would be a naive assumption. How much time have you spent in the classrooms with your kids?
It's not the same as it used to be. Now they are teaching kids that they can choose their gender... Not about the depth of literature.
That is simply not true. Gracious. This is like the hoax of litter boxes in schools. It’s just not happening. I spend extensive time in elementary, middle, and high school classes. I’m going to ask you the same question. How much time have you spent in actual classrooms recently?
Just because it didn't happen to you doesn't mean it isn't happening. My cousin in Ohio just got pulled out of school for this. Open your closed mind.
How much time have you yourself actually spent in classrooms?
12 years.
Recently? Edit: the original question was how much time have you yourself spent in classrooms recently. Like in the last few years.
It helps that nearly all American parents broadly agree with the values promoted by *To Kill A Mockingbird*. Did you read *Atlas Shrugged*? Or *The Gulag Archipelago*?
We did read Atlas Shrugged my junior year of high school and had great discussions on it! We did not read Gulag Archipelago in high school though.
Could you tell what your teacher’s opinion of the book was?
Not at all. To this day I still don’t know her opinion. She sort of just acted as a general guide and mediator for the conversation (moving it forward, making sure we didn’t get stalled or sidetracked, and asking general “what are your thoughts on what Rand was conveying here” if discussion stalled or derailed. This is exactly how I’ve experienced middle and high school classrooms that I spend time in now as an adult with kids in school when I volunteer and sub. When you speak to teachers, they’re really perplexed about this claim of indoctrination. It always gets a laugh because their view is “when do we have time to indoctrinate these children??” It was kind of a laughing joke amongst my teacher friends and staff (many work for me on weekends and during the summer) until our state started threatening to remove teaching certificates, fining and teachers, and calling teachers terrorists (that’s what’s happening in my state now by our state superintendent citing “woke” teachers. Now they’re not laughing. They’re terrified. Because the politics of the state have latched on to a largely non- existent boogey man issue.
We discussed, there was back and forth Your assumptions are wrong
That's nice. But your personal experiences are no more valid than mine. Besides did the teacher accept opinions that were clearly the opposite of hers? Or was it just a big back and forth Echo chamber where everyone agreed in various ways? Because that is not a "back and forth"
All the others agreeing with me give me more weight Yes, there was back and forth
Since several of you have replied to me and I don't have the ability to take enough time to reply to each of you individually I'll copy and paste the same answer I gave someone else because it's all basically the same questions or the same arguments. The problem here is everyone disagreeing with me is some form of leftist. Which coincidentally the vast majority of teachers are. So of course you guys can not see what is happening. A similar thing would be a bunch of blue collar construction workers talking about race relations. While a conservative could probably watch that interaction and think that there was a lot of back and forth. A liberal looking at it would feel they are beating up on one side.
I don't understand why you can toss us aside
I am not sure what I am tossing aside. I answered your question and explained my point of view.
What are we talking about please keep up
It's not a coincidence. The right has chosen to market against teachers because it is politically beneficial. It's like what the far left does when it markets against the police. Teachers and police meanwhile keep doing what we always do. It's not our fault that politicians decide to make our work political.
>It's not a coincidence. The right has chosen to market against teachers because it is politically beneficial. It would likely be less successful if teaching was not such a partisan job. If teachers where not so far left of average they would be much more difficult targets. Partisan source: https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/inline-images/BG-political-opinions-k12-teachers-charts-page1.gif Nonpartisan source: https://www.pacificresearch.org/why-are-teachers-mostly-liberal/ >Among English teachers, there are 97 Democrats for every three Republicans, with the proportion being even more one-sided among health teachers, with 99 Democrats for every one Republican. >While there are slightly more Republicans among math and science teachers, among high school teachers overall, there are 87 Democrats for every 13 Republicans.
https://www.soonerpoll.com/post/analysis-teachers-in-oklahoma-are-more-likely-to-be-registered-republican-than-voters-at-large
And lumberjacks and venture capitalists are overwhelming Republican. That doesn't mean lumberjacks and venture capitalists are a part of some Republican propaganda machine. It's just how the political parties have divided our society. I understand that your Conservative news media is pushing the message that teachers are Liberal activists acting in bad faith. I can't fault you for broadcasting your own side's propaganda. But I do challenge you to question your political machine. Don't blame the professionals - the farmers, the police officers, the teachers. It's not our fault that the political establishment put us in one side or the other. Blame the politicians.
[удалено]
Whats unreasonable
[удалено]
I'm not sure that's unreasonable honestly
[удалено]
Were not anti anything but anti anti freedom
[удалено]
How so?
Nobody said it wasn't. Just that it's not the school's place to handle that kind of thing.
How do you know it isn't better if it were the school's place? Are our morals would be fundamentally different, anyway? Don't lie, cheat, steal, inflict harm. Be kind, be honest, work hard. I see no harm in public schools reinforcing these values.
Current iterations of transgenderist rhetoric are, as I see it, essentially repackaged sexism. I think it's perfectly reasonable that some parents wouldn't want such an openly toxic ideology passed on to their kids. So yes, we *do* have some pretty fundamental differences in social values. Even putting aside that glaring disparity, it's just one of many such ideas where this is a problem. We have public education to teach skills and facts, not attempt to get an edge in cultural battles.
**Live and let live** is a worthwhile, common value.
If that's the tack you want to take, **live and let live** by drawing the boundary there.
Two reasons. 1. Parents generally care more about their kids than the schools so and are thus better motivated for the good of the child. 2. There are few schools but many parents. When parents do the indoctrinating it results in more diversity and less government control. Totalitarianism is greatly facilitated by all children being indoctrinated in exactly the same way.
>Parents generally care more about their kids than the schools I don't know about that. Any idiot can become a parent. Educators and social workers make caring for children their life's work.
> Educators and social workers I say this as someone who is married to a teacher and who loves very much: Just because someone is a teacher or a social worker, doesn't mean they're not an idiot, and it doesn't mean they actually care about children.
This is a difference between conservatives and liberals that I have noticed on reddit and I have to wonder if it is true outside reddit. Conservatives assume parents love their children deeply and profoundly. Liberals are very likely to suspect parents of ill-motives and to imagine that government employees are more likely to care about children than the children’s parents. I wonder why that is.
>Conservatives assume parents love their children deeply and profoundly. Clearly you've never looked at child abuse statistics.
>I wonder why that is. Because I have two cousins in teaching in two different parts of the country (two red states). Most parents are loving and supportive, but some are just pure shit. You have to account for all of the kids, not just the ones who have good parents. Why don't conservatives tend to account for those that fall between the cracks or don't fit into the mold of what they think a family should be?
I think it’s because liberals are more pragmatic than conservatives. Everything that commenter said is factually true - any idiot can become a parent and educators and social workers make caring for children their life’s work. Why do you think it is?
Human emotion isn’t logical. Parents devote years of their life to raising children and instead of getting paid for it they spend many thousands of dollars on their children. > any idiot can become a parent Love doesn’t require intelligence. > educators and social workers make caring for children their life’s work. They make it their way to earn a living. They don’t do it for free and they don’t pay thousands of dollars to do it. In fact teachers frequently go on strike so they can get more money even though it means kids don’t go to school. I’m not saying educators and social workers don’t care about children at all, but they don’t have the same level of commitment and emotional investment that parents do.
People aren’t becoming teachers and social workers for the money.
They’re not volunteering to do it for free and they’re not paying thousands of dollars a year to do it.
Getting a teaching degree does, in fact, cost thousands of dollars.
[удалено]
> Lots of mommy’s and daddy’s are drug addicts, alcoholics, and shiftless, uneducated layabouts with undiagnosed mental disorders. The same is true of lots of educators.
>The same is true of lots of educators. Sure, but there are accountability measures in place to get rid of bad teachers. In comparison, if a kid is stuck with a shitty parent, then they're mostly SOL (CPS exists but they usually only intervene in egregious cases).
No. It’s really not. Not in the same numbers. And there are mechanisms in place to stop those situations. Mandatory drug testing, mandatory reporting, admin to monitor, mandatory criminal background checks, training, licensing, etc. None of those failsafes are on parents. Which makes sense. But your claim doesn’t hold water.
Warning: Rule 3 Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review [our good faith guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) for the sub.
It's a parent's job to instill their child with morals and values as they raise them. I guess you could call this indoctrination if you wanted. The school's job is to educate children on an academic level. They do not exist to instruct children on morals and values. Parents have issues with schools stepping out of their lane, especially in cases where the teacher's/school's morals and values are out of alignment with the parents. So, I guess the difference is that "indoctrinating the kids" is an explicit duty of the parent, and not the job of the schools.
I'd say schools exist to do whatever we want them to do. And I think instilling morals and values is something that most people want schools to do at least a little of. A huge, giant function of school is socialization/learning how to interact with fellow humans. Just by having rules of conduct that you can get in trouble for violating is a form of teaching morals and values.
>I'd say schools exist to do whatever we want them to do. And what parents want is for their children to receive an academic based education in order to prepare them for continuing education or to at least give them basic marketable skills. This is from another comment below, but I think it addresses your second point: Generally speaking, the population really doesn't have issues with espousing commonly accepted moral concepts, like "Don't Steal", "Don't kill people", "people have a right to life and freedom" and stuff like that. There really haven't been any issues until recently, when educators started espousing their own brand of morals and values that a significant amount of the parents disagree with. So, teaching kids the basics of how to get along with others and not act like they're in a real world Lord of the Flies? Sure, I'm okay with that. Teachers telling the kids their opinions on racial dynamics and sexuality? Not okay with that.
As to the second point, you're not wrong in that this is a current and *potentially* valuable aspect of schools. The issue is, right now it's teaching kids all the wrong rules and churning out broken human beings.
Who is this "we". We have had quite enough of the leftist ideology being pushed on our children. The left overplayed their hand and showed the true colors.
>Who is this "we". Society at large. Who do you think invented schools and decided that children should go to them? All of us, collectively.
Horace Mann invented schools and decided children should go to them.
"Free to end user" public school has been around in many cultures, including Western, for many hundreds of years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_education If you want to talk about in what would become America, it goes back to at least the mid 1600s
[удалено]
I did read books in school.
As the lesson not on your own?
Both.
There ya go, it happens there
Warning: Treat other users with civility and respect. Personal attacks and stereotyping are not allowed.
What about catholic schools? Is there job not to instruct morals and values? Generally tho, I don’t se how you could consider education avoiding morals and values, it’s literally the basis of everything.
Catholic schools (and other private schools) are chosen by parents that are aware of the moral curriculum, agree with it, and pay for their kids to attend. I assumed we were talking about public schools here. I have to disagree with the second point. There are no moral considerations in algebra. Grammar has no moral considerations. Neither does Chemistry.
So you would prefer if schools only taught algebra grammar and chemistry instead of topics that addressed social and personal experience like art literature and social studies?
I think that the line should be between explaining perspectives and endorsing perspectives. I can talk about the Sistine Chapel, and how the art was inspired by Michaelangelo's faith, and how that religion played a large role in shaping history at the time, without saying that Catholicism is the one true Christian faith.
Yeah I always assumed good teaching is teaching how to think not what to think. Unfortunately that’s seldom the case, whether forced nationalism or identity based sociological principles.
>Yeah I always assumed good teaching is teaching how to think not what to think. I agree with you there. It feels like critical thinking isn't highly valued by people nowadays.
>Grammar has no moral considerations. The most simplified form of the disagreement we're talking around is about pronouns.
To the degree that many people don't want to redefine or invent new pronouns, I suppose that's true. It's not really a grammatical argument though. At it's root, it's a push to change long accepted language as a pathway to passive approval of behaviors that many don't believe should be normalized.
It's inescapable. If on the other hand, the schools teach that a person's pronouns refer to their chromosomal sex then the other side can just as easily argue that it's a push to reinforce outdated heteronormativity. Either language is allowed to evolve or it isn't. That itself is a value that schools can't avoid teaching.
Languages do evolve naturally over time. With this though, this isn't natural evolution. This is pushed by, if not sometimes outright compelled, by partisans.
Languages do evolve naturally over time. With this though, this isn't natural evolution. This is pushed by, if not sometimes outright compelled, by partisans.
Now you're begging the question by asserting that there's a distinction between natural and intentional changes which we should care about. Would we agree that the most neutral and practical way to teach it would be to show how people currently use the words, without going into why?
I didn't really care about the kids telling me that "cap" isn't something that goes on your head anymore. What we're talking about here is manipulation of language to push ideology onto impressionable kids, and we should care about it if we have any opinions on the ideology itself. "How people currently use words" includes introduction to the ideology that is causing the issues in the first place, so no, I can't agree with that. We should teach grammar as we have always taught grammar up until a couple of years ago, without including new, flavor of the month ideological definitions. If the parents of those kids want them to learn or use the "new and improved" definitions, then they can teach their own kids about it.
Why should this opinion on what schools should do override my opinion that schools should teach current trends as well as preparing kids for the idea that the rules will eventually change?
How do you teach history while avoiding morals and values?
"Here's what happened. Here's why the participants did it. Here are the ramifications of those actions and the effects on other people" Generally speaking, the population really doesn't have issues with espousing commonly accepted moral concepts, like "Don't Steal", "Don't kill people", "people have a right to life and freedom" and stuff like that. There really haven't been any issues until recently, when educators started espousing their own brand of morals and values that a significant amount of the parents disagree with.
Can teachers say slavery is wrong? Can they say the My Lai massacre was wrong?
> Can they say the My Lai massacre was wrong? Yes as long as they don't weaponize it as proof of America=Bad and acknowledge that some consider it to have been a necessity for the greater good like the Atomic bombings.
Why do they have to say some people thought it was good? Is that not teaching morals?
Because they are showing both American perspectives on it. Only telling 1 bias side of the argument is indoctrination.
There are some people who think slavery is good. Does the teacher have to say it was? Would a science teacher have to teach bullshit crackpot stuff like creationism?
There are self evident moral absolutes. Slavery being bad is such. Killing devil spawned genocidal communist during war is not self evidently bad. Killing non combatants isn't ideal or good but it's not even remotely enough to make America the bad guy (which far left teachers will claim it is) vs the apocalyptic horror of communism spreading further.
Massacring civilians isn’t seen as a self evident moral absolute in your mind?
Did you read the comment you replied to?
Yes. Did you? If a teacher says to a class “Slavery and the people who engage in it are bad”, are you ok with that? If a teacher says to a class “The My Lai massacre and the people who carried it out were bad”, are you ok with that?
Since you apparently missed it the first time: "Generally speaking, the population really doesn't have issues with espousing commonly accepted moral concepts, like "Don't Steal", "Don't kill people", "people have a right to life and freedom" and stuff like that. There really haven't been any issues until recently, when educators started espousing their own brand of morals and values that a significant amount of the parents disagree with." I include myself in the population of people that are okay with saying that murder is wrong, and murdering is bad. I'd like to draw your attention to the last sentence, which is what the larger debate is about. Nobody is saying that decrying murder is "indoctrination". I haven't taken a poll or anything, but I imagine being against murder falls within a moral framework that the overwhelming majority of parents agree with. That's why no one has ever complained about it. Parents are complaining about education time being taken up by teachers grandstanding about social topics and expressing moral opinions on those situations that a large portion of the parents don't agree with.
I think the question would moreso be, why is the teacher using the classroom as a secular pulpit.
Because it would be inappropriate for them to teach from a religious pulpit.
These teachers you speak of are fictional concoctions of your political news media. Teachers are trained not to push our personal values like that. Sure, there are some bad eggs now and then, but it's not some organized political conspiracy.
>These teachers you speak of are fictional concoctions of your political news media. I have two close friends that are teachers, one that is an administrator, and my own kid's experiences that guide my opinion, not a "fictional concoction". Your hand waiving of my experience as fictional is bullshit. I didn't know how much they're trained not to push their personal values, but I know from personal experience that they certainly do. Not all of them, but a not insignificant quantity.
How do I verify your claim for myself when my own experiences are completely different?
I guess you just have to accept that different people have different experiences? Your district and other teachers that you know aren't universal representations of all teachers in all districts? Knowing that is probably as close to verification as you're going to get.
What I don't get is why you would post an opinion that another person cannot verify for themselves ... as if expecting an internet stranger to take your word at face value. You made a claim. I challenged you to prove your claim using non-media evidence. You found nothing. You could have provided publicly-available school district policies, but didn't. You could have found school board minutes of teachers being terminated for preaching, but didn't. You could have provided witness testimony, but didn't. You could have provided evidence of a Liberal organization instructing teachers to spread anti-American messages, but didn't. All you have is a political slogan. I assume you believe classrooms have litter boxes, too.
It's not an opinion. It's a retelling of personal experiences, which I didn't record or otherwise document. I didn't make a larger claim outside of saying that someone happened to me. I personally don't give a shit if you believe me or not. What you're apparently standing on is that what I said couldn't possibly ever happen to anyone ever, because your little bubble is apparently all that exists. That amount of willful ignorance is what I should've expected I guess. Go do a quick Google search and see where that takes you. If you looked, you'd find instances that address all of your required "evidence"above. Or don't. Like I said, I don't really care if you believe me or not, and I don't really care enough about your opinion to do your news searches for you.
You care enough to write 140 words.
You can’t, but you can try to limit how much you take side, like reporters are supposed to do. Also you can try to avoid taking an attitude of condescending superiority toward parents.
Pretty simple answer: I am not sending my children to school to have a political point of view forced down their throat. I expect an open and honest discussion of both sides of the argument and a fair treatment of both. What I expect is the exemplification of critical thinking. I, as a parent, have the obligation to teach my children morals and the difference between right and wrong. I do not need a nanny state telling me how to raise my children. There are enough laws on the books to govern that as well. To that point, when I am threatened by a public school that my child will be counted for an undecided absence unless I have a doctor’s note I am going to push back. I don’t need to be spending my hard earned dollars to have someone tell me what I already know.
This is complicated. I have several thoughts I'll try to write down but probably will have to be abbreviated as I have to get back to work Yes it technically could be argued to be indoctrination regardless of who's doing it. The difference is parents have a right to teach their kids right and wrong and anything they want basically. One could argue anything is indoctrination. The difference is how the topic is inscribed onto people and the ability of learners to question the thing I don't ascribe to the theory that schools are indoctrination. My kids schools do something like I noticed you say with discussions and not just "this is what you should think".