erynthered Posted March 2, 2006 Posted March 2, 2006 Pushing your political agenda, regardless of party affiliation should not be tolerated in public High School. I hope he gets fired. http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/loca...4508296,00.html http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=1679439
erynthered Posted March 2, 2006 Author Posted March 2, 2006 Audio: http://www.850koa.com/cc-common/podcast/si...news_worthy.xml
RuntheDamnBall Posted March 2, 2006 Posted March 2, 2006 This one teacher in one classroom in Colorado is whacked and sounds like a bad educator. His student is a good little spy. Are there larger projections to be made here from one case outside of any context? In any case, all education is part of one or another sort of political agenda, IMO. Even math class. It's indicative of social values and the selection and framing of one topic vs another sets up a heirarchy.
Johnny Coli Posted March 3, 2006 Posted March 3, 2006 Here's another link with more text of what the teacher said:Drudge link, for the liberal-media-phobic "I'm not saying Bush and Hitler are exactly the same, obviously they're not. OK? But there are some eerie similarities to the tones that they use," says Bennish in his critique of U.S. economic and foreign policy. Towards the end of the class, Bennish goes on to say, "I'm not in anyway implying that you should agree with me, I don't even know if I'm necessarily taking a position. But what I'm trying to get you to do is to think about these issues more in depth and not to just take things from the surface." The nerve! Actually asking these high school students to look at a point of view and make up their own opinions. How are they ever going to pass a standardized test if they're asked to think for themselves and not just memorize and regurgitate?
Ghost of BiB Posted March 3, 2006 Posted March 3, 2006 Here's another link with more text of what the teacher said:Drudge link, for the liberal-media-phobic The nerve! Actually asking these high school students to look at a point of view and make up their own opinions. How are they ever going to pass a standardized test if they're asked to think for themselves and not just memorize and regurgitate? 616844[/snapback] Maybe because they have been told their opinions for about 10 yeras?
erynthered Posted March 3, 2006 Author Posted March 3, 2006 Here's another link with more text of what the teacher said:Drudge link, for the liberal-media-phobic The nerve! Actually asking these high school students to look at a point of view and make up their own opinions. How are they ever going to pass a standardized test if they're asked to think for themselves and not just memorize and regurgitate? 616844[/snapback] You didnt see any slant in his lecture?
Johnny Coli Posted March 3, 2006 Posted March 3, 2006 You didnt see any slant in his lecture? 616850[/snapback] I'm about half way through the lecture audio now. I honestly do not have a problem with this, and I wouldn't have a problem if he was coming from the right, either. This is a 10th grade class. So he's putting out an extreme view (interspersed with some qualifiers). If it makes these kids look up a country like Peru or Bolivia, if it makes these kids examine what these issues are and how they are related to geography, I just don't see the harm. Geography is politics. Borders are politics. I wish I had a teacher like this that attempted to engage the class more when I was in high school. I didn't see this style until college. IMHO, I truly believe the kids at that age can handle this kind of a discussion. He had a ton of support from his students when he was suspended. He got through to them. That's good teaching.
Terry Tate Posted March 3, 2006 Posted March 3, 2006 The nerve! Actually asking these high school students to look at a point of view and make up their own opinions. How are they ever going to pass a standardized test if they're asked to think for themselves and not just memorize and regurgitate? Good point. I'd rather the school stuck to having my children memorize and regurgitate their lessons, and I'll do my job of teaching them how to think for themselves.
Johnny Coli Posted March 3, 2006 Posted March 3, 2006 Good point. I'd rather the school stuck to having my children memorize and regurgitate their lessons, and I'll do my job of teaching them how to think for themselves. 616865[/snapback] I think it's great that you have an interest in your children's education, and have the where-with-all to teach them how to use deductive reasoning to solve problems and form their own opinions. That's not the case with every parent, though. Education, IMO, should not consist of rote memorization. I have no problem with this teacher making his students think for themselves.
Terry Tate Posted March 3, 2006 Posted March 3, 2006 I think it's great that you have an interest in your children's education, and have the where-with-all to teach them how to use deductive reasoning to solve problems and form their own opinions. That's not the case with every parent, though. Education, IMO, should not consist of rote memorization. I have no problem with this teacher making his students think for themselves. 616868[/snapback] I would rephrase your statement to read "Education should not consist solely of rote memorization". Once basics of a subject are memorized, the student has the foundation to solve problems of a more complex nature. HS Sophmore Geography class doesn't sound like the proper venue for international political relations. That's a college course. HS Geography is a major part of the foundation of that, but crawl, walk, run.
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted March 3, 2006 Posted March 3, 2006 Maybe because they have been told their opinions for about 10 yeras? 616848[/snapback] Back to that old critial thinking v. rote memorization. While there is a definite slant to his arguements, so what, I agree with Coli, I had a few teachers like this in High school and they turned us loose to counter such arguements. My only question is weather or not this guy tolerates a differing opinion, not sure, he at least listens to counter arguments and how he grades on those separate arguments. He is standing on his soap box though, a little too thick criticizing U.S. actions. While I don't agree with Bush actions as a result of 9/11. He does explain how it is important enough to look at situations from the perspective of others. And he does end it with trying to get kids to think. I have had a number of teachers play devil's advocate like this. Still to this day, I am not sure if they believed the stuff they shoveled that day, but it made us think and do research when we disagreed. So much for critical thinking in the heartland.
Johnny Coli Posted March 3, 2006 Posted March 3, 2006 HS Sophmore Geography class doesn't sound like the proper venue for international political relations. 616881[/snapback] Why not? Geography, in the "country borders" sense, is politics. Why not give these kids a little credit for being young adults and set them loose to actually think about Peru, Bolivia, US intervention in South America, Afganistan, Iraq, Isreal and Palestine? They hear about it every single day on the news, on the internet, at the movies. What the hell good is it if they can point to India on a map, but not know why their father is about to lose his job to outsourcing? Wouldn't it be great to actually have kids that were informed voters by the time they reached 18...you know, roughly two years removed from 10th grade geography?
Terry Tate Posted March 3, 2006 Posted March 3, 2006 Why not? Geography, in the "country borders" sense, is politics. Why not give these kids a little credit for being young adults and set them loose to actually think about Peru, Bolivia, US intervention in South America, Afganistan, Iraq, Isreal and Palestine? They hear about it every single day on the news, on the internet, at the movies. What the hell good is it if they can point to India on a map, but not know why their father is about to lose his job to outsourcing? Wouldn't it be great to actually have kids that were informed voters by the time they reached 18...you know, roughly two years removed from 10th grade geography? 616912[/snapback] Yes, as I said (pay attention, class), geography is a foundation of international political relations. I'm not yet convinced many 15 year olds can confidently locate the countries you list on a map. A blank map. And cite some basic information about the peoples there, and their language, culture, religion, the climate, the topography, etc. To turn your question around, what the hell good is it to discuss international political relations, if they can't find any of the countries on a map?
Johnny Coli Posted March 3, 2006 Posted March 3, 2006 Yes, as I said (pay attention, class), geography is a foundation of international political relations. I'm not yet convinced many 15 year olds can confidently locate the countries you list on a map. A blank map. And cite some basic information about the peoples there, and their language, culture, religion, the climate, the topography, etc. To turn your question around, what the hell good is it to discuss international political relations, if they can't find any of the countries on a map? 616926[/snapback] You think it would take an entire high school year to teach them to point out Peru on a map? Wouldn't it make more sense to point to Peru and discuss the rise of leftist policies in South America, despite substantial US intervention? I don't think we give our youth enough credit. Yet we agonize over the stupidity/apathy of the american voter, who is only a few years older.
SilverNRed Posted March 3, 2006 Posted March 3, 2006 You think it would take an entire high school year to teach them to point out Peru on a map? Wouldn't it make more sense to point to Peru and discuss the rise of leftist policies in South America, despite substantial US intervention? I don't think we give our youth enough credit. Yet we agonize over the stupidity/apathy of the american voter, who is only a few years older. 616948[/snapback] You're right, in theory, but what you're describing is not what this guy was doing. He was going off on some crazy rant that was incredibly loose with the facts (marvel at the transcript). Yes, we need teachers to challenge their students but why not do it by providing both sides of complex issues instead of saying crap like "Bush is like Hitler" and "We're the reason Israel exists"? High school is probably a good time to learn that you can't explain world issues with bullet points and bumper sticker slogans. This jackass teacher apparently made it all the way through college without learning that, which is even more disturbing.
Terry Tate Posted March 3, 2006 Posted March 3, 2006 You think it would take an entire high school year to teach them to point out Peru on a map? Wouldn't it make more sense to point to Peru and discuss the rise of leftist policies in South America, despite substantial US intervention? I don't think we give our youth enough credit. Yet we agonize over the stupidity/apathy of the american voter, who is only a few years older. 616948[/snapback] Yes, to teach them to point to a blank map of the world, name the countries, the topology, the climate, the culture, the languages spoken, religions, leading natural resources, how the population was formed historically, etc. could easily take a year for the near 200 countries in the world. But it would be time well spent when it comes time to discuss international relations. I don't agonize over the stupidity of the American voter. I don't think he has the basic knowledge foundation on which to formulate rational thought. But I don't agonize over it. Grab 100 adults off the street, I bet most of them can't describe any or all of the above basic knowledge questions about Peru - or find it on a map. But they'll give you an opinion on it. What's that worth to you?
Kelly the Dog Posted March 3, 2006 Posted March 3, 2006 I just listened to the whole thing. I really don't know why he brought up all that stuff in the geography class, and he really wasn't talking about geography. He definitely went overboard in his political agenda but he allowed students to voice their opinions and then said you guys don't have to listen to me, think for yourselves. To me, he should just be told to teach geography and to tone his rhetoric down a little but I don't see what all the hubbub is about. I would like a teacher like that if I was in high school. Even if he was taking the complete opposite tact and siding with the administration. I just don't think that was his place to teach that stuff, or at least he wasn't putting that information in the context of a geography lesson. Although there are times, like after State of the Union speeches, or other things in the news, that I would want my English or Art or Math or other subjects' teachers to bring up the items in the context of their subject. This guy really should have taken a lot more time to give the other side of the story though.
Typical TBD Guy Posted March 3, 2006 Posted March 3, 2006 I mostly agree with Mr. Coli's opinion on this topic. But having said that, the Bush-Hitler comparison is a ridiculously trivial and overplayed political hyperbole, and I don't think any rational educational debate can come from it. How about comparing Bush to Teddy Roosevelt? Or Bush to Lincoln? Or Bush to Monroe? Or Bush to Andrew Jackson? Each of these (more accurate) comparisons would be more likely to stir up educational discourse and less likely to incite political grandstanding. Also, this teacher would have been wise to make sure - by the end of the day - that the students knew how Bush is MUCH more different from Hitler than he is similar, i.e. talking about how: A. Hitler assumed dictatorial power; Bush was re-elected by a democratic process. B. Hitler made mass murder a deliberate policy; Bush's "mass murders" have largely been eye-for-eye attacks on terrorists and collateral damage. C. Hitler believed certain races and minorities don't deserve to live; Bush believes certain convicted murderers shouldn't live (and believes all zygotes should!) D. Hitler's army aimed to take over countries for the good of its own (Germany); Bush's army aims to take over countries for its own good (USA), for the good of those countries being invaded, and also for the rest of the world in terms of stability. E. Hitler hated religion; Bush likes it. F. Hitler invaded countries without warning; Bush invades countries with PLENTY of warning ("with us or against us" speech, Axis of Evil speech, tolerance of repeated UN sanction violations, etc...) G. You all get the !@#$ing idea. But he didn't. Bottom line: Independent thinking in the classroom is good, political rants aren't, and this guy was doing too much of the latter and too little of the former.
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted March 3, 2006 Posted March 3, 2006 I would rephrase your statement to read "Education should not consist solely of rote memorization". Once basics of a subject are memorized, the student has the foundation to solve problems of a more complex nature. HS Sophmore Geography class doesn't sound like the proper venue for international political relations. That's a college course. HS Geography is a major part of the foundation of that, but crawl, walk, run. 616881[/snapback] Darn, I wouldn't have wanted to attend your high school. Mine taught this stuff in junior high and challenged us to think for ourselves, we would have thought this guy was nuts, but entertaining and would have tried to best him at his own arguements. The one guy trying to engage him sounded like he was the one with the microphone. Geography class, heck yeh, they would have to go home and not just pull out a map, but learn a little about the History of the countries he was talking about. Neat. P.S. Israel was allow to be formed because of us, just not quite the way he described. That is my only problem with his rant is as Silver and Red says in a later post, bumper sticker logans are a pretty sorry teaching tool. However, if he was just trying to provoke and arguement and get the kids to look up this stuff and force their parents to responde too...maybe not so bad...we do not know his motivation. I had lots of teachers who used this teaching style and supported right wing students and left wing students as long as we did the work and asked lots of questions.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 3, 2006 Posted March 3, 2006 I'm about half way through the lecture audio now. I honestly do not have a problem with this, and I wouldn't have a problem if he was coming from the right, either. This is a 10th grade class. So he's putting out an extreme view (interspersed with some qualifiers). If it makes these kids look up a country like Peru or Bolivia, if it makes these kids examine what these issues are and how they are related to geography, I just don't see the harm. Geography is politics. Borders are politics. I wish I had a teacher like this that attempted to engage the class more when I was in high school. I didn't see this style until college. IMHO, I truly believe the kids at that age can handle this kind of a discussion. He had a ton of support from his students when he was suspended. He got through to them. That's good teaching. 616863[/snapback] Let's say he came out and said "The blacks are the cause of all the social ills in America. And lookee here at this map of Africa, that's where they come from and that's where they need to go. I'm just throwing that out there for you to learn and discuss." How do you think that would go over?
Recommended Posts