Parents call police on teacher over LGBT book.

[Twilight Hue]

Considering the abysmal achievement of
American schools / students in math and
basic literacy it's freaking insane to keep
adding more fluff.

It's why this nation abysmally fails in education time and time again.

This type of controversial crap takes precedence over actual essential subjects and topics.

I think most parents want their kids to actually learn. Not what can be done at the night club and bars in the off hours.

 

[Twilight Hue]

That'll be interesting. There are so many parents (usually more than there are students) who don't want all sorts of things. If, as you say, the curricula should reflect that, you could wind up teaching nothing!

And it may not occur to many, but parents need to know very little to become parents. It's trivially easy, you know. Even those who only graduated grade 3 can manage it, but I doubt that would make them experts in child-rearing. I prefer to think that professional educators, with advanced degrees in education, might at least be consulted a little bit about what goes into the curriculum. Or perhaps you'd prefer to bring in the pastors for that, and send the pedagogues to preach from the pulpit?

I agree that things like religion and sexuality should be left out of grade schools. The concentration should be solely with the learning essentials as its the reason the educational system was formed in the first place.

If someone wants more, that's what parochial and charters schools are for.

 

[Father Heathen]

I also challenge you to find anywhere on this entire thread where I had said material should be removed to appease and make happy homophobic parents. Try it. You can't.

It's a shame other parents of other children are not included in this to express their view pro and con to garner more perspective as to appropriateness.

So if one form of prejudice (homophobia) should be included in the process of determining what's appropriate, then why not another (racism)?

 

[Twilight Hue]

So if one form of prejudice (homophobia) should be included in the process of determining what's appropriate, then why not another (racism)?

Who says prejudice should be included? Don't you think parents should have a say in any of it without being vilified into some category over the interests of their own child?

One could say and argue the teacher herself wanted this to go controversial because she had an agenda against the wishes of parents over children that are not even her own.

That's why I dismissed this particular book in favor of returning our politically charged educational system back on track with materials that the students require to survive out in the real world.

Not materials best suited for that eventual trip to the bar or nightclub that has nothing to do with learning the essentials, so a person can learn enough to get a job and know how to keep a job and survive with their fellow humans.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Who says prejudice should be included? Don't you think parents should have a say in any of it without being vilified into some category over the interests of their own child?

One could say and argue the teacher herself wanted this to go controversial because she had an agenda against the wishes of parents over children that are not even her own.

That's why I dismissed this particular book in favor of returning our politically charged educational system back on track with materials that the students require to survive out in the real world.

Not materials best suited for that eventual trip to the bar or nightclub that has nothing to do with learning the essentials, so a person can learn enough to get a job and know how to keep a job and survive with their fellow humans.

The problem is that your idea of the real world is just that. An idea. And so is mine, but that is irrelevant because your idea is not really an idea to you.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

What you quoted from me was accurate.

Your " do not believe in liberty" is b.s.

If somebody tells me they believe in personal liberty, and then instructs me that I may not read such-and-such a book, or marry whom I will, or get such treatment for myself or child as we and our doctors think appropriate -- then I'm sorry, the BS is theirs, not mine. Thy are deluding themselves into thinking that they believe in "personal liberty," when in fact what they really mean is "liberty to do things MY way."

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Who says prejudice should be included? Don't you think parents should have a say in any of it without being vilified into some category over the interests of their own child?

But haven't you noticed? This is the same government that wants to DENY the parents of transgender children the right to seek appropriate help for their own child!

The Florida House of Representatives has approved a bill that would allow state courts to intervene in custody disputes and remove transgender children who are receiving gender-affirming care from supportive families with whom they live. In extreme circumstances, legal experts say this may even “involve the state taking physical custody of a child.”SB 254 would classify gender-affirming care for transgender youth as a form of “serious physical harm,” which could be cited during a custody enforcement hearing to allow unsupportive parents to take “physical custody of [the] child.” The amended bill, which originally passed on April 4 by a vote of 27 to 12, now returns to the Senate.​

 

[Father Heathen]

Who says prejudice should be included? Don't you think parents should have a say in any of it without being vilified into some category over the interests of their own child?

If you exclude material just because a handful of homophobic parents objected to it, then of course you've included their prejudice.

One could say and argue the teacher herself wanted this to go controversial because she had an agenda against the wishes of parents over children that are not even her own.

Her "agenda" would be to educate; which as a teacher is her job.

That's why I dismissed this particular book in favor of returning our politically charged educational system back on track with materials that the students require to survive out in the real world.

Math would be considered "political" if religious conservatives insisted that 2+2=5.
Also, the real world includes all of the things that religious conservatives are trying to shelter them from.
Keeping children ignorant - or worse, misled - does not help prepare them for adulthood.

My
Not materials best suited for that eventual trip to the bar or nightclub that has nothing to do with learning the essentials, so a person can learn enough to get a job and know how to keep a job and survive with their fellow humans.

You live a sad life it it only consists of bars/nightclubs, and work.

 

[Rachel Rugelach]

Would it be wrong to teach children about heterosexual love and romance?

If, by teaching children about heterosexual love and romance, you mean placing an age-appropriate book in the hands of a child that will interest that child and get that child to read, then, no that is not wrong. For children who enjoy reading, there are plenty of books to be found in school libraries about heterosexual love and romance. Here's a link to a brief list of some of these:

35 Cute Middle School Romance Books (Clean Tween Romances)

If your tween wants romances, hand them one of these cute middle grade romance books -- some about crushes and others featuring tween first kisses.

readingmiddlegrade.com

Admittedly, I was the kind of kid who would more readily pick up a horror novel by Shirley Jackson than read about Laura Ingalls' budding romance with Almanzo Wilder in the Little House on the Prairie books. But the point is that there are young people who want books that portray their own situations and experiences. Until very recently, there really haven't been any books for children attracted to the same gender as theirs. These children exist, whether or not people are comfortable acknowledging this.

I agree that books containing sexually explicit scenes are inappropriate for young children and, from the reviews I've read about the sexually explicit scenes in the book Gender Queer, I do not think it's appropriate for a school librarian to blithely hand that book over to a child without some parental permission. Especially since the publisher's recommended reading age for Gender Queer is 18 years and up (see product details on the book's Amazon page).

There are now being published numerous age-appropriate books that address homosexual crushes between young people. However, it seems to me that the anti-LGBT battle has been taken to every book that contains a homosexual crush of some kind. That, to me, is a problem.

 

[Kathryn]

True -- and I'm against it no matter who does it -- are you?

Today, it's the Right -- if the Left starts up tomorrow, I'll still be against the practice on general principle, not partisan politics.

I am absolutely against banning or burning most books (two different scenarios, by the way.) More specifically,nowever, I am all for controlling anything read aloud to students or mandated to be read by students.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It's why this nation abysmally fails in education time and time again.

This type of controversial crap takes precedence over actual essential subjects and topics.

I think most parents want their kids to actually learn. Not what can be done at the night club and bars in the off hours.

Why exactly is it American education fails? It's not because odlf queer books and it goes back about a century now when it was assumed Americans are dumb and those who aren't can just get caught up in college, but it's basically been since day 1 that American education has sucked. Seriously, back in the days of your romanticized Three Rs the teachers were often drunken failures who couldn't do anything else, they were commodities on sale from Ireland, and often times illiterate. But America has largely and mostly throughout it's history downplayed, dismissed and shunned education.
Try actually learning a bit about the subject before using a bunch of words that just say "I don't actually know what I'm talking about."

 

[Twilight Hue]

Why exactly is it American education fails? It's not because odlf queer books and it goes back about a century now when it was assumed Americans are dumb and those who aren't can just get caught up in college, but it's basically been since day 1 that American education has sucked. Seriously, back in the days of your romanticized Three Rs the teachers were often drunken failures who couldn't do anything else, they were commodities on sale from Ireland, and often times illiterate. But America has largely and mostly throughout it's history downplayed, dismissed and shunned education.
Try actually learning a bit about the subject before using a bunch of words that just say "I don't actually know what I'm talking about."

American education was much better in those days than it is now.

Please try to wake up and smell the coffee.

 

[Audie]

It's why this nation abysmally fails in education time and time again.

This type of controversial crap takes precedence over actual essential subjects and topics.

I think most parents want their kids to actually learn. Not what can be done at the night club and bars in the off hours.

One. A lesser one, imo, of many reasons.

If somebody tells me they believe in personal liberty, and then instructs me that I may not read such-and-such a book, or marry whom I will, or get such treatment for myself or child as we and our doctors think appropriate -- then I'm sorry, the BS is theirs, not mine. Thy are deluding themselves into thinking that they believe in "personal liberty," when in fact what they really mean is "liberty to do things MY way."

If somebody tells me they believe in personal liberty, and then instructs me that I may not read such-and-such a book, or marry whom I will, or get such treatment for myself or child as we and our doctors think appropriate -- then I'm sorry, the BS is theirs, not mine. Thy are deluding themselves into thinking that they believe in "personal liberty," when in fact what they really mean is "liberty to do things MY way."

AS IF that even resembled reality
or your precious libs were not
as busy if not more so trying to
restrict and control what others do.

Your PM is appalling.
And on your fav., you want to outlaw
private ownership of firearms.

Now, i can see not liking govt intrusion.
I receive try emigrated for that reason.

But the way younand divers others
get hysterical demonizing " the other team"
while they point back doing the same is sick,
stupid crazy and dumb.

 

[Audie]

American education was much better in those days than it is now.

Please try to wake up and smell the coffee.

Numbers to back your assertion?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

American education was much better in those days than it is now.

Please try to wake up and smell the coffee.

It has been better, but that doesn't mean it's been great and didn't have great amounts of room for improvement. It's been a thing for a while now that American high school grads need remedial math courses in college. That is deliberate, it is by design, and it's nothing new. America just got lucky it didn't have to focus on rebuilding and failed to take the initiative to stay ahead once other countries could focus on things other than war recovery.
And you are the one who needs to wake up and throw away the Three Rs nonsense. American education was far worse then when that idea was how it's done than what we have today.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Numbers to back your assertion?

Actually your right in terms of grade inflation.

Same Performance, Better Grades

Academic achievement hasn't improved much, so why are college-goers getting higher GPAs than ever before?

www.theatlantic.com

SAT from the 70s onwards.

Average SAT Scores Over Time: 1972–2023 · PrepScholar

What were the average SAT scores for 2021, 2020, 2019, and earlier? Find out in our historical guide to SAT averages back to 1972.

blog.prepscholar.com

Turns out it's a mixed bag. Some better, some worse.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Numbers to back your assertion?

There was a brief moment US education was good. But that was largely chance of fate and nit having to focus on rebuilding after either World War. But mostly it never has been good and has been more prone to being shunned, attacked and defunded than champoined, nurtured and promoted. It goes back in history to when America was mostly a bunch of farmers who saw no use or benefit in things that aren't immediately practicalamd useful and highly suspicious of everything that might disrupt their precious "common sense" and how things have traditionally been done.
America also has a downright embarrassing history of shunning books and only reading the absolute bare minimum that is required. That has never changed, and holds just as true today as it did when Thomas Jefferson's opponents on the campaign trail said he'd be a bad president because he's too well read and too philosophical.

 

[Twilight Hue]

It has been better, but that doesn't mean it's been great and didn't have great amounts of room for improvement. It's been a thing for a while now that American high school grads need remedial math courses in college. That is deliberate, it is by design, and it's nothing new. America just got lucky it didn't have to focus on rebuilding and failed to take the initiative to stay ahead once other countries could focus on things other than war recovery.
And you are the one who needs to wake up and throw away the Three Rs nonsense. American education was far worse then when that idea was how it's done than what we have today.

It's more complex than i thought, so I'll give you socioeconomic factors that affect how well students do. It turns out it's a mixed bag statistically.

Interesting that one of the main keys is literacy which makes sense if you can't read, you can't study your textbook too well and your scores suffer.

 

[We Never Know]

There was a brief moment US education was good. But that was largely chance of fate and nit having to focus on rebuilding after either World War. But mostly it never has been good and has been more prone to being shunned, attacked and defunded than champoined, nurtured and promoted. It goes back in history to when America was mostly a bunch of farmers who saw no use or benefit in things that aren't immediately practicalamd useful and highly suspicious of everything that might disrupt their precious "common sense" and how things have traditionally been done.
America also has a downright embarrassing history of shunning books and only reading the absolute bare minimum that is required. That has never changed, and holds just as true today as it did when Thomas Jefferson's opponents on the campaign trail said he'd be a bad president because he's too well read and too philosophical.

"Thomas Jefferson's opponents on the campaign trail said he'd be a bad president because he's too well read and too philosophical"

Do you have a source for that claim?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

"Thomas Jefferson's opponents on the campaign trail said he'd be a bad president because he's too well read and too philosophical"

Do you have a source for that claim?

Anti-Intellectualism in American Life by Richard Hifstadter has that and lots more explaining why this country is so damn stupid. The author began collecting info, researching and taking notes for the book in the 50s, it was published in the 60s, amd if anything has changed it's just gotten worse. And it is very well cited and sourced.