Why does that make sense? Because teachers are only in it for the money? Sose we don't care what kind of ignorant slop the school board wants us to pour down the throats of the future proletariat? How dare teachers give the future worker classes ideas about rebellion? It will only cause them to grumble against their betters. ce, do you honestly think that actual class room performance has anything to do with merit raises? Merit raises go to the teachers with the brownest noses, the ones in perfect lockstep with the establishment parade. Good teachers turn out questioners not lock steppers. --s6
I certainly didn't mean to upset or insult shakey or any of our dedicated teachers here at AW. Nor did I mean that teachers are in it only for the money. I come from a family of teachers. After years of teaching, my dad was an elementary school principal in a poor part of L.A. Unified School District, yet still taught catechism classes each week at our church because he loved to teach; my uncle was also a principal; and my aunts were teachers. I know the love and dedication teachers pour into their work, and I know the school day lasts far beyond 3:00 dismissal and runs into weekends, etc., and how much time grading and lesson planning takes. I don't know how teachers have the energy to not only show up for work, but to inspire and engage students all day long, students who for the most part would rather be somewhere else. I definitely agree teachers should be paid more. And I also agree that the superintendent's salary is ridiculously high, compared with teachers' salaries.
But this sick day seemed like a drastic measure for the curriculum which hasn't been voted on yet. Only the pay raise stuff has already been voted on, so to me, that made more sense to be the main impetus for the sick day.
It's one class, and it's a class in which the teacher can extend the discussions in ways which they see fit. AP classes teach kids to analyze and interpret the data, and theorize. My daughter just finished AP European History last year, and analysis was a huge part of the class. How can analysis and critique only be positive? The measure is asking for "balanced and factual treatment". Balance must include positive and negative.
And to be perfectly honest, as a conservative myself, I just don't find that paragraph describing the curriculum as so terrible. That's why I said I wanted more details. But regarding what's there -- Patriotism? Fine. Essentials and benefits of the free enterprise system? Great. Respect for authority and respect for individual rights? Wonderful. And the rest of it here?
Materials should not encourage or condone civil disorder, social strife or disregard of the law. Instructional materials should present positive aspects of the United States and its heritage. Content pertaining to political and social movements in history should present balanced and factual treatment of the positions.
It just doesn't sound objectionable to me, although I'd like to understand more what "civil disorder" means. And simply because instructional materials should present
positive aspects doesn't automatically mean
negative aspects cannot be presented as well.
Can some people be reading too much into this? For example, I highly doubt that the more negative aspects of American history will be left out, as a petition for MoveOn.org says:
Jeffco Public School Board has just proposed a change of curriculum stating that, "Materials should not encourage or condone civil disorder, social strife or disregard of the law. Instructional materials should present positive aspects of the United States and its heritage." This means that important parts of our history such as the Civil Rights Movement, Native American genocide, and slavery will not be taught in public schools. If these important lessons are not taught, children will not learn from them, and what will stop them from happening again? This is a severe form of censorship intended to keep the youth ignorant and easy to manipulate. I'm hoping to get enough signatures to prove that this is a public issue, so, please, if this is important to you, please sign. Do not let our youth grow up in ignorance; we all deserve the truth
There is just no way that these major issues mentioned above will not be taught. If that is truly the case, then I will protest along with you all.
I also don't know enough about merit-based pay programs, or this particular one, to comment further on that aspect, though shakeysix's point is well-taken that brown-nosing can influence things depending on how things are being measured. Still, it seems to me that some sort of reward-based distinction for the best teachers might be a good thing? My husband is a physician for a large company, and docs there do get bonuses based on both objective measures of use of resources as well as patient satisfaction surveys. It seems to work well for both the docs and the bottom line of the company. (And the patients - the quality of care there is quite high.)
It does bother me that I haven't seen any evidence of teachers being a true part of the debate/discussion with the school board about curriculum. Are teachers formally involved in these discussion with the school board?
Edited to Add: OK, I just read through Myrealana's explanation of the pay issue. Yes, that sounds unfair! It's like docs and Medicare. (Although we get cuts over time, not just a plateau.) So yes, it makes sense to me that teachers would be very concerned about the pay issue.
