NC social studies teacher - who lets idiots like her teach?

[Terr]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjpWa...layer_embedded

Teacher presents "fact of the day" about Romney allegedly being a bully back in high school.

Student: "Didn’t Obama bully somebody, though?"
Teacher: "Not to my knowledge."

Students tell her about Obama, in his biography, telling the story about bullying someone.

Teacher: "Stop! Stop! Because there’s no comparison. He’s running for president. Obama is the president."

... students object that that's not a fair debate

Teacher (talking over the student): "You got to realize, this man is wanting to be what Obama is. There’s no comparison."

... students object...

Student: "If you’re gonna talk trash about one side, you gotta talk trash about the other."
Teacher: "You will not disrespect the president of the United States in this classroom."
Student: "I’ll say what I want."
Teacher: "Not about him, you won’t!"

... students bring up that President Bush was constantly maligned when in office.

Student: "Whenever Bush was president, everybody talked shit about him."
Teacher: "Because he was shitty."

... no disciplinary action has been taken against the teacher.

[Gagundathar]

This is unacceptable in my opinion. The teacher's position should always remain neutral whenever possible.

But, I imagine this kind of interaction has been quite common for a number of years, especially after the GOP started support for a reduction or elimination of the Department of Education.

The fact that this interaction was recorded is notable.
I only wish my teachers had been similarly recorded when they were treating certain students poorly.

[olivesmarch4th]

While I don't support the teacher's position, I also don't really see why this warrants disciplinary action. It's not like she threw someone out of her classroom for having a differing political opinion. She just said some stupid shit.
ETA: I can't watch the video right now. Was she screaming or something?

[Joey P]

I didn't listen/watch the whole thing, just the first few minutes, but I think she seemed like an annoying teacher but nothing about seemed like it she needed to be disciplined. Being a bad debater doesn't mean you need to be fired.
Every time she told the kids to knock it off because you can't disrespect the POTUS but Romney is just a candidate I was hoping the kid (who was doing a fine job of holding his own) would have said "Obama is a presidential candidate as well".

[Joey P]

Originally Posted by olivesmarch4th

ETA: I can't watch the video right now. Was she screaming or something?

Yes and no. She wasn't screaming, per se. She was frustrated and seems to have a rather shrill voice. The part I listened to, just the first 3 minutes or so, I don't think anyone would have heard her from more then 10 feet away from a closed door.

[Gyrate]

I couldn't stand to listen to much of that but from what I heard, the teacher had completely lost control of her class. It's not that she was winning or losing the argument - both sides were presenting some pretty stupid statements - but that she shouldn't have been engaging in sophomoric squabbles at all.

[Lightnin']

Originally Posted by Terr

... no disciplinary action has been taken against the teacher.

What disciplinary action would you suggest should be taken against the teacher, and why, exactly?

[Happy Lendervedder]

Very bad decision on the part of the teacher. She lost control of the conversation.


Moving on.

[Martin Hyde]

Originally Posted by Gagundathar

This is unacceptable in my opinion. The teacher's position should always remain neutral whenever possible.

But, I imagine this kind of interaction has been quite common for a number of years, especially after the GOP started support for a reduction or elimination of the Department of Education.

The fact that this interaction was recorded is notable.
I only wish my teachers had been similarly recorded when they were treating certain students poorly.

Your point about the DOE is baseless, education has always been overwhelmingly a State and Local thing in this country, the DOE is mostly a toothless waste and always has been. It has nothing to do with classroom behavior of teachers and never has.

[Revtim]

Well, that's kind of a fresh chunk of bullshit, it's the first time I've heard the "don't criticize the sitting president" shit be applied to anybody but Bush.

It's still stupid bullshit of course, just a bit different. Different chunks of corn in it maybe. Do bulls eat corn?

[Terr]

Originally Posted by Lightnin'

What disciplinary action would you suggest should be taken against the teacher, and why, exactly?

Fired for utter ignorance of her subject.

[MsRobyn]

Social studies teachers are the ones most likely to have to teach controversial subject matter, and it's often a matter of walking on eggshells. Teachers are trained to be neutral, and if they aren't trained, they learn real quick-like.

That being said, I can see teaching respect for the office of POTUS no matter who occupies it. However, to expect kids to respect one specific president over another isn't professional. Of course, I wouldn't have chosen that "Fact of the Day" because it is so loaded. But I don't see any evidence of lack of understanding of content, just overwhelmingly obvious (and blind) partisanship. She should be spoken to and required to remediate, but it's not a firing offense.

[Gagundathar]

Originally Posted by Martin Hyde

Your point about the DOE is baseless, education has always been overwhelmingly a State and Local thing in this country, the DOE is mostly a toothless waste and always has been. It has nothing to do with classroom behavior of teachers and never has.

That does not match up with the opinions of the several teachers that I know.
However, your mileage may vary.

[TriPolar]

This teacher was out of line. I had one teacher very much like that in elementary school. He got called on it a couple of times. Teachers in public schools ought to keep their political opinions under wraps, and in any discussion where political views are validly discussed, all students should have a chance to present their own opinions. No evaluation or comparison of students or teachers personal opinions should occur based on their content.

Maybe the teacher made a mistake in this case, but a pattern of this behavior would warrent dismissal, if the school had the sense to draw classroom guidelines about this kind of behavior. Which if they haven't done, they should do now.

[Lightnin']

Originally Posted by Terr

Fired for utter ignorance of her subject.

Can you name other ways in which she is "utterly ignorant" of the subject she teaches, or is defense of Obama the only thing that drives you to outrage?

[Terr]

Originally Posted by Lightnin'

Can you name other ways in which she is "utterly ignorant" of the subject she teaches, or is defense of Obama the only thing that drives you to outrage?

"defense of Obama"? How about ignorance of the US Constitution?

[MsRobyn]

Originally Posted by Terr

"defense of Obama"? How about ignorance of the US Constitution?

How is that ignorance of the Constitution? There is nothing in there that says that you have to defend a president, sitting or previous, or that you can't say bad things about a president, sitting or previous. In fact, if anything, the First Amendment to the Constitution says we can. It's just not professional to do so when you're teaching a class.

If I'm wrong, then please enlighten me with chapter and verse from the Constitution, not some right-wing blog.

[Lobohan]

The teacher shouldn't get into shrill political debates, I'd say. But she's right in that there is no comparison between Obama's bullying, pushing a girl when he was what, ten? And Romneys bullying, getting a gang of high school senior jocks to hold a "sissy" down while they publicly humiliated him by crudely cutting his hair while he screamed for help and openly wept.

Children push each other. Only complete twats get gangs together to publicly humiliate and assault people they perceive as homosexual.

[Scumpup]

Originally Posted by Gagundathar

That does not match up with the opinions of the several teachers that I know.
However, your mileage may vary.

Teacher here for going on 30 years. DOE controls some funding, mainly for special education, and otherwise is pretty well invisible to a classroom teacher. Teachers who believe it controls their behavior probably also believe the CIA is monitoring their personal phone calls.

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by MsRobyn

How is that ignorance of the Constitution?

Because the Constitution protects the right of citizens to criticize - in this dimbulb teacher's terms, to "disrespect" - a sitting President.

She is also ignorant of her subject because she claimed, falsely, that the student could be arrested for criticizing Obama, and that others were arrested for criticizing Bush. Both statements are (obviously) false.

Regards,
Shodan

[Martin Hyde]

Originally Posted by Scumpup

Teacher here for going on 30 years. DOE controls some funding, mainly for special education, and otherwise is pretty well invisible to a classroom teacher. Teachers who believe it controls their behavior probably also believe the CIA is monitoring their personal phone calls.

Right, the DOE is a funding vehicle, which isn't a bad thing and some of its programs do good work that help school districts in ways they can't help themselves by infusing capital from outside the tax base of the district. However some programs they have impose costs and procedures on the recipients which can sometimes offset the benefit of receiving the money or even make it a net loss.

The majority of funding comes either from State or local (different States have different schemes, in West Virginia for example most school funding is county then state then federal, in Ohio it's municipal then state then federal.) The rules are mostly drawn up at the state and district level, which would in theory (but not practice) control teacher in classroom behavior.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by MsRobyn

How is that ignorance of the Constitution? There is nothing in there that says that you have to defend a president, sitting or previous, or that you can't say bad things about a president, sitting or previous. In fact, if anything, the First Amendment to the Constitution says we can. It's just not professional to do so when you're teaching a class.

If I'm wrong, then please enlighten me with chapter and verse from the Constitution, not some right-wing blog.

OK, I will.

1. The First Amendment to the US Constitution provides, in pertinent part, that Congress shall make no law "...abridging the freedom of speech..."

2. The Fourteenth Amendment makes the First Amendment applicable to the states. Accord Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947).

3. The First Amendment applies to public schools, and students do not "...shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." See Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969). In order to regulate speech in a public school setting, officials must show that the forbidden speech, if permitted, would "...materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school." To claim that Romney can be criticized for bullying but Obama cannot in no way comes close to meeting that standard.

OK?

[MsRobyn]

Originally Posted by Shodan

Because the Constitution protects the right of citizens to criticize - in this dimbulb teacher's terms, to "disrespect" - a sitting President.

She is also ignorant of her subject because she claimed, falsely, that the student could be arrested for criticizing Obama, and that others were arrested for criticizing Bush. Both statements are (obviously) false.

Regards,
Shodan

I missed that part, but she's not entirely wrong. If I were to say that "Bush is a shithead," I can't be arrested, because that's free speech. On the other hand, if I were to say, "I hate Bush so much that I'd put a bullet in his head if I had the chance," the Secret Service may well pay you a visit that may or may not include you walking out in handcuffs. (Note to the Secret Service: This is purely a hypothetical. I have no intention of shooting either of the Bushes.)

I'm not disputing whether she's an idiot, because she clearly is. It's just that criticizing the president may well lead to arrest, given the right set of circumstances.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Lobohan

The teacher shouldn't get into shrill political debates, I'd say. But she's right in that there is no comparison between Obama's bullying, pushing a girl when he was what, ten? And Romneys bullying, getting a gang of high school senior jocks to hold a "sissy" down while they publicly humiliated him by crudely cutting his hair while he screamed for help and openly wept.

Children push each other. Only complete twats get gangs together to publicly humiliate and assault people they perceive as homosexual.

That's not my complaint about the teacher. She has every right to hold the opinion that the two claims of bullying are not of the same caliber. Indeed, I agree with her. Wholly apart from the nature of the acts, anything done at age ten cannot be compared in terms of culpability with something done at age 16 or 17.

No, the complaint is that she has no right, under the Constitution, to stifle the argument of anyone arguing differently. In other words, she cannot threaten a student who argues that Obama's a bully with arrest, toothless a threat though it may be, because that has a chilling effect on argument and is not permitted of a public school. See Tinker, cited above.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by MsRobyn

I missed that part, but she's not entirely wrong. If I were to say that "Bush is a shithead," I can't be arrested, because that's free speech. On the other hand, if I were to say, "I hate Bush so much that I'd put a bullet in his head if I had the chance," the Secret Service may well pay you a visit that may or may not include you walking out in handcuffs. (Note to the Secret Service: This is purely a hypothetical. I have no intention of shooting either of the Bushes.)

I'm not disputing whether she's an idiot, because she clearly is. It's just that criticizing the president may well lead to arrest, given the right set of circumstances.

No. The criticism in your example does not lead to an arrest. It's the addition of the threat that does so. You are free to criticize all you like. And in any event, the compliant is that you cannot forbid criticism of one presidential candidate while permitting it for another, as this teacher has done, even if one candidate is also the sitting president.

[Terr]

Originally Posted by MsRobyn

How is that ignorance of the Constitution? There is nothing in there that says that you have to defend a president, sitting or previous, or that you can't say bad things about a president, sitting or previous. In fact, if anything, the First Amendment to the Constitution says we can. It's just not professional to do so when you're teaching a class.

Apparently you didn't listen to the video. She claimed that if you badmouth a president, you can be charged and imprisoned for it. That shows utter ignorance of the Constitution.

[MsRobyn]

Originally Posted by MsRobyn

I missed that part, but she's not entirely wrong. If I were to say that "Bush is a shithead," I can't be arrested, because that's free speech that's protected by the First Amendment. On the other hand, if I were to say, "I hate Bush so much that I'd put a bullet in his head if I had the chance," the Secret Service may well pay you me a visit that may or may not include you me walking out in handcuffs. (Note to the Secret Service: This is purely a hypothetical. I have no intention of shooting either of the Bushes.)

I'm not disputing whether she's an idiot, because she clearly is. It's just that criticizing the president may well lead to arrest, given the right set of circumstances.

FTFM.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

I can't watch the video right now; I'm going to stipulate that the descriptions y'all have given are accurate.

I want her out of my profession.

I want teachers who know the crap out of their subjects, who are intelligent, who are articulate enough to explain complex subjects to students in an appropriate way. I do not want my colleagues to be intellectually and ethically bankrupt placeholders who instill their students with a loathing of the intellectual world.

This goes to my belief about education: it should be as well-paid, as respected, and as difficult a job as practicing law. It should not be something people get into because it's their best chance at a middle-class job; it should be what the best and brightest decide to do.

As long as we pay teachers poorly, we'll have to accept teachers like her; as long as we accept teachers like her, we'll never end up respecting the profession.

[Dendarii Dame]

What are some of the other "fact(s) of the day" that this teacher has presented? Are they always about political figures?

[Pixel_Dent]

Maybe she just forgot that the Sedition Act expired over 200 years ago?

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by MsRobyn

I missed that part, but she's not entirely wrong. If I were to say that "Bush is a shithead," I can't be arrested, because that's free speech. On the other hand, if I were to say, "I hate Bush so much that I'd put a bullet in his head if I had the chance," the Secret Service may well pay you a visit that may or may not include you walking out in handcuffs.

No, she is entirely wrong. "Criticism" and even "disrespect" are different from "threats".

A teacher who does not know that is entirely unsuited for any role in the classroom besides that of "bad example".

Regards,
Shodan

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

As long as we pay teachers poorly, we'll have to accept teachers like her...

No, we don't. This is because

1. I have no idea what she is making, except the certain knowledge that it is way too much
2. Increasing her salary would do nothing at all to drive this moron back to the fast food franchise where she belongs - just the opposite in fact.
3. Did you read the linked article? Nothing disciplinary is being done to this buffoon. That's the issue that should be addressed.

Merit pay for teachers may be a fine idea, but only if those who don't have merit don't get paid.

Regards,
Shodan

[mckall]

Originally Posted by Shodan

[*]Increasing her salary would do nothing at all to drive this moron back to the fast food franchise where she belongs - just the opposite in fact. Merit pay for teachers may be a fine idea, but only if those who don't have merit don't get paid.

Regards,
Shodan

It would certainly push her towards the bottom of the hiring lists when it comes to choosing and hiring candidates. We don't get into it for the money, but I have collegues who are staying on staff because there are few other options. So increasing the salary, thereby making it more enticing, could easily lead to better qualified and higher quality teachers.

Merit Pay, if there is a viable way to get it done without teaching to testing for the sole purpose of making money, I'd love it.

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by Shodan

Increasing her salary would do nothing at all to drive this moron back to the fast food franchise where she belongs - just the opposite in fact.

Regards,
Shodan

You don't get this supply and demand stuff, do you? In your business, do you recruit the best people by reducing salaries? When I went to school teachers got good salaries, and the vast majority of my teachers were very smart. My AP History teacher did do discussions, but he usually won. Anyhow he got arrested for sassing a cop during the New York school strike, so we lived him.

Yes friends, conservatism and economic illiteracy do go hand in hand.

[drewtwo99]

Former teacher chiming in.

This teacher handled the situation very, very poorly and let it get out of hand. She was factually incorrect about the law, and unprofessional. She definitely deserves to be reviewed and put on an improvement plan. I don't think she should be fired outright over it, but perhaps given a year or two to improve, before being let go.

It's really, really, really hard to be a teacher, so I have some sympathy for her. Not much, but some. A lot of people really want to be teachers, and they even want to be good teachers, but it takes time.

I admit that if she doesn't improve, she doesn't belong in the classroom. But I think she deserves a chance.

As for the side discussion going on, I'm all for increasing teacher pay IF the requirements to become a teacher a lot more stringent (like they are for a lawyer or doctor). However, I think you're going to have a really hard time attracting people to the job anyway. Hell, even if someone offered me $100K a year to go back to teaching, which is a hell of a lot more than I make now in my private sector job, I still don't know if I'd do it.

[kayT]

I wouldn't go back to teaching if they offered me a million dollars a minute.

PS Revtim bulls do definitely eat corn.

[mhendo]

Originally Posted by Shodan

Merit pay for teachers may be a fine idea, but only if those who don't have merit don't get paid.

But if the pay, merit-based or otherwise, were better, then teaching would attract better candidates at the training stage, when college students are choosing their majors and their career direction.

If you're going to introduce merit-based pay, you also need a reasonable system to evaluate what good teaching looks like. Right now, basically the only measure is performance on standards-based test, many of which do a very poor job of actually testing a student's understanding of the material, and also aren't very good at assessing higher-level skills and reasoning. If you want to evaluate teachers properly, that itself will cost some money, because you need to do more than look at test results.

As for this teacher, at a minimum i think she should be told in no uncertain terms that this sort of political partisanship is unacceptable in the classroom. Some form of discipline would be appropriate, but if this was an isolated incident i'm not sure that firing is appropriate. I'll repeat here what i said in the Pit thread about this incident:

Originally Posted by mhendo

For this teacher? I'm not sure what the solution should be. But i can tell you unequivocally that if this is the most ignorant thing that she's ever said in the classroom, then she's probably no worse than the person who might replace her.

I don't say this because i have a hard-on for teachers. I think teaching is an incredibly important profession, and i've worked with school teachers who are models of intelligence, curiosity, thoughtfulness and erudition. But i've also spent a considerable amount of time over the past couple of years teaching college students who are hoping to become school teachers, and it's amazing how much these people don't know. More troubling than that, however, is how uninterested some of them are in alleviating their ignorance.

I'm not just talking about factual questions here, but basic skills such as writing a coherent sentence; understanding how to use apostrophes; knowing the difference between "their" and "there" and "they're"; correct use of subject/verb agreement; and a whole bunch of other things they should know before Grade 9. I'm not talking about the occasional typo here; i'm talking about students who don't know this stuff, and who also think that it really doesn't matter, and that i'm just an asshole for taking their writing skills into account when grading their papers.

They're even worse when it comes to higher level skills like synthesizing an argument, using evidence to draw a conclusion, or comparing and contrasting texts in order to identify similarities and differences.

I'm generalizing, of course. Every class contains some students who do all this stuff well, and who are also curious and committed and engaged. Many of them will, i think, make fine teachers. But in other cases? It's pretty depressing when the person who is going to be teaching 8th grade students consistently demonstrates a level of writing ability and cognitive skill that is barely above grade 8 levels.

Of course, there are economic issues at play here as well. The American taxpayers have, in many states and local jurisdictions, made clear that they want smart, qualified, professional, and committed teachers, but have also continued to chip away at education funding to the extent that students who have these qualities are less and less likely to be interested in the job. Taxpayers and legislators increasingly choose to pay peanuts, and are shocked and surprised when the system attracts a few monkeys.

Originally Posted by mckall

It would certainly push her towards the bottom of the hiring lists when it comes to choosing and hiring candidates.

Is that always the case?

Here in San Diego, the city's Unified School District has laid off hundreds of teachers recently due to budget problems, and those layoffs are done based on nothing but seniority. Last year, i worked on a federally-funded grant program to improve the teaching of American History in county schools, and one of the teachers i worked with, a fabulous teacher who won a county-wide and a state-wide award for her teaching, was pink-slipped because she lacked seniority.

Originally Posted by mckall

Merit Pay, if there is a viable way to get it done without teaching to testing for the sole purpose of making money, I'd love it.

Absolutely.

The problem is that the people calling for merit-based pay are often the same ones who think that NCLB-style standardized testing is the proper way to measure educational outcomes and teacher quality.

[Eonwe]

Originally Posted by Shodan

No, we don't. This is because

1. I have no idea what she is making, except the certain knowledge that it is way too much
2. Increasing her salary would do nothing at all to drive this moron back to the fast food franchise where she belongs - just the opposite in fact.

Regards,
Shodan

I know this is a bit of a hijack, and others have addressed this already, but high salaries attract more qualified workers in just about every other profession (even unionized professions), why wouldn't it work in education?

[Eonwe]

Originally Posted by mhendo

Here in San Diego, the city's Unified School District has laid off hundreds of teachers recently due to budget problems, and those layoffs are done based on nothing but seniority. Last year, i worked on a federally-funded grant program to improve the teaching of American History in county schools, and one of the teachers i worked with, a fabulous teacher who won a county-wide and a state-wide award for her teaching, was pink-slipped because she lacked seniority.

Yep. The 'seniority' thing is, in my opinion, the #1 reason that bad teachers stay in their jobs. I have seen many good teachers lose their jobs when cuts come, while mediocre teachers stay, because of their dates of hire.

Of course, the question becomes, "how do we determine and document who is a 'good' teacher and who isn't, and how do we provide resources and feedback so faculty can improve their teaching skills?" Clearly NCLB and standardized student testing is an ineffective way.

[That Don Guy]

Originally Posted by mhendo

The problem is that the people calling for merit-based pay are often the same ones who think that NCLB-style standardized testing is the proper way to measure educational outcomes and teacher quality.

How would you measure "merit"?

For that matter, what stops a school from giving certain teachers the best students so that they would be favored in any learning-based measurement of "merit"?

(Excuse me for a moment while I turn my Urban Legend alarm off, as I am about to use one of its "trigger phrases")
I have heard that even having observers in classrooms for purposes of observing teachers can be abused through "cronyism" within a school district.

In most occupations, merit pay is an excellent idea, but in teaching, it's almost impossible to determine fairly, since it depends on the students. I even remember one case where students threatened to do poorly on a state exam (which, in part, determined how much funding the school would receive) unless there was something in it for them. "You want Merit Pay? We want a 10% cut!"

[suranyi]

Originally Posted by That Don Guy

How would you measure "merit"?

For that matter, what stops a school from giving certain teachers the best students so that they would be favored in any learning-based measurement of "merit"?

(Excuse me for a moment while I turn my Urban Legend alarm off, as I am about to use one of its "trigger phrases")
I have heard that even having observers in classrooms for purposes of observing teachers can be abused through "cronyism" within a school district.

In most occupations, merit pay is an excellent idea, but in teaching, it's almost impossible to determine fairly, since it depends on the students. I even remember one case where students threatened to do poorly on a state exam (which, in part, determined how much funding the school would receive) unless there was something in it for them. "You want Merit Pay? We want a 10% cut!"

Yes, this is the essential problem with all merit pay programs that have been proposed, at least that I know of. They all rely to some degree on the performance of students on tests, and students do not have any incentive to do well on those tests. In fact, they often have an incentive to do badly.

[mhendo]

Originally Posted by That Don Guy

How would you measure "merit"?

For that matter, what stops a school from giving certain teachers the best students so that they would be favored in any learning-based measurement of "merit"?

(Excuse me for a moment while I turn my Urban Legend alarm off, as I am about to use one of its "trigger phrases")
I have heard that even having observers in classrooms for purposes of observing teachers can be abused through "cronyism" within a school district.

These are all valid concerns. This is not an easy problem to solve, and i certainly don't pretend to have all the answers.

As you suggest, eliminating test-based assessment and replacing it with in-class observers might just replace one set of problems with another. Not only is there the possibility of cronyism, but you run into the concern that most teachers (good or bad) cannot be adequately evaluated during one or two lessons. The best teacher in the world can have a bad day, and a truly awful teacher can put together a good lesson if he or she knows that the evaluation is coming.

A key problem here is that the people who do nothing but scream for higher test scores aren't even willing to have an intelligent conversation on this issue. It's all about the scores, with little consideration of what actually constitutes good pedagogy, or whether there might be better ways to assess the quality of teaching.

[Scumpup]

I taught in a Texas district that had merit pay. Building principals got a certain amount each year they could award in 500 dollar increments. Purely coincedantal, one supposes, that the meritorious teachers were also the ones who were personal friends with the principals.

[etv78]

How is "graduating from HS" NOT incentive to pass the tests?

[Rick]

Originally Posted by Bricker

That's not my complaint about the teacher. She has every right to hold the opinion that the two claims of bullying are not of the same caliber. Indeed, I agree with her. Wholly apart from the nature of the acts, anything done at age ten cannot be compared in terms of culpability with something done at age 16 or 17.

No, the complaint is that she has no right, under the Constitution, to stifle the argument of anyone arguing differently. In other words, she cannot threaten a student who argues that Obama's a bully with arrest, toothless a threat though it may be, because that has a chilling effect on argument and is not permitted of a public school. See Tinker, cited above.

So when I was a senior I took government from a teacher who was a bit to the right of Hitler. I used to believe he thought Barry Goldwater was too liberal to be president.
Anyway he and I would get into it in class over various items. He thought Nixon was wonderful (this was during tricky Dicks first term). I didn't think so.
In these discussions, which often last half the period, I would often hand him hiss ass and sometimes he would hand me mine. A good percentage of the time it was a draw.
Anyway at the end of the year I got an A and he wrote in my yearbook I was the best student he had ever had in his class.
Anybody else see a difference between my teacher and this one?

[mhendo]

Originally Posted by etv78

How is "graduating from HS" NOT incentive to pass the tests?

Has anyone argued that it isn't?

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by Rick

So when I was a senior I took government from a teacher who was a bit to the right of Hitler. I used to believe he thought Barry Goldwater was too liberal to be president.
Anyway he and I would get into it in class over various items. He thought Nixon was wonderful (this was during tricky Dicks first term). I didn't think so.
In these discussions, which often last half the period, I would often hand him hiss ass and sometimes he would hand me mine. A good percentage of the time it was a draw.
Anyway at the end of the year I got an A and he wrote in my yearbook I was the best student he had ever had in his class.
Anybody else see a difference between my teacher and this one?

Heh--I almost wrote about the same teacher (was his name Mr. Hicks, by any chance?) I never had him, but given my anti-war tabling in the high school cafeteria during the first Gulf War, I had my share of run-ins with him. And he subbed for the truly incompetent social studies teacher I did have at one point, and I had run-ins with him then, too.

When I say he was far to the right, I mean he said things like, "Slavery is the best thing that ever happened to black people, because it introduced them to civilization and Christianity." That's not hyperbole; that's as close to an exact quote as I can get, two decades removed.

But the awesome thing was how open he was to discussion. He taught in a highly liberal school, and he delighted in provoking us liberal kids into fits of apoplexy. And when one of us made a solid argument, he'd compliment it. I remember when my girlfriend of the time wrote a paper for his class in which she talked about being lesbian (long story, don't ask); he gave her an A on it, despite his loudly-professed belief that homosexuality ought to remain a felony.

I'm not sure that I approve of his approach. In fact, I'm pretty sure I don't. But there's a massive difference between his approach and the teacher's in the OP.

And Shodan, I'm all about merit pay if you can propose a strategy for measuring it that's less soul-crushing than EOG tests (I've spent the last two months crushing souls instead of teaching; it's thoroughly miserable for all parties concerned, and I desperately hope I can get in a few days of actual teaching before the school year ends instead of just endlessly drilling kids on multiple choice test strategies). I'm pretty arrogant about my teaching and I want money for it, to be totally blunt, and I think merit-pay would favor me.

But I have stories from college about folks going into the profession. When you've got folks willing to get four-year degrees for a profession, and when the pay for the profession is so meager compared to that for other four-year degrees, you'll get some folks who are in it for the benefits; some folks who are in it for the passion; and some folks who are in it because it's the best money they can make given their brains, work ethic, and personality.

THe first group? Meh. The second group? Yay. The third group? Oh hell no, you don't want them teaching your kid. But they're out there; they're in the schools. If the profession paid better, principals wouldn't hire them, because there'd be such better competition for the jobs.

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by etv78

How is "graduating from HS" NOT incentive to pass the tests?

The tests are given long before graduating from high school is a worry. I live across the street from an elementary school, and they have banners up about testing. And they are hardly at risk of getting funding cut because of bad scores.

[Terr]

The teacher was suspended. Too bad she wasn't fired and the suspension is with pay.

[etv78]

Originally Posted by mhendo

Has anyone argued that it isn't?

suranyi is making that argument vis-a-vis merit pay.