If the shoe fits…
I don’t understand this.
I just asked my younger son what he has learned in his North Texas schools - he will be a Junior in high school this fall. Evolution and the Holocaust were taught as straight facts with no controversy mentioned. He and his older brother were taught in junior high (before 2018) that slavery was not a cause for the Civil War. Fortunately, I went to school in Kansas and I was able to give them the straight dope.
Sex ed did devote most of their time to abstinence. His geography teacher told them that climate change is a hoax and the world is actually getting colder but, in fairness, I don’t know if that was district policy or his own beliefs - he was kind of an idiot; thankfully he’s moved on.
Again, I don’t think Holocaust denialism is to the point where you can’t teach the Holocaust as fact; I just understand why a timid administrator might be afraid it was.
Ultimately, local standards rule. I’m in an urban North Texas high school and I can pretty much teach truth. But I know full well that there are teachers who can’t make bald statements of fact about these things without repercussion.
Not directed at you Manda JO. But directed at those that don’t want to teach human evolution.
IMHO, they need to evolve a bit to understand science. They have not evolved, so the shoe fits.
I’ve never known a science teacher who didn’t want to teach it (though I am sure they exist). It’s always been an administrator whi didn’t want a parent in the office yelling "Do you have teachers here who aren’t SAVED? ! ? ! "
I could be misreading, but I don’t think you understand evolution.
Living things reproduce.
There is variation in the offspring.
Those that are the most fit survive and reproduce.
Evolving can mean growing smaller and dumber. The ancestors of the mole had eyes. “evolve a bit to understand science” is a fallacy.
It would have backed him had the exchange gone public. However, had he said it to the wrong parent, and the parent went over his head… well, no need to make the internal matter of disciplining a principal public.
You all are misinterpreting and reading WAY to much into my ‘If the shoe fits’ comment. It was directed overall to people that refuse science. All of them.
What I read into it was a joke that fell flat.
Same here.
Wait, what!? Teaching actual history is “controversial”?
I could actually see this being a positive move to make it where they are allowed to say it. Make it public how ridiculous it is that this administrator thinks he can’t, have him come out and say that he also thinks this is ridiculous, and maybe this could be changed.
As for my schooling: here in Northwest Arkansas near the turn of the century, I was taught that the Holocaust happened not just as dry fact, but as a horrible time in history, and showing just how evil Hitler was.
However, I was given the ability to opt out of two video productions: watching and discussing Schindler’s List (due to it being a rated R movie) and actual footage from the concentration camps in a documentary. (I did not opt out of the first, but did the second.) Opting out would not prevent us from learning about the Holocaust, just a couple videos.
I really don’t remember as much what we were taught about the Civil War. I do remember that it was always put into context of the slave states and the South not accepting Lincoln, believing him to be an abolitionist. And I remember thinking the South were the bad guys. But I also remember things like “states rights” being brought up, and how the South called it “The War Between the States.”
What I remember most, honestly, is being taught that, while Arkansas joined the Confederacy, that was due to the people down further south with their flat lands ripe for plantations who had slaves, while us up here in the northern mountains of the state had no reason for them, and that our land was such that we were mostly left alone during the conflict. This was new information I hadn’t learned from the various stuff I’d seen about the Civil War before, so it stood out.
But the fact that there was stuff I’d learned before outside of school taints what I know was actually taught in school here. I do remember finding out that slavery was explicitly mentioned in the secession declaration seemed new to me as an adult, so I at least didn’t retain that information before.
Sex education: it all seems a blur, but I know that the various contraceptive methods were mentioned, while also giving percentages saying that abstinence was still the best. And that we had to take home those baby dolls, and got to ask private questions about our bodies, being separated into male-only and female-only classes for like a week in health class, and one day in junior high.
And, finally, as for evolution: I specifically remember two things: one biology teacher mostly skipping over the parts our biology book that got into evolutionary time scales, and my earlier junior high AP life sciences teacher making a bit speech about how evolution was 100% a fact, and that this was not in way challenging anyone’s religious beliefs. She just showed us the things we knew actually happened. She even stood on her desk (in one of those tiered classrooms) to tell us. So I honestly can’t tell you what we were allowed to learn on that topic.
In addendum, as an aside while going back down my memory lane: I just now realized the books my civics teacher would read to us in class once a week were likely those on a banned list. It now all makes sense why this happened in Civics in all classes. Before I just thought it was hard to have a full semester on the required curriculum, so she gave us one day to work on homework rather than teach. (She read at least The Chocolate War and Tangerine, two books that I actually now have very mixed up in my head. I only figured out they were different books when I looked them up just now.)
I think it might be in Fklorida.
This isn’t simply a matter of an overly-cautious principal. It’s a matter of state law and has been since 1946. Latson should have been aware of the law, and if he wasn’t, he should have looked it up before responding to the email:
Latson told the parent, "I do allow information about the Holocaust to be presented and allow students and parents to make decisions about it accordingly. I do the same with information about slavery.” [bolding mine]
A principal who believes it’s up to him as to what is allowed to be taught in classrooms has some serious issues in understanding required curriculum and the role of a principal.
After a series of meetings in which he was “counseled” (translation: chewed out) and a mandatory visit to the Holocaust Museum, Latson was reassigned. One hopes it was not to a principalship at another school.
If you think the facts can’t be controversial you’re living in a very, very different world from the rest of us.
If his district wouldn’t stand up for him for speaking the facts, then those district officials should lose their jobs. But that’s not something we have evidence for. And, regardless of whether the district would stand up for him or not, if he’s so cowardly that he can’t say that the Holocaust happened, then he needs to lose his job.
FYI, he was removed as principal (although he’ll be given some other job in the school district).
I think this is exactly what happened. acts?
(Ignore the act? above)
Sure. The mentioned “slavery was the cause of the Civil War” is very controversial - not at all by the way among Historians who take it as established fact (you can always find someone who disagrees, but its like climate change, the vast majority of American Historians believe slavery was the primary - and perhaps the only - cause of the Civil War). But so are things like the Indian Wars (A very good friend of mine and I get into it every year on the anniversary of the Mankato hangings - he’s a descendant of one of the Natives who was pardoned, I’m a descendant of some of the German homesteaders who were missed in the slaughter.) Was Andrew Jackson a good or bad President? Vietnam. Should we teach about the Chinese Exclusion Act or the Japanese Internment? How much time should be dedicated to what topics?
How about another fact that is overlooked - Lincoln had no intention of freeing the slaves when he took office. Stating such tends to tarnish the image of Lincoln, so its often left out.