And thus was born the Bush Doctrine, something else the teacher should have mentioned.
It could well be argued that since we invaded Iraq ostensibly to prevent the spread of WMD and that we now know that there never were WMD and that even our government knew there were no WMD, that it is in fact an objectively senseless war. Along with the fact that the war has been the single greatest boon to terrorist recruiters and that focusing on Iraq has detrimentally affected our efforts in Afghanistan also support the argument that it is an objectively senseless war. Whatever post hoc rationalization the chicken hawks engage in does not change the fact that it was objectively senseless to invade Iraq.
Stating in succession that Iraq is a senseless war, McCain wants our troops to stay in Iraq for another 100 years, and that means that little girl’s father might need to stay in the military for “another 100 years” creates a pretty inaccurate impression. Let me state it more strongly: it’s bullshit. No mention of what McCain meant by the 100 year presence, combined with scare tactics about what her father’s involvement would be. I don’t see how anyone could hear anything other than “McCain wants this senseless war to continue for another 100 years–and that means your dad is in harm’s way for the duration.” She should be ashamed of herself.
Do you actually read this message board and come to this conclusion?
What do the messages on this board have to do with the rhetoric of the right?
If you can’t see that it’s inappropriate for a teacher to tell a kid that her father is risking his life for nothing then I’m not going to attempt to explain it. Whether it’s true or not is beside the point. It’s damned thoughtless.
Do try.
I wanted to see if he thinks the left-leaning rhetoric, such as that from this board, distinguishes itself from right-wing rhetoric by virtue of how “undivisive” the lefties are in their commentary. “The rhetoric of the right is recognizable by its divisive nature,” if true, means there has been lots and lots of rhetoric from the right on this board that I mistakenly took as coming from left-wing posters. Silly me. 
I disagree with what the teacher did, but I don’t think that quote is accurate. She actually is one of the few people who quotes McCain correctly-- saying something like he will keep troops in Iraq for 100 years if it is necessary. She didn’t say that McCain wants the war to go on for 100 years.
Really?
What would you think, for example, about a teacher who teaches that free market economics is superior to communism or Scandinavian-style democratic socialism? Or a teacher who teaches that American-style democracy is preferable to other political systems?
While education is often held up as an ideally neutral construct, the fact is that schools in America—indeed in most countries—are systems designed specifically to promote particular ideologies, particularly in subject areas where normative, rather than merely positive, conclusions are important.
As it happens, much of the time this causes little or no controversy. But that’s not because of the absence of ideology. It’s merely because the ideology that gets pushed happens to be one that a broad majority of society agrees about. The fact that Americans might prefer democracy does not mean that the promotion and teaching of democracy is a school civics or history class sudenly becomes non-ideological.
I think that part of the problem is that the term ideology itself needs some rescuing. It has taken on the mantle of an epithet, a pejorative even, and is usually used in a context that implies, or states outright, that it is a bad thing. What we need to recognize is that we all partake of certain ideologies, and that just because the way we think about things happens to be the norm or the majority in our society does not mean that we are non-ideological.
And because ideology is present in all of us, it’s inevitable that it will be transferred, to some extent at least, to our children through the education system. That in itself is not necessarily a bad thing. But it also means that there will be times when we debate over exactly what ideology we should be teaching, and how far teachers should go in cases where our society does NOT agree about particular ideologies.
Meh. The earlier kids learn not to automatically trust authority figures, the better.
My 9 year old daughter’s school held a mock election, and, according to her, only 1 student in her class voted for McCain. (and she also reported that almost all the teachers voted for Obama…I don’t feel it’s appropriate for teachers to reveal their preferences, jmho, having BEEN a teacher for many years)
I have mixed feelings about this sort of thing. On the one hand, it is important for kids to be aware of and educated about how our system functions and grow up used to participating.
On the other, there is a real potential for peer (or even TEACHER) pressure and exclusion or teasing, etc…
I reminded my daughter and her classmate who were making fun amongst themselves over the McCain kid that in REAL elections, we have a secret ballot and wondered why that wasn’t the case at school. (of course, I also made it clear that I didn’t consider it ok to mock someone for their vote.)
FTR, I supported Obama, but I’m still concerned at the idea of kids being placed in the position of either lying or being singled out when they “vote” in such exercises.
Oh, and the teacher didn’t tell the kids to vote for Obama. She was clearly anti-McCain, but she did say it was “OK” to vote for him, she just wanted to make sure the kids knew what they were voting for. She certainly overstepped her authority by giving her personal opinion of his politics, but she didn’t tell the kids explicitly to vote for Obama.
She could have altered her delivery just slightly and she would’ve been fine. She could challenge the kids to state why they supported one candidate or the other, and corrected any factual mistakes they made (like saying Obama was a Muslim or that McCain wasn’t a citizen).
I was especially struck by the reaction of the teacher when she found that there was an actual McCain supporter in her class.
“Oh, Jesus!”
Gosh, one of them.
Her demeanor, intonation and body language was clear. Obama good, McCain BAD. Her “oh god, oh jesus” at the two kids that were heard saying they would vote for McCain, just sealed the deal. While I happen to pretty much agree with her, her personal opinion does not belong in a classroom any more than mine does in my newspaper. You give people correct, factual information in a neutral manner, allowing them to make an informed decision on their own. That goes for education as well as decent journalism. And you most certainly don’t tell a young girl that her daddy is going to be away from her for 100 years. Was it rhetoric? Sure. Did it look like that was understood or even mattered to that little girl? That was despicable and in less than poor judgment. Those of you who are saying it wasn’t that bad - put yourself in that child’s shoes. Up until that point, it wasn’t horrible, but it wasn’t good. At that point she clearly crossed a line. I highly doubt that Obama himself would disagree.
So you’re saying it wasn’t the under-18 vote which won for Obama?
My niece will be very disappointed.
I guess “Obama’s advisors” = “Obama” now.
Cite?
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24610359-23109,00.html Yes Bricker that was horrible. Here’s a link to your peeps.
Does that mean you’re a reporter, not an editor? Opinions are part of the human experience. You don’t educate students like they’re a bunch of Gammas in a factory. If you want them to have nothing but facts, then eliminate the human teachers and give the students lists to study and leave it at that. That’s the problem with my own autodidacticism — I never got to hear the opinions of others.
For me, this board has provided much of the context I needed, even though I’ve read a great deal. I think the superintendent outlined the context quite well. I don’t think it would hurt these military hero kids from these military hero families with their military hero teachers to hear an opinion once in a while that differs from the one they hear all day every day. That’s part of what learning is.
Heh–til I saw that your daughter’s 9, I wondered if she were in the second-grade class I teach. We also had a mock election, and there was only 1 person in the class who voted for McCain.
We led up to it with lessons on the ballot, on registration, and on secret votes, so there was the potential for everyone’s vote to be secret. I steadfastly refused to tell the kids who I was voting for, despite their best effort to wheedle or trick the answer out of me. But when only one person votes for McCain, and I put my own vote in the hat, and the girl who voted for McCain has politely made her leanings known, it sort of gives the game away :).
I was very careful through the whole process to treat both sides equally, trying very hard whenever possible to explain both sides of any issue. The only hard time I had was one wheedling session:
“Mr. Dorkness, I’m gonna ask you a question and figure out who you’re voting for. Do you think Obama is a good person?”
“I do. I also think McCain is a good person.”
“Do you think Sarah Palin is a good person?”
“Uh. Um. Uh. I think. I think she’s probably a good person,” I lied.
I don’t think they caught on at that point; it wasn’t until the vote that they figured it out.
This teacher was wholly inappropriate. And Dio, if you think those are statements of fact, you need to sit in on the unit we’re doing now on the difference between fact and opinion. The chairs might be a little short for you, but we always welcome classroom visitors.
Daniel
I’d make a joke about her thinking maybe the kid was the second coming, but she’s already an Obama supporter.