teachers suspended for making kids think

I have to run to my teaching class but I heard this on the news this morning, and I am so angry I can spit. Ok this is not good in terms of how to start a pit, But I spend hours a day trying to figure out how to get students to use their brains and this is the bullshit we have to fight.

http://www.aauthorityofwomenheart.com/news/data/1_ds_390103.asp

Dreadful.

There seems to be a tremendous lurch towards groupthink in the USA these days.

Didn’t Beavis and Butthead attend Highland High?

This quote is certainly wrong:

This has nothing to do with rights. It’s a question of educational philosophy.

Right in one. In fact, that exact Highland High.

Hey, it’s APS. Stupidity is expected.

I never could understand why some school administrators overreact to such a radical degree. Their reaction always draws more negative attention than whatever they are reacting to in the first place. So what if those posters are there? Leave 'em up. No one cares. But then they have to flex their muscle and tear them down
It’s not as if students are blocking the halls with their bodies or anything. In fact, with a little imagination and initiative, an intelligent debate might ensue wherein kids could actually learn something about current events from a different source besides MTV.

But “imagination” and “initiative” are two things I never learned in school.

Too true, Lizard. However, I think many administrations are terribly fearful of the repercussions of allowing these things when it comes to litigeously zealous parents and community members rather than just “flexing muscles.”

I agree. Rather than the “school” (whoever that is) being some sort of reactionary monster, it sounds more like fear of litigation and controversy. In my experience, school policy usually reflects a combination of the strength of the superintendent and the activisim of parents.

Weak superintendent + loud asshole parents = Repressive policies.

Public school board meetings are some of the nastiest scenarios I’ve ever seen. I admire the stand of the teachers in questions, but I’ve been on the receiving end of parents spewing vile nonsense (in my case, variations of “Evolution is just a theory, and, oh, by the way – you’re going to hell”), and it’s an experience I don’t wish to repeat.

Sorry: " . . . teachers in question."

Tinker v Des Moines – schoolkids have 1st amendment right to wear black armbands to protest Vietnam war in school.

Hazelwood School District – school has right to edit school newspaper to remove content about sexuality and drugs.

Are these posters more like black armbands or more like a school newspaper? While we might think that the jsutification for removing the posters is pretty weak, I think that the posters are not constitutionally protected speech. Wearing black armbands is pure speech – it’s speech that could be done anywhere but is done in school only because the kids are forced to attend school by anti-truancy laws. A school newspaper is a school-sponsored activity with educational goals. I think that these posters are more like the school newspaper than the wearing of black armbands. It seems to be school-sponsored speech, instigated by the teacher for pedagogical purposes. Schools should have lots of leeway (relative to federal judges, at least) in deciding what are proper pedagogical purposes.

Moreover, the school removed both pro- and anti-war posters. At least the speech restriction was viewpoint neutral. The school is not favoring one political message over another, it’s simply restricting the forum of the classroom and declaring it off limits for certain kinds of political expression. The school should have rights to determine the scope of school-sponsored discussion. Having something in the school newspaper, a school play, or on posters on classroom walls places the school’s imprimatur on the speech.
But all that being said, even if I think the school had every right to do what they did, I think you’ve got to wonder about the school’s view of its educational mission. Shouldn’t the school be a place where important world events are discussed in a civilized and well-reasoned way? But while I’m inclined to second-guess the school’s decision, I guess I’d have to admit that this should probably turn on facts not at my disposal. How old were the kids? What is the maturity level? What is the curriculum for the class? Do we trust these particular teachers to handle this well? And so on and so forth.

I must’ve missed the part where the teacher “made the kids think”. “No War Mr. Cooper”- hope he didn’t rack his brain all night for that one.

I’ve never thought of getting my artwork displayed on the school walls as a right- The principal can choose what goes on the walls of his/her school. If the students want to scan a pic of their art and transfer it to a t-shirt and wear that t-shirt to school, more power to 'em. Claiming that not displaying their posters was “taking away their right to have a voice” is stupid and displays a poor understanding of civics.

Schools are not supposed to make students think. They are supposed to mass produce good little consumers and soldiers who won’t question anything the government or media tell them.

I understand that this whole war is rather controvesial, etc. But what else are students supposed to discuss in a current events class? The morning traffic report? The week’s school board meeting? I see these posters as relevant to the class they were in. I know that my opinion does not matter at all here, but I don’t see an intelligent argument to the logic.

If you can show me a logical argument in this case, please do.

Now I am home, and can post some of the reasons this article distressed me.

First off, if you can’t discuss controversial issues in a current events class, what the fuck are you going to talk about. First you can’t talk about the war. OOPs now you can’t talk about school choice. Darn affermative action is out. Ok. students take your pen and papers out and write me an essay about … umm lets do math. There is nothing that I can see that someone wouldn’t find controversial. Hell there is still a flat world society.

Second many students of all ages have questions and thoughts about the war. They hear their parrents talk. It is on the news. Somehow, It seems to me, that as a responsible teacher that has to come up in class. My views on the war probably aren’t appropriate, but a forum which shows many of the aspects of the war sure should be. Maybe part of the discussion should be challenging overly simplistic ideas, but if you can’t even bring it up where does that leave you. I think it eventualy leaves you with a citizenry that has no ability to keep a democracy running.

Thirdly, because a large portion of todays volunteer army is minority, and because the likelyhood is I will be teaching at an inner city high school, the fact is that the decision to go to war will probably impact them more. I want more input on how to introduce controversial subjects and keeping the classroom civil rather than just excluding the difficult questions.

The free speach issue is probably unlikely to be upholdable in court, but in terms of ability to teach, students have to be able to trust that their oppinions will be heard in class, and that they are safe from retribution. What the school has taught these students about living in a society seems to be extreemly damaging.

furlibosea, who says that they can’t talk about the war in current events class? I just reread the article, and all that was said was that the teachers were ordered to take down the posters and were suspended for refusing – not that the teachers were ordered not to discuss the war or anything else and were suspended for refusing. Your OP indicates that you heard a radio address about this story, so maybe the article doesn’t contain the full story. It just looks to me like the school – for some asshat or innocuous reason – doesn’t want pro- or anti-war posters on classroom walls, regardless of the existence or absence of pro- or anti-war discussions in classrooms.

Asshat reason school ordered posters taken down: “We’re craven and don’t want students to think about anything that might cause them to moo and butt up against the pens before we lead them to the slaughterhouse.”

Innocuous reason school ordered posters taken down: “We’re having open house night and we don’t want parents to see the posters because they’re amateurish, and we don’t want parents to interrogate the teachers about what their children are being told about the war instead of hearing how little Johnny is failing geography (and can’t even find Iraq on a map).” OR “We paid $3000 in taxpayer money to buy these posters of Great Intellectuals, we want to put them up in every classroom and so we need these other posters taken down, and we can’t store these posters behind the copy machine in the facilities room anymore because the heat is ruining them.”

Hold the presses… I’m a moron and apparently never learned to read. The last bit of the article states:

So now I’m leaning toward asshat reason rather than innocuous reason. It also seems to be more likely that the removal of posters carries with it a restriction on classroom discussion.

Which, Mr. Hand, would indicate they are even unwilling to so much as discuss it in school. I agree with you.

I think this is very wrong.

So long as the teacher is able to keep the debate on the level, discussion of matter such as the was that our country is in should be rather aprapeu to the subjects they were teaching.

Yeah, spelling.

If a “current affairs” and history class is not a place to discuss the military and social issues happening in the country at that particuar time, what are the kids supposed to do? Sit around at coffee houses?

Mr. Hand: That’s not necessarily what it means. There’s no mention of exactly what the district’s “policy on the presentation of controversial issues” is. I suspect that they don’t want their teachers advocating one position over another. Having a bunch of anti-war posters up in the classroom is pretty clearly advocating the anti-war position. So long there is an equally enforced ban on pro-war posters, I don’t see a problem with this.