Yes, I'm quite sure that there are bad teachers in the public school system, and some of them will be able to bamboozle their students into thinking that they are good educators. A good educator is not necessarily the most congenial or popular one. This does not suggest to me that the teachers in private systems are necessarily better.
Both of these teachers are, to the best of my knowledge amazing teachers when it comes to measuring their ability to motivate students to obtain high levels of achievement in their courses. I do not question their skill as educators in the least. My point was not that they are bad teachers as much as biased teachers; and that all teachers are biased teachers (although this tends to be less significant in an Algebra class than a sex education unit). Messages get out even when they are not intended. I suggest that all teaching is, at the heart, autobiographical.
Teachers can also teach offensive right-wing agendas, as well. I fear political witch hunts worse than I fear the real witches out there. I think that the witch hunters tend to cause far more harm than their prey. Schools do need to be sensitive to biases in their staff and how that affects the classroom. In fact, I think that they put a lot of pressure on teachers to conform to popular agendas. Nevertheless, this is not such a huge problem for children, who need to be exposed to all of these issues. The problem that we have always had in the US is that we attempt to promote political and religious freedom while simultaneously preventing anyone from discussing religion or politics in public. If we are going to produce critical thinkers, then we have to expose children to attitudes that can be criticized.
But what I am proposing is an attempt to aviod much potential censorship of ideas. Just put it all out on the table. I know Christian public school teachers whose main reason for teaching in the public schools is evangelism, but they hide that fact. I know others with strong agendas to shape the next generation of marxists, atheists, romantics, free-love disciples, and the list goes on. The best teachers tend to enter the profession to make a difference in the lives of kids, and that difference is very often related to the teacher's idividual belief system and political, social, religious, or a-religious agenda.
1) Demand that schools and educators provide candid disclosure,
As long as it does not violate their right to privacy. The issue here is what they bring to the classroom, not what their private biases are. BTW, these same standards should apply to private schools, but private schools can more easily avoid exposure to public scrutiny.
Sure. Although teaching is a public-eye profession and public statements (and actions) in and out of school are important. I disagree on the private schools avoiding scrutiny. They tend to be far more open about what is and is not taught, and teachers can even be fired for actions outside of school. For example, if I were to cheat on my wife, my school can legally fire me for it, becuase I signed a contract to abide by the standards/values of the school.
Quote:
2) Enhance methods of public scrutiny of school curricula,
The PTA already performs this role, so you would need to be clearer about what you mean here. The last thing we want is for parents to set themselves up as censors over what can and cannot be taught in subjects that they themselves have no expertise in.
Most of what is taught in public schools is not known to the parents and guardians. I disagree that most PTAs really engage in meaningful dialogue about the ideas and issues that are explored by students in the classroom, and that these idease are frequently impacting curriculum. I have taken adn taught too many graduate education programs where the instructor, classmates who are administrators, and classmates who are media specialists openly share ways that they intentionally work the thwart efforts to openly discuss curriculum in a public forum.
Quote:
3) Further involve family and community constituents in the debate, and
Again, this seems already to be the case. Education is a hotly debated topic in many communities. For example, efforts to inject religious material into science classes has usually been soundly rejected by the public at large.
Working from your example, I don't think most communities have actually had a lengthy and open debate about issues of religious and areligious agendas in the science curriculum. Yes, some communities have a handful of folks who get fixated on creation/evolution/intelligent design, but very few really seem to have extended dialogue and negotions about the myriad of other potential issues.
Quote:
4) As much as it is fiscally and logistically reasonable, provide school choice for families.
I believe that the current system provides that within reason. It is not reasonable to subsidize private education at the expense of public education.
Ah. This is probably near the center of where we disagree. I believe in the importance of free and available education for all, and that this education should be built upon common standards that promote positive citizenship, thinking skills, etc. I further support options, within reason for families. Right now, many families spend $5,000-15,000 a year for excellent private educations, and yet the public schools benefit (they get tax money from these families and they don't have to pay to educate the kid). Graduates of these schools become presidents, leading scientists, and highly positive contributors to society.
If all of the private schools in the country were to close today, and the public schools would need to provide and education for these former private school students, what do you think that would do to public schools, taxes, etc.? If a student is getting equal or better academic preparation in the private school, why not let that school take part of the tax money allocated for the education of the child? Why not just give people choices on where they send their kids and the allocated tax money for the education of those kids? Sure it would shake things up in the public schools, but maybe a little competition in this form would be good for all involved. Free and avaialble education to all is, in my opinion, very important to life in a democratic society, but protection of the status quo in public education or maintaining an often less than effective system is not. It is the idea of free and publicially avaialble education that I value; not the insitution and current form.
Quote:
I am not, however, advocating that schools avoid the subject.
Agreed, but you only want it addressed in a way that will end up making the subject taboo. Traditionally, public schools have moved away from addressing controversial topics precisely because parents and the community must ultimately approve the tax levies that support them. That is, they are accountable to the public. Private schools have to worry about reputation in order to bring in tuitions, but their faux pas are more easily covered up.
I definitely do not want it only "addressed in a way that will end up making the subject taboo." I want options for families. I want increased freedom and choice in education that is supported by the tax money already allocated for the education of youth. Yes, there are experts and curriculum developers with families, but I still believe that the invidual family should have extensive say in how the children of that family are educated. I am only arguing for choice, candid disclosure in all schools, and empowerment of family A to make important decision about the education of the children of family A.
BTW - Isn't what I am describing pretty much what takes place on much of the higher education landscape? Faculy of public and private universities are quite open about their "agendas." I, for example, completed a graduate program in the Center for 21st Century Studies at UW Milwaukee...the birthplace of the term postmodernism. In that center are fellows conducting gay studies, feminist studies, Jewish studies, Islamic studies, radical orthodoxy (out the the Christian reformed tradition) research, Buddhist studies, etc. These are not just the reserach topics, but the theoretical contruct and philosophical foundation for their research. When I took a film studies course, I knew that I was taking a cours with a professor who had erotic male nude posters on every inch of the walls in his office. If I had a problem with that, then I didn't have to go to his office or take his class. I happened to be fascinated by his background with road movies and took the class. But, I appreciated the fact that all of this was open and I had a choice. Walking down the halway of the fellows, people had all sorts of political and ideoligical positions represented on their doors. How refreshing for people to actually be open about what they stand for rather than hiding in fear of some "witch hunt." Why not do the same (be open) for primary and secondary education?
Author
Topic: Abstinence Only (Read 4188 times)