This is the question we can’t answer. I assume any answer would have to be on the politics board anyway.
Teachers retiring have been there for at least 20 years, one 35 years. Nothing has changed content-wise (aside from updates due to being further along in history and science, etc). But now, what they are doing is wrong in many parents’ eyes and needs to be nitpicked after combing through with a fine tooth comb.
And if this is happening in PA it presumably has little to do with Florida, its governor, or the new legislation
I believe the concern is that this is really tied to national politics and not an actual problem that is occurring. So what is happening in Florida, and Pennsylvania and so on are tied together through national politics and not actually addressing a local problem. Which is why a few of us are asking what is actually happening that requires this law, and so on… it has a feel of picking on a minority to create social cohesion, which will then create a voting bloc.
I find most of the newly created words and rules being brought out were never terms or issues b4 and that those who want less government seem to be the ones bring in all the regulation.
So, I think to further my own question – I would say that if a teacher walks up to a kid and says “Billy, I noticed that you don’t like sports and hang out with girls more often, you might really be a girl”. That is inappropriate at any age – the teacher leading a child on this discussion, etc.
But if a teacher notices a child crying and asks why and the kid says, I just feel different than all the other boys. This is where an age appropriate discussion can happen – at 3rd grade, it’s enough to say that everyone is a bit different and we all like different things and that’s ok. And then if other kids are picking on him, talk with them and educate them on how picking on someone for liking different things and acting different but not hurting anyone is not ok. Things like that…
Basically, not leading the conversation - showing empathy, allowing them to express themselves and assure them that they don’t have to be like everyone else, and so on. I believe that should not only be allowed but encouraged.
That’s what it feels like to me. I really do want to find out the heart of what is causing the fear, what is actually happening and what the fear is of what might happen - to see what’s driving these rules/regulations.
Littlejohn’s child informed her that they may be non-binary. She felt this revelation came about organically, and she sent the Aug 2020 email to the school to ask for support in handling the situation. Some outlets seemed to portray that she was the one initiating all of this. But at the time she sent the email, she didn’t know what was already happening behind the scenes at the school. She wasn’t informed until November 2020, with a school admin telling her that there is no law that required them to report those conversations with her child. It sounded like a new law was needed, and a lot of people agreed.
Yes, I saw the quote in your first post. My point was that these opinions aren’t rooted in religion, even though some people use religion to justify their opinions. I don’t like when people use those justifications, either. But is it ok to support the right thing (according to some people) for the wrong reason? Similar to premarital sex. There is evidence that avoiding premarital sex is good, but most of what you read focuses on the religious message discouraging premarital sex.
Amongst a lot of hypotheticals in this thread, you give an actual case where the new law may have overreached. So, net, the January Littlejohn case prompts the creation of the law, and the Casey Scott case is a casualty of the law. That’s all we know right now. But I do enjoy reading the classic MWolf hypotheticals.
I find it hard to believe that these topics will be tossed out the window due to the new law. If so, that would be a mistake.
Except for those who have three or one-and-a-half parents:
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2017.21761
Family structures through history have long been quite variable.
Just as hard to believe that teachers were actually emptying classroom shelves of all books, or school libraries closing, out of fear that they might accidentally run afoul of vague/overly broad, hastily/poorly written legislation.
Yes, that was just as hard to believe - but those are the consequences.
Everyone agrees no one should be picked on, and insisting students treat each other civilly is a baseline for all. I am not really sure of your suggestion that the teacher affirm the student’s feelings-the teacher should be value neutral, not affirming the students feelings on sex, gender, politics or religion. Would you expect a teacher to affirm a student’s extremist ( but still legal) political views? Religious identity in a cult ( still legal)? Maybe teachers are just there to teach and demand civil behavior.
Well in a perfect world the discussions/viewpoints in class would not have any bearing on the teachers relationship with students. However, we do not live in a perfect world. Our oldest had a high school AP English teacher who was very vocal about her political view points… spent many classes lamenting all kinds of things she did not like. Her “viewpoint” rolled over into grading. It was well known that if you wanted to get a good grade in her class the essays needed to reflect her point of view otherwise the grade would be impacted. Fortunately the school got rid of her the following year…
I thought we weren’t supposed to discuss politics here.
Since the topic of this thread is highly politicized, here is a thread in the Politics Forum to continue this topic without trying to guess at what is “too political” for this thread:
I don’t think I was proposing a completely value neutral teaching position. I think that’s an impossible and untenable approach. I think I was proposing an actual stance that society should teach that treating people who are born different, and do not hurt other people, with respect is a core American value (going back to a long respect for American individualism). That does not mean you have to tolerate beliefs or actions that try to hurt other people or try to limit their rights. I think those conversations are good to have at various age appropriate times.
It seems weird to me to not have discussions about things in school. We definitely had discussions about controversial topics in high school. We had politics and philosophy classes… we talked about natural law and rights, and how things like that are reflected today. I can’t imagine trying to have those classes without actually discussing anything.
My intent is to separate out what’s going on with the Florida law away from the national political conversation – and how it would really effect teaching and education in the classroom. It’s obviously tainted by my own biases, but the intent is to discuss what is appropriate teaching and what isn’t and why…
That’s obviously an example of bad teaching, and was apparently dealt with correctly.
My brother likes to tell a story of his favorite teacher in high school, his civics teacher who was a hippie/socialist, and my brother was a typical southern, white male conservative Republican type. They argued every class, and she would both debate him and show him how to fix logical flaws in his arguments and research his positions better. She gave him an A, and he said he learned so much from doing that… his experience would have been much, much poorer if they weren’t allowed to have those discussion.
Personally, I think it would be better if the teacher’s positions on things isn’t well known but instead acts as a discussion facilitator and helps sharpen their students thought process.
I think what I don’t like is what feels like the blanket nature of the law. I hate those sorts of zero tolerance law that does not allow for creativity and actual thought. It feels very restrictive and sterile and leaves students less prepared to face all kinds of people, philosophies and so on. I think it’s part of the reason why Andrew Tate is so popular among young men. I think it would be difficult for a teacher to hear a student echoing Tate’s position on how to treat women and not provide a counter point… and I don’t think they should be limited from doing so.
I really think one could cover “be decent to everyone and do not engage in sex-trafficking” without too much controversy. Schools can and do teach avoidance of felonies and bullying.
Right, but doesn’t part of saying treat everyone decently when talking about Andrew Tate mean talking about treating women as more than sex objects? There needs to be some discussion of what is “decent”. And in the case of Andrew Tate it does mean talking about gender roles, sex and how to treat people. What makes him so objectionable is that he actively tells kids that women want to be treated this way – so if all you are saying is “treat people decently”, well a boy who listens to Andrew Tate will say he is treating a woman decently when he neg’s her and tries to shame her – he’s been hearing that this is what she secretly wants.
Why is Andrew Tate a classroom lesson to begin with? Or any internet celebrity?
Because it comes up among teenage boys in the classroom and in the hallways and in cafeteria. And I don’t think we are best served by ignoring it.