More "Hitlers Children type" indoctriniation...

[Howey]

The problem in sc went much further than a song. It was not just one class but a pervasive part of the education to indoctrinate children. It's not even just one school but happens quite commonly. You don't have any examples that are remotely comparable.

I wonder how many more times Bravo's going to post those stupid, butchered videos? If he was worth the effort I'd find all those videos of the Jesus camp kids praying to Dubya.

Face it...this was and is a worthy lesson plan. If teabagger daddy was that concerned about his snot nosed brat would have contacted the school board, not the Blaze.

All he is now is an attention whore who got his fifteen minutes of teabagger fame.

 

[Howey]

This is beginning to remind me of that teabagger family in Kansas City who claimed their fat little shit kd was set on fire last year by a "gang" of blacks. Never happened.

 

[Damocles]

Jesus speak isn't allowed in public schools. Discussion of government and politics are and should be even more. Civics is no longer required in schools. That's why we have so many idiots out there who have no idea what "government" is.

So long as it is discussion rather than dictation you may have had a point, except religion is allowed, yes even religion, in the appropriate setting with the appropriate aged children in a discussion and a class about the subject.

One more time. These kids were not discussing government, they were given dreck to write as indoctrination. The sentence was as inappropriate as the Jesus sentence in my example was outside the appropriate setting. You know this, I do not believe, and refuse to believe, that you are incapable of understanding or really believe it was somehow appropriate. Try again to use the "but they did it too!" excuse, confess to me again.

Let's talk about the Bible Lit classes in High School if you don't want to recognize that religion can be talked about. Or should I remind you of the "Comparative Religions" class? It's even in the same realm as the Social Studies that would include government classes taken by kids of the same age... All of which are available for appropriately aged children.

The attempt to make it "okay" because you agree with the dreck is grossly hypocritical.

 

[Howey]

So long as it is discussion rather than dictation you may have had a point, except religion is allowed, yes even religion, in the appropriate setting with the appropriate aged children in a discussion and a class about the subject.

One more time. These kids were not discussing government, they were given dreck to write as indoctrination. The sentence was as inappropriate as the Jesus sentence in my example was outside the appropriate setting. You know this, I do not believe, and refuse to believe, that you are incapable of understanding or really believe it was somehow appropriate. Try again to use the "but they did it too!" excuse, confess to me again.

Let's talk about the Bible Lit classes in High School if you don't want to recognize that religion can be talked about. Or should I remind you of the "Comparative Religions" class? It's even in the same realm as the Social Studies that would include government classes taken by kids of the same age... All of which are available for appropriately aged children.

The attempt to make it "okay" because you agree with the dreck is grossly hypocritical.

Did you read the lesson plan or the comments from the lawyer?

I thought not.

As far as religion classes when I went to school? Weren't any, as I recall. Perhaps that explains why I'm so smart.

 

[Timshel]

Don't know if this has been pointed out but the teacher had nothing to do with the note taken down by the student. Has Beck reported that? They were trying to teach them about their rights and the importance of them.

[URL="http://www.scribd.com/doc/136344312/Cedar-Hills-Elementary-Schools-Civics-Lesson"]http://www.scribd.com/doc/136344312/Cedar-Hills-Elementary-Schools-Civics-Lesson

[/URL]Upon examination of the civics-based lessons and activities, and interviews with students, teachers, and school administrators,officials have found no evidence of indoctrination by the teacher. In fact, the teacher never taught the lessons in question.

The lessons, conducted by an attorney who serves as a Justice Teaching volunteer, promote the understanding of the U.S. Constitution and the rights it provides citizens. Both the "First Amendment Rights" lesson and accompanying "Teaching about Controversial Issues" activity increase students' understanding of the amendments and encourage critical thinking. The "Controversial Issues" activity directs students to write down the statement about relinquishing rights, specify if they agree or disagree,and requires them to offer strong arguments to defend their positions. These lessons conducted by the Justice Teaching volunteer at Cedar Hills Elementary were implemented and facilitated correctly.[URL="http://www.scribd.com/doc/136344312/Cedar-Hills-Elementary-Schools-Civics-Lesson"][/URL]

 

[Timshel]

Followup is not something slow witted idiots like nova have time for. He will be on to the next bullshit story and will likely bring this case up in the future as an example indoctrination, when in fact it was an exercise in critical thinking. I am sure those 4th graders have a greater capacity for critical thinking than Nova.

 

[Howey]

Followup is not something slow witted idiots like nova have time for. He will be on to the next bullshit story and will likely bring this case up in the future as an example indoctrination, when in fact it was an exercise in critical thinking. I am sure those 4th graders have a greater capacity for critical thinking than Nova.

I seriously doubt Bravo made it to the 4th grade.

 

[Auster]

Don't know if this has been pointed out but the teacher had nothing to do with the note taken down by the student. Has Beck reported that? They were trying to teach them about their rights and the importance of them.

[URL="http://www.scribd.com/doc/136344312/Cedar-Hills-Elementary-Schools-Civics-Lesson"]http://www.scribd.com/doc/136344312/Cedar-Hills-Elementary-Schools-Civics-Lesson

[/URL]Upon examination of the civics-based lessons and activities, and interviews with students, teachers, and school administrators,officials have found no evidence of indoctrination by the teacher. In fact, the teacher never taught the lessons in question.

The lessons, conducted by an attorney who serves as a Justice Teaching volunteer, promote the understanding of the U.S. Constitution and the rights it provides citizens. Both the "First Amendment Rights" lesson and accompanying "Teaching about Controversial Issues" activity increase students' understanding of the amendments and encourage critical thinking. The "Controversial Issues" activity directs students to write down the statement about relinquishing rights, specify if they agree or disagree,and requires them to offer strong arguments to defend their positions. These lessons conducted by the Justice Teaching volunteer at Cedar Hills Elementary were implemented and facilitated correctly.[URL="http://www.scribd.com/doc/136344312/Cedar-Hills-Elementary-Schools-Civics-Lesson"][/URL]

This is cute.

“Teaching about Controversial Issues activity increase students understanding of the amendments and encourage critical thinking. The Controversial Issues activity directs students to write down the statement about relinquishing rights, specify if they agree or disagree,and requires them to offer strong arguments to defend their positions. These lessons conducted by theJustice Teaching volunteer at Cedar Hills Elementary were implemented and facilitated correctly.

How many 8-9 year old can d this accurately?

 

[Timshel]

This is cute.



How many 8-9 year old can d this accurately?

What is cute?

Write down a statement, specify whether or not they agree and offer arguments for their positions? All of them.

The point was to get them thinking about the subject. Any person that cherishes our rights should applaud these lessons. It does not matter whether the child is right or wrong. The point is to engage them and get them thinking about it.

You fucking douchebags are making a fuss over this one kids take on it. Who gives a damn! It's not as if his opinions are set in stone and/or will not evolve.

 

[Auster]

Its not the one kid. Its all children. Its a rogue teachers actions. Its about the PR face of the school downplaying this event. Its about people like you downplaying the authority of the teacher in a 4th grade class, the inability of children to comphrehend and properly process such information. Its informal indoctrination. How can you fuss so much over the multiple threads you've started over indoctrination and then ignore cases where you agree with the message of it? Hypocrite.

 

[Timshel]

Its not the one kid. Its all children. Its a rogue teachers actions. Its about the PR face of the school downplaying this event. Its about people like you downplaying the authority of the teacher in a 4th grade class, the inability of children to comphrehend and properly process such information. Its informal indoctrination. How can you fuss so much over the multiple threads you've started over indoctrination and then ignore cases where you agree with the message of it? Hypocrite.

Does your ADD make you functionally illiterate like Nova? The teacher did not take any action at all. This was a part of the class led by the lawyer. The children wrote out their opinions. Engaging the child to express their opinions is not indoctrination.

The school investigated the incident and provided facts on what happened. Beck and retards like you took this note and IMAGINED that the teacher FORCED the kids to write it. You have no proof for any of it.

I have only started one thread on indoctrination. I posted the others here. Mine are REAL examples of the pervasive indoctrination that happens throughout this country and of which the Religious Reich want more.

 

[NOVA]

Does your ADD make you functionally illiterate like Nova? The teacher did not take any action at all. This was a part of the class led by the lawyer. The children wrote out their opinions. Engaging the child to express their opinions is not indoctrination.

The school investigated the incident and provided facts on what happened. Beck and retards like you took this note and IMAGINED that the teacher FORCED the kids to write it. You have no proof for any of it.

I have only started one thread on indoctrination. I posted the others here. Mine are REAL examples of the pervasive indoctrination that happens throughout this country and of which the Religious Reich want more.

Can you possibly be more obtuse or utterly stupid ?

THE ATTORNEY LESSON...

The attorney leads the kids to the conclusion that ALL our Constitutional rights are precious and we should refuse to surrender any of them. This exercise is based on Benjamin Frankin’s quote that, “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Here is the lesson: http://www.justiceteaching.org/resou...Elementary.pdf The point is #9. When the students identify the "less important" rights, the attorney attempts to explain just how precious they are and how important it is to retain EACH AND EVERY ONE and not be willing to sacrifice any of them.

The TEACHERS LESSON.....

"According to the children, [the teacher] spoke the sentence and they had to write down what she said," said Aaron Harvey, the fourth grader's concerned father.
Harvey said his son did what he was told during a civics lesson at Cedar Hills Elementary School and wrote, "I am willing to give up some of my constitution rights in order to be safer or more secure."

The lesson conclusion in RED (the attys) is in DIRECT OPPOSITION to what the teacher had the kids write......180 degrees out....

And no one used the word "forced" but you....the kids said "they had to"...write that sentence.

 

[Timshel]

Can you possibly be more obtuse or utterly stupid ?

THE ATTORNEY LESSON...

The attorney leads the kids to the conclusion that ALL our Constitutional rights are precious and we should refuse to surrender any of them. This exercise is based on Benjamin Frankin’s quote that, “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Here is the lesson: http://www.justiceteaching.org/resou...Elementary.pdf The point is #9. When the students identify the "less important" rights, the attorney attempts to explain just how precious they are and how important it is to retain EACH AND EVERY ONE and not be willing to sacrifice any of them.

The TEACHERS LESSON.....

"According to the children, [the teacher] spoke the sentence and they had to write down what she said," said Aaron Harvey, the fourth grader's concerned father.
Harvey said his son did what he was told during a civics lesson at Cedar Hills Elementary School and wrote, "I am willing to give up some of my constitution rights in order to be safer or more secure."

The lesson conclusion in RED (the attys) is in DIRECT OPPOSITION to what the teacher had the kids write......180 degrees out....

And no one used the word "forced" but you....the kids said "they had to"...write that sentence.

Is Benjamin Frankin (sic) related to Al?

Your are dealing in conjecture and speculation. Harvey, who ran to report this to Beck, was not there and has nothing to back up his claims of what happened.

Pisskop used the word "forced."

The lesson plan agrees EXACTLY with the report from the investigation conducted by the school.

[url]http://www.justiceteaching.org/resource_material/Teaching_About_Controversial_Issues.pdf

[/URL]The facilitator should ask students to write down the following statement and if they agree or disagree with the statement and why. The statement should be
read in a neutral tone with no specific emphasis on particular words. The statement is “I am willing to give up some of my constitutional rights in order to be safer/more secure.”

You have been made a fool of once again by right wing reactionaries. Of course, being mush brained moron you will blame those that have tried to enlighten you.

 

[Auster]

Pisskop used the word "forced."

Citation is needed clown.

 

[Timshel]

Citation is needed clown.

I'd be more okay with this if they were given a choice, they were mature enough to handle such an exploration, or if she didn't force them to propagate it in several mediums. I wouldn't be surprised if she forced them to say it.

But Damocles makes excellent points too.

I could ask the same. what party do I support with blind eyes?

We know she asked them to write it. If they tried to say no and she had to coax them she used force. Even if they didnt refuse she used her authority.

.

 

[Auster]

"If" is in both those sentences.

 

[Timshel]

"If" is in both those sentences.

LOL. You idiots don't know when to give up. First off, you asked for a citation on my claim that you used the word "forced." I provided it and you CLEALY introduced the word.

I'd be more okay with this ... if she didn't force them to propagate it in several mediums.

You were implying that she forced them and that you would be okay IF she had not. The if made your approval conditional.

The teacher had nothing to do with it and the lawyer did not force them to agree with the position written down.

 

[Auster]

[shrugs] w.e So glad to see your claims at indoctrination warrented investigation.

 

[Auster]

You know what, that's unfair to you. I started out suspicious of it, and lost the neutrality. I don't approve of the method even knowing it was done by the lessonplan. Not with 8 year olds. So yea, I spoke before I knew entirely what happened, but that said I still disapprove of the lesson.

 

[Howey]

"If" is in both those sentences.

You really don't get it, do you?

You know what, that's unfair to you. I started out suspicious of it, and lost the neutrality. I don't approve of the method even knowing it was done by the lessonplan. Not with 8 year olds. So yea, I spoke before I knew entirely what happened, but that said I still disapprove of the lesson.

Those childreb are probably better educated than you are, Whiz Kid.