But that is what we were all taught?
Case in point:
Posted on 12/01/2005 11:27:55 AM PST by Spiff
Sure glad my ancestors left me all that Whale Oil and Giant Sloths and Mastodons to use as recourses.....
Case in point:
It can be turned into something but not created or destroyed - that is what I was taught.
Ready to rock and roll. Standing by for PING. Have you queried other parents to see if they have similar concerns? When the school leadership see multiple families, the message may strike home harder.
Great work so far! I can't wait to read more.
That is precisely the issue. The teacher can't handle that pressure. We had a confrontation today that was totally initiated by the teacher. He did not handle himself well at all. We handled ourselves quite well I think.
A complete update will be made later. There's a lot that went on this morning. There's nothing I love more than to make leftists squirm or even gnash their teeth and wring their hands. That's what I saw this morning. This guy doesn't know who or what he is up against. He puts a "Dr." before his name (yes, he has a Doctorate) and uses authoritarian words and tone ("I will not permit you to presume to..." in an attempt to intimidate people. I guess it has worked - so far. He really got schooled this morning and he's going to get further schooled as this situation progresses.
So, stay tuned for an update.
You need to read this entire thread, hon. :D
I'm sure glad we're homeschooling. Our daughters' science textbooks are entitled, "Exploring God's Creation" and "God's Marvelous Works."
It's a different kind of approach 8-)
UPDATE: My wife and I visited the school in order to observe science class and the oral presentations which were to give the students' opinions on the "laws and principles" in the book.
We checked in at the office. Signed in and got a nametag to visit the classroom. The Principal said he would escort us to the classroom. On the way, he said that he had discussed the matter with the teacher this morning.
Another class was in session (we got there a minute early). We waited outside at a table and the Principal returned to his office. Class ended and the teacher came out and sat down. He said he had to be frank with us. He said we must get permission from him to visit his class (not true). He said not to presume to interfere in class, with his curriculum, or to "upset the equilibrium". He was angry, his hands were shaking, and he was very confrontational. We had not said a word at this point. We simply sat at the table while flipping through our notes and holding the well-tagged textbook.
We told him that the Principal had escorted us and that the Director was also aware that we were there to observe. The teacher angrily got up and said "we'll talk to him" and walked toward the administration office.
We followed. He said a few things to us on the way. We expressed that a real science book should be used instead of the one he was using.
We stepped into the office but the Principal was busy with someone else. A few things were said in the office. He said to step outside.
Outside he was angry, we were calm. He said to not presume that we can exert control on curriculum or his classroom. He said "I won't let you do this" and if we continue on this course, there would be "consequences". I asked if this was a threat and to what consequences was he referring. My wife asked if he intended to punish our daughter or give here a bad grade. He backed off a bit.
He said that textbook was science, a holistic approach. That he used multiple sources.
He said idealogy has no place in classroom, Christian or otherwise. I said, then that book has no place in your classroom as it is full of idealogy and opinions. I said that he is a science teacher and that he should know the difference between science and opinion.
He said he hasn't had any other parents complain. I said, "not yet. But you may see more."
I mentioned that we were keeping this situation at the school level now but more people may become aware of it. He said, "so now you're threatening me." I said no, that there are others becoming aware of the issue and they may show more interest in the days to come. He said to "go for it."
Discussion turned to the "principles" in the book. I turned to the page and told him that the division of them into scientific principles and opinion was not something I made up. That all future editions of the book correctly divided them into 2 categories under the headings "scientific principles" and "value statements". That the author and publisher admit it was mostly opinion. He said he does not allow opinion or ideaology to be taught in classroom, but would not censure opinion from the students. I said the book was full of opinion. As an example, I mentioned the paragraph promoting "redistribution of wealth" was opinion and didn't belong in a science book.
He defended the textbook again as a good science book. I showed him that the previous and only other school that used it only used for one year, had to cut out 10 pages, and then they dumped it.
I said there were real science books purchased. My wife said that he should be using the approved curriculum. We've looked at the new science books and they're real science. My wife said she's never seen anything like this, especially in a science book. He started yelling at her. I said that he does not need to yell. He immediately stopped and commanded, "stay here!"
He angrily walked into the office, straight to the Principal, interrupting whatever meeting he was having.
We walked in and waited by the secretary's desk.
He started yelling in the Principal's office. He said we were going to disrupt. He said we obviously had an agenda. Said we can't do this. That it goes both ways now and his "dander was up". We could not hear what the Principal told him, but we were told later that he had to allow us into the classroom.
He came back out and he said we could attend today. We walked quietly to class. He mentioned an upcoming "diversity and tolerance" assembly on Thursday that discusses this issue. He said that he though that we should attend. I thanked him for letting us know and stated that we may, in fact, attend.
After class was over, he immediately got up and said he would accompany us to the office.
As we walked he said that he believed that we could not communicate. I said that it was not a personal issue, but an issue with the specific book. He said that he would not tolerate an attack on his professionalism and curriculum from us. That he would not tolerate us exerting control over his classroom. That he would not allow us to upset the equilibrium in the classroom.
He said that he thought I was transcribing everything in the classroom so that I could launch another attack. He was upset that I had borrowed the textbook and not given it back (I had said a few days when I borrowed it and I was bringing it back today which was a few days) and that I had put tabs all over it. That I did not tell him that I was going to use it to "attack" him was unacceptable. He was visibly angry at this time. He said that he knew we were going to attack
He insisted that he should not have been the last to know that we were coming into his classroom. He said that Americans are confrontational and legalistic and that, at this point, anything we discuss may become a legal issue and that he was not sure that he could even talk to us anymore. We assured him that was not our intent.
He said that when we come into his classroom, that it sends a message. That when we question the curriculum, we're questioning his professionalism. He then said that I was the one who brought up the issue of threats.
I corrected him and quoted precisely what he had said in our previous conversation. That he had first said to me that if we continued on our current course, "that there would be consequences." He is the one who made threats, not me.
I reasserted that our argument was not with him, his credentials, or his teaching methods. I said that he should not take everything so personally, that the issue was not directly with him. I said that we had heard good things about what a good and intelligent teacher he was and that he worked hard and was a great contributor to the school. I said our issue was with the specific book, not with him.
He said that he has had a hard time even staying at the school. That before last month they didn't even have textbooks. (They were using a computer-based curriculum with all textbook available only on the computers in the classrooms and all assignments submitted on the computers)
I said that I was aware that he had to purchase the textbooks out of his own money and that he got them at a used textbook store. And that the entire school had recently gone through massive changes after the firing of their incompetent director. That I understood and appreciated what was going on in the school at this time.
He said that he didn't like the books that had been purchased for his science classes. He said that "they" had "sent over" only one of each of the books (they have more than enough in the room where they store the textbooks). He said he uses several books and draws on all of them for his science class and that after the upcoming winter break, that they would "probably" be moving into another book. He just liked chapter 1 for its information about tectonic plates and global changes. I reminded him that it was also chapter 1 that contained the "laws and principles" that were mostly opinion.
He said that he had had to put up with alot at the school and that this situation today was probably the "straw that broke the camel's back." He mentioned that my wife was an experienced teacher as a homeschooler and that since we have so much knowledge about this issue, that we should tell him how to run his classroom. That we should just take over his science class and pick his curriculum for him. He was quite angry at this point, at times yelling in my face from 6 inches away. I remained absolutely non-confrontational and continued to apply what little "verbal judo" I knew, which was to grow quieter and assume a meeker posture the more angry or threatening that someone else became while the content of my statements came from a position of strength.
He stormed into the Principal's office at this point and we followed.
We sat down with the Principal as the teacher went off to find an additional chair. We whispered a few things to the principal that despite the teacher's angry confrontation with us, that we were fine and that he had no need to fear us getting angry. The intent was to display that the teacher as out of control and unable to contain his anger which was irrational in the first place. I think that we succeeded at that.
We rehashed a number of issues that we'd already gone over and over. The teacher did not want us in the classroom again, the principal reminded him that it was a public school and that we could go into whatever classroom we wanted and observe. The teacher finally grew angry about the textbook and said that he didn't want to see my well-tagged copy of the textbook ever again and that I could keep it and do with it hatever I wanted. I said that I had brought it to the school to give to the Principal so that he could review the pages I had marked and give it back to the teacher. The teacher then said that while he recognized the Principal in his chain of command, he did not recognize us. We reminded him that we were parents of one of his students, that we were also taxpayers and that the school was a public school. Therefore, we are, in fact, in his chain of command. He then said that he felt that this was turning into a legal issue and that he felt that he could no longer have a direct conversation with us as parents. The Principal said that he felt that we were not looking for a legal battle (he was right) and that the teacher should not worry about that.
The teacher then reminded us about the "tolerance and diversity" assembly on Thursday and again recommended that we attend. The teacher then told us to talk to the Principal and that he would return for a private discussion with the Principal later.
We had a long and very friendly conversation with the Principal. He tried too hard to please us, but I could not get any solid guarantees of action concerning the book. The Principal is also a science teacher and he said he has no qualms, if it comes to it, to take over the science classes for the 8th, 9th, and 10th grades and that he would use the approved and purchased curriculum. He said on Friday that the book would be out of the classroom this week. Now, he revised that to say that the correct science book would be "in the classroom" on Thursday. However, he did not say that the teacher would even use the book or if he would stop using the offensive book in question.
We asked to see a copy of the teacher's approved lesson plan. The Principal said that the teacher had submitted one, but that he was in the process of having the teacher make a number of significant changes. So, we didn't get a copy.
He spent most of his time agreeing with us, but I think he was just trying to appease us just like he's probably working now to appease the teacher. I don't think he wants to make a decision and unrealistically wants to make everyone happy - which is not achievable. He gave us some bad information about the policies at the local mega-middle school. My wife checked right after (called the administrator) and found that his information was wrong.
We had a copy of the state standards for science and showed him that little of the information in the offending science book meets any of the state testing requirements.
He told us that the teacher has had a hard life and that he's spent much of his teaching career teaching in China. That he's come a long way since the beginning of the year and that his teaching style has changed considerably in order to accomodate American students. He was accustomed to the style of China where he had nearly total control of his classroom and no one, especially not a parent, questioned him. I mentioned that he likely picked up on China's false belief that children were property of the state. I stated that in America we believe the exact opposite.
The Principal wants us to believe that he's working on the issue within his limitations. We've verified these limitations and they do exist. We are willing to work with the Principal as long as we see results. First, the textbook must not be used for 8th grade science anymore. Second, it should be removed from 9th and 10th grade as soon as alternate textbooks are available which are appropriate for those grades. Since the teacher has so many other textbooks in the classroom, he has more than enough to choose from to replace the offensive textbook. (We haven't reviewed them yet, but we plan to.)
We're going to wait and see what happens next. My wife will be attending the science class again tomorrow when my daughter will probably give her oral presentation. They know that we are not going away and we know how much pain it caused the teacher to have us all over him today. Good. If he wants that pain to ever go away, he's going to have to admit to the problems with the book and get rid of it.
I later emailed the Principal the links to the objective reviews of the textbook which were done by The Textbook League. I excerpted portions which explained that the books were garbage and why. He wrote back and said that he appreciated the information.
Good Luck!
11.14 The Economic Role of the Goverment.
Every human system has some inherent flaws. The free market system is no exception. Any system run by individuals, some of whom are very selfish, can create problems. Thus informed citizens have encouraged their governments to become involved in the economy and to interfere with and/or manipulate the free market. The government's role in our economy is one of great political and philosophical controversy. Like any other program of human creation, goverment intervention in our economic system has had varying degrees of success.
Our government has been given five main economic functions, with the goals of lessining the injustices and improving the benefits of the free market system:
1. To ensure economic stability.In other cases, the entire public may be taxed to provide goods and services that the market system would not provide equally to the entire population. For example, people want police protection, roads, schools, immunizations, and other goods and services. If a majority believes that everyone is entitled to these things, governments supply them.For businesses to function, contracts must be firm. Through its legislative powers, governments can establish rules for property ownership, standards for weights and measures, money standards and policy, and rules for legal agreements between parties.
2. To promote and maintain competitive markets.
Competition is necessary for the free market to function efficiently. New techniques of production and new products drive out-moded practices out of existence. Price increades conserve scarce goods and make sure they are used wisely.
Unfortunately, it is possible to stifle competition and prevent free market forces from functioning. Firms can band together and control supply and demand. Supply can be restricted and then higher prices obtained. To prevent this, governments can pass and enforce anti-trust laws.
3. To change the distribution of resources in order to provide for public wants and needs.
As we mentioned before, the costs of both preventing pollution and pollution cleanup are not automatically included in the price of goods. To prevent innocent parties from having to pay for the pollution of others, goverments have intervened. They may either force a supplier to eliminate or reduce a problem, or they may force someone to pay for the cleanup. The net result is that the cost of the good in question rises to reflect its true cost.
4. To promote fairness (equity) through the redistribution of income and wealth.Here are some questions from the end of the chapter:So often we hear: "The rich get richer and the poor get poorer." It is true that to make money you generally have money to invest. Because of this, those who are wealthy have a distinct advantage over those who are not. Not only do the poor find it difficult to work up the ladder of usccess, they have trouble saving for their old age, paying for emergencies, and providing opportunites for their children. To remedy some of this, our government provides such things as Social Security, Medicare, disaster relief, education assistance, and so on. Further the majority of our federal government's expenditures are financed with a progressive income tax. This means that those with higher incomes pay proportionately more in taxes.
18. What factor make the market system work? (Their error, not mine.)
19. List two features of the market system.
20. List five problems with the market system.
21. List five functions most governments are asked to perform in order to remedy problems that the market system cannot solve on its own.
22. Contrast how economists and scientists view resources.
23. Choose a position for or against gasoline rationing in the United States.
That's just a taste of what is in this book. I may even scan some of the stuff in and post it online for everyone to see. Again, this is supposed to be a science book and it is being taught as "science" by the "science" teacher during "science" class. It isn't science. Clearly, it is political propaganda pretending to be science. Just because someone puts "science" on the book's cover, does not make it science.
I'd also recommend you document everything and if need be, record everything, in the event, he does try to retaliate against your child for (in his eyes) challenging his authority.
In his worldview, liberal opinions are in fact "facts", he doesn't see them as opinions.
In his eyes, you are questioning his facts and the role he has as authority in being the sole source of science and facts as the kids learn them.
I.E. he considers you to be the roadblock in the teaching of HIS student (your child).
His behavior sounds a bit unhinged, and slightly paranoid not to mention delusional, and irrational.
I do recommend you (secretly, if need be), tape all conversations either with him, or when he is in your presence.
Tolerance and diversity, eh! Apparently unless you disagree with this guy. You and your wife are doing a very important thing and I applaud you for it.
Thank you. We will next time. I would love to have had his comments on tape as my write up doesn't really do him justice.
My wife and I were all smiles. As I said before, I love to watch leftists squirm.
The Principal complimented our composure. He said that 80 percent of the parents in the school would have likely decked the guy if he had done to them what he did to us. I wasn't bothered much. If I can stand in front of the White House with smelly anti-American hippie scum in my face, pointing a finger in my chest, screaming at me about America being the evil of the world, Bush being Hitler, etc., I can certainly handle a leftist school teacher who has NO defense for his position, doctorate or not.
bump for later
1. I am in awe of your patience. Really.
2. Considering the infantile behavior of the teacher, you should fully expect this teacher to go nuclear on your daughter. I would think that he is completely capable of yelling at and attempting to publicly embarass her. Considering that he has (more than once) brought up legal issues, he will probably attempt to provoke you to violence.
a. bring a recording device, if allowed.
b. bring an adult witness other than your wife.
c. prepare your daughter for the worst.
d. have your daughter prepare any friends she might have in the class.
e. continue to keep your patience. An attack on your daughter will require a whole new level of patience that you may not be prepared for, especially if she is brought to tears.
That's all they are - smaller public schools. The same types of Liberals run both public schools and charter schools. Your kids will be taught by Liberals who have an active anti-Conservative agenda. And your kids will have to deal with other kids who have that public school mentality - sex, drugs, and rock & roll.
Nicely done! The 'distant' approach is good. They're used to most parents working from an emotional base, that they haven't a clue how to deal with real adults dealing in fairness, reason, logic, fact and truth.
This teacher is a poster child for what's wrong in public education today.
Second, there's no such thing as content neutral education. Send that one to the Supreme Court and tell them morality splits the world into monotheists and polytheists.
Leave the school.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.