Posted on 10/16/2020 2:53:38 AM PDT by gattaca
This looks to be a positive outcome and I give kudos to the school system for it. Especially for Massachusetts!
“Then she asked why I support a racist and a pedophile,”
The perfect response would be “I’m not a Biden supporter”
When you dig just a bit into the facts of a situation like this, you soon learn the pathetic truth: a typical classroom in an American school is run by an infantile teacher who is less mature than some of his or her students.
Paedophile? They should doxx the bitch for that one.
This virus has done a great job of shutting these “teachers’” yaps - anything done remotely can be recorded.
We let this happen to our schools, now it;s time we fix them. Complacency is consent.
No. A positive resolution to this horrorshow would have been a LAWSUIT with monetary compensation against the teacher personally, the school district and the school management.
Apologies dont cut it.
They need to feel financial pain.
Pedophile? And this is supposed to be a teacher of facts? The school system has been thoroughly infected with commies. Take your kids out. Now!
Need to have more anti tenure and reformed civil service laws passed so that these commie “educators” won’t feel so emboldened to spread their tommyrot and harass students.
As this child is not a voter, does an opinion matter? Yes? No? Wouldn’t teaching a class be more effective if the class discussion leaned towards the process of government elections rather than attacking any particular candidate?
Why wouldn’t “educators” want to elaborate on the civics, history, and philosophy associated with our system of government?
Per the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosphy (a partial list of fallacies)
[Quote] The controversy here is the extent to which it is better to teach students what Schwartz calls the critical instrument than to teach the fallacy-label approach. Is the fallacy-label approach better for some kinds of fallacies than others? If so, which others?
Another controversy involves the relationship between the fields of logic and rhetoric. In the field of rhetoric, the primary goal is to persuade the audience. The audience is not going to be persuaded by an otherwise good argument with true premises unless they believe those premises are true. Philosophers tend to de-emphasize this difference between rhetoric and informal logic, and they concentrate on arguments that should fail to convince the ideally rational reasoner rather than on arguments that are likely not to convince audiences who hold certain background beliefs. Given specific pedagogical goals, how pedagogically effective is this de-emphasis?
Advertising in magazines and on television is designed to achieve visual persuasion. And a hug or the fanning of fumes from freshly baked donuts out onto the sidewalk are occasionally used for visceral persuasion. There is some controversy among researchers in informal logic as to whether the reasoning involved in this nonverbal persuasion can always be assessed properly by the same standards that are used for verbal reasoning.[Unquote]
I’ve told this story many times before. In fact I have it ready to copy and paste because I think it’s important.
I’m a teacher myself - I teach secondary school history to older students - 14-18 year olds. I am very careful to avoid promoting my own political beliefs in the classroom - with my oldest, most mature students, I will tell them if they ask, what I think and why, but I will also direct them to contrary arguments and encourage them to independently research things.
When I was at school in the late 1960s and early 1970s, one of my teachers, who was also the school’s Chaplain was very active in the anti-Vietnam War movement, and also a number of other left-wing causes (a couple of which I even agreed with him on actually). I was considering going into the military after I left school, and I sought out the teachers I trusted and admired for advice - I had lost my parents so I relied on certain other adults. When I went to him, I expected him to tell me joining the military was a bad idea. Instead, he told me it was a good career and he thought I’d do well in it. My surprise was obvious to him, because he went on to elaborate on his philosophy of teaching.
He told me that his mission as a teacher was always to try and teach his students HOW to think, not WHAT to think. And while he was always happy on some level, when a student agreed with him, that he would regard himself as a profound failure as a teacher if all his students did so. It would mean he’d failed to teach them to think for themselves.
When I became a teacher myself, I’ve tried to adopt the same philosophy.
Notice how they were careful not to identify the teacher. No mention of any suspension or other disciplinary action was taken either.
That teacher is a sicko and should be out of a job.
Not only did that teacher gang up on the kid, but she allowed other students to do the same.
She shouldn’t be in a position of trust having anything to do with children.
Period.
The FBI needs to run over to the school - take names and see if they can recruit some new agents...
Another nasty, leftist, government union, pubic school teacher abusing a child.
Screw an apology, ze should be charged with child abuse, and the principal charged with aiding and abetting it. Get serious on it.
Says the teacher who ignores Joe feeling up little girls on television.
It appears like the Gloucester, Massachusetts, facility should be more appropriately named the O’Maley Demonicrat Indoctrination Camp.
“...racist and pedophile”
He said trump, not biden, you stupid twit.
“Paedophile?”
Really. Where did THAT come from?
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.