0
JoeWeber

It's not only Conservatives mucking up our schools

Recommended Posts

I was inspired to post this by BIGUN's conversation over in the Britney Griner thread.

Here in Oregon our schools are way below average national performance, particularly in 3rd grade and beyond reading skills. Like the rest of the country it's Blue in the cities where the Teachers Unions hold sway and Red elsewhere where ignorant local school boards rule town. The problem, as is well known, is that the school boards in many cases would be pleased to use the bible as a tool for teaching reading and the liberal and politically powerful unions won't support any candidate who won't promise more money and the freedom to teach as they choose, per classroom. The outcome is that real science based practices that are proven to be successful in raising kids reading scores aren't used universally so as to avoid broadening the area of offense taking and to keep one's reelection hopes alive. The consequence is that kids, parents, and society suffer. We now have a new Governor, Tina Kotek, a Democrat. She is so new she still squeaks. Literally, she embodies the tax, spend, pander, and hope for the best Liberal. Sadly, she was the better choice out of three.

To the point: I think teachers in K-12 classrooms at a minimum shouldn't be free spirits, falsely believing that their innate talents will get the job done of educating our youth. Defined curriculum, according to a national standard, should be taught step by step with the teachers' individual techniques and talents being used to accomplish that task per student, sort of like what it's like to earn your flying certificates. No going off the rails or wasting time as perhaps BIGUN's daughter is suffering. Kids who do great move up and out, kids who are not go to a plan "B" solution, but the majority stay on course.

Sto ad arietem

If you are bored to tears, our Governor: https://www.opb.org/article/2023/03/03/think-out-loud-conversation-oregon-governor-tina-kotek/

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

Defined curriculum, according to a national standard, should be taught step by step with the teachers' individual techniques and talents being used to accomplish that task per student, sort of like what it's like to earn your flying certificates.

Tablets. Allow me to expand. 

Gen Z is the first generation to have the world in their hands. Gen Z doesn't need to be taught; they know how to learn. Curriculum - of course, but the instructional methodology needs to be adjusted to adaptive learning. They need to be challenged on subjects. One of them says something and to their devices they go. And, they saturate themselves on the subject in a short period of time.

As far as social rules. They have it wrapped up by the age of ten. The little one knew racism was bad. Her friends know racism is bad. They know about gender identification. My little one knows more about chromosomes than most 40 year old men. They accept others for their differences. More than any other generation. 

There was a time when previous generations made fun of the physically or mentally challenged. Not this generation. It is inspiring to see a physically or mentally challenged kid pull up in a car. They don't stand there and watch, They don't jeer. They go over and help. One of them grabs the books, the other grabs their lunch, another the wheelchair and they talk with the child - all the way to class.

If they are well-versed in racism, gender identification, etc. they really don't need some adult less versed in the subject telling them what they need to know. They get it. They get it more than any other generation.  

Preaching to them ad nauseum about gender identification is about as effective as an undergraduate trying to show Kallend how smart they are in physics. They get it. They get it more than any other generation.       

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, BIGUN said:

Tablets. Allow me to expand. 

Gen Z is the first generation to have the world in their hands. Gen Z doesn't need to be taught; they know how to learn. Curriculum - of course, but the instructional methodology needs to be adjusted to adaptive learning. They need to be challenged on subjects. One of them says something and to their devices they go. And, they saturate themselves on the subject in a short period of time.

As far as social rules. They have it wrapped up by the age of ten. The little one knew racism was bad. Her friends know racism is bad. They know about gender identification. My little one knows more about chromosomes than most 40 year old men. They accept others for their differences. More than any other generation. 

There was a time when previous generations made fun of the physically or mentally challenged. Not this generation. It is inspiring to see a physically or mentally challenged kid pull up in a car. They don't stand there and watch, They don't jeer. They go over and help. One of them grabs the books, the other grabs their lunch, another the wheelchair and they talk with the child - all the way to class.

If they are well-versed in racism, gender identification, etc. they really don't need some adult less versed in the subject telling them what they need to know. They get it. They get it more than any other generation.  

Preaching to them ad nauseum about gender identification is about as effective as an undergraduate trying to show Kallend how smart they are in physics. They get it. They get it more than any other generation.       

That's encouraging, thanks. So I guess next up Texas and Florida will ban smart phones, tablets and talking to each other.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

If they are well-versed in racism, gender identification, etc. they really don't need some adult less versed in the subject telling them what they need to know.

Agreed 100%.

Quote

Preaching to them ad nauseum about gender identification is about as effective as an undergraduate trying to show Kallend how smart they are in physics. They get it. They get it more than any other generation.      

Most get it.  Some don't.  Some parents go out of their way to ensure their kids don't see "drag queens teaching science" or "gays imposing their sick agenda on impressionable kids" or "anal sex being taught in our schools!"  And they sometimes do this by simply sending them to a private religious school where they are taught that "a man and a woman marry and have children" and "the best way to avoid pregnancy is not have sex."

But more often they simply actively oppose (and counteract) diversity discussions.  You see ads on Facebook for books like "the Tuttle Twins" which are advertised as a way to "deprogram your children from the woke liberal agenda."  And the preview of one of those books has a story that is basically "no one can change their gender."

Like I said before, 15 minutes per class is way over the top.  And many kids don't need any discussion of that at all.  But some do.  And for them, an occasional mention of non-traditional families or people who might be trans is important IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

If they are well-versed in racism, gender identification, etc. they really don't need some adult less versed in the subject telling them what they need to know. They get it. They get it more than any other generation.       

But they do. You know what else their utopian tablets let them find out about? Porn. Andrew Tate. Neo-Nazi recruiters. There is an insane amount of information being thrown at their little sponge brains by bad actors, more than ever before. You think they all just naturally see through that? How naive are you?

42 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

Preaching to them ad nauseum about gender identification...

But what is ad nauseum? We know it's not every lesson, don't we? So what are we actually talking about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
4 hours ago, BIGUN said:

Tablets. Allow me to expand. 

Gen Z is the first generation to have the world in their hands. Gen Z doesn't need to be taught; they know how to learn. Curriculum - of course, but the instructional methodology needs to be adjusted to adaptive learning. They need to be challenged on subjects. One of them says something and to their devices they go. And, they saturate themselves on the subject in a short period of time.

As far as social rules. They have it wrapped up by the age of ten. The little one knew racism was bad. Her friends know racism is bad. They know about gender identification. My little one knows more about chromosomes than most 40 year old men. They accept others for their differences. More than any other generation. 

There was a time when previous generations made fun of the physically or mentally challenged. Not this generation. It is inspiring to see a physically or mentally challenged kid pull up in a car. They don't stand there and watch, They don't jeer. They go over and help. One of them grabs the books, the other grabs their lunch, another the wheelchair and they talk with the child - all the way to class.

If they are well-versed in racism, gender identification, etc. they really don't need some adult less versed in the subject telling them what they need to know. They get it. They get it more than any other generation.  

Preaching to them ad nauseum about gender identification is about as effective as an undergraduate trying to show Kallend how smart they are in physics. They get it. They get it more than any other generation.       

Hi Keith,

So, I would guess that they would not be voting for Trump or DeSantis, if they could vote.

Hopefully, they will be a good influence on their parents.

Jerry Baumchen

Edited by JerryBaumchen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Keith,

So, I would guess that they would not be voting for Trump or DeSantis, if they could vote.

Hopefully, they will be a good influence on their parents.

Morning, Jerry. 

This cracked me up. Can't tell you how many times I've told friends, "I'm raising a little Democrat. Not that there's anything wrong with that." Especially when it comes to guns. 

Keith

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, BIGUN said:

Morning, Jerry. 

This cracked me up. Can't tell you how many times I've told friends, "I'm raising a little Democrat. Not that there's anything wrong with that." Especially when it comes to guns. 

Keith

Our of the mouths of babes..... Put your admiration for her in broad daylight: re-register.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Our of the mouths of babes..... Put your admiration for her in broad daylight: re-register.

I've already made my position clear if Trump is on the ticket. P.S. One can vote Democrat even if there's a (R) after their name. I've done it.  As of now; I couldn't do Democrat either. Neither party has a strategic plan for the U.S.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, BIGUN said:

I've already made my position clear if Trump is on the ticket. P.S. One can vote Democrat even if there's a (R) after their name. I've done it.  As of now; I couldn't do Democrat either. Neither party has a strategic plan for the U.S.  

Not the idea. The idea is that if enough sensible R's like you, the available supply is a questionable proposition at best, bail on the party of Santos, Greene, Boebert, Gosar, Gomert, Trump, The USSC, and so on it sends a message. It's like publicly standing up for LGBTQ rights, women's rights, the rights of people of color and all of the rest even though you know your friends think you're silly. It's not just the right thing to do, it sends a message. In this case, and with respect to Marshall McLuhan, I do think the message is the important bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

As of now; I couldn't do Democrat either. Neither party has a strategic plan for the U.S.  

So what? You have to choose from the menu available. No one has ever had a "strategic plan". Politics is the art of the possible. Leadership requires flexibility and the ability to adapt to the conditions. God laughs at the plans of mankind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, BIGUN said:

1776  

Fair enough. But given the many failures inherent in that plan and the cobbled together mish-mash of compromises that followed is there some more current touchstone we can use to judge what you might consider a strategic plan for these, not yet ended, times?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
16 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

some more current touchstone

No, Joe. I cannot. "I don't know how to define it; but I know it when I see it."

Just out of curiosity - Constitution and inherent flaws? 

Edited by BIGUN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
29 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

"So what." That's the sound of mediocrity followed by a string of varying snippets from the forewords of Covey books.  

That's actually the sound of me chastising you because you said you couldn't vote for either team. Implying that you won't vote. Who is Covey?

Edited by gowlerk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

No, Joe. I cannot. "I don't know how to define it; but I know it when I see it."

Just out of curiosity - Constitution and inherent flaws? 

The most obvious one would be how it was designed to accommodate slavery. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, gowlerk said:

you said you couldn't vote for either team.

I neither said, nor implied I wouldn't vote for either team. I always vote. What I said was, "If Trump is on the ticket' I will change to the Independent Party. I used to be a "mostly" straight party voter, but not since the 90's. I now vote for whom I think will do the best job AND reach across party lines. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JoeWeber said:

The idea is that if enough sensible R's like you, the available supply is a questionable proposition at best, bail on the party of Santos, Greene, Boebert, Gosar, Gomert, Trump, The USSC, and so on it sends a message.

And to your point, that's how most changes happen.  Republicans will be anti-LGBT until they start losing significant numbers of voters.  That's why they are no longer anti-black-rights or anti-women's-lib (in most areas at least) - they started losing voters to those ideologies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

The most obvious one would be how it was designed to accommodate slavery. 

But, being the real cool document that it is - allowed for changes aka amendments to be made. How's that for strategic sightedness.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

I am confused, you can't vote for the Democratic Party, because they don't have a strategic plan for the US, but you can vote for the Republican Party without such a plan. Why the different standards?

?? He made it pretty clear that he thinks neither has such a plan, and that he just votes for the best out of several (potentially bad) candidates.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0