It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Does Your Child's Teacher Brainwash Them?

page: 3
12
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 01:57 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Grade school is k - 12 in my book. I didn't see any mention of restricting the conversation to just elementary school. Middle schoolers and High schoolers damn well better relate the past to the present. They aren't robots and can handle the material.

EDIT: But even elementary history is flawed. I can't believe how many inaccuracies I got taught in history class that ended up being reinforced in later grades, only to be dispelled later in my life. You may have a point in saying that the material needs to be simplified, but outright lying to them is not the way to go.
edit on 17-4-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 01:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

I'm not sure what you mean. You certainly CAN teach just the facts and speak about the politics of the day, nation-building, etc. In fact it is speaking about these things which makes history INTERESTING. That is what is missing from our history classes currently. The part that makes it interesting.

History classes have been distilled down to exactly what you just mentioned, but instead of facts there are "factoids" about hero characters that may or may not be true (mostly not true). Then we have bland events that are completely unrelateable. It's all just "RAH RAH USA USA!" history and it is rather boring pretending like the US has always been completely altruistic.

It also needs to be shown to students that history is the culmination of events that led to the present. Actions in the past effect the present. How can a student appreciate history if she does not know this? A teacher of history must RELATE history to the present. For instance, when talking about Chester A. Authur, bring up the birther controversy around Obama. This can show how political tactics to undermine the other side have ALWAYS been dirty and are largely recycled.

I don't claim to have the answers, but as an example. The Iraq war may be called something we did to correct a dictator by some and a blatant lie by others. While I wouldn't care if both statements were made by a teacher and even explained...I wouldn't want them choosing which statement is correct and which is wrong, because both are opinions.



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 02:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: ketsuko

Grade school is k - 12 in my book. I didn't see any mention of restricting the conversation to just elementary school. Middle schoolers and High schoolers damn well better relate the past to the present. They aren't robots and can handle the material.

I would agree with that.



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 02:03 PM
link   
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

You don't teach which side is correct and which side is wrong, but you DO teach both sides and then teach the outcome. Let the students decide what was right or wrong on their own. The problem is that history classes have been DESIGNED to teach us that America is always right so whatever course we chose in the past was the right one and the one we didn't choose is the wrong one. This isn't how you teach history. History is a series of conflicts where each side thinks they are correct and many times we still haven't figured out who was right in the long rung. Stop teaching right and wrong and just teach what happened. Both sides of it.



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 02:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
OK...this is a fairly simple set of questions and opinions. A teacher is supposed to teach children facts. Math, reading, writing, history, etc. And the vast majority of teachers (from what I have experienced and read) are left leaning, politically. I find that my own daughters being presented with liberal opinions by their teachers and sometimes anti-right propaganda.

I have read about and have personally seen enough to know that liberal teachers like to express, and sometimes force their opinions upon their students. Maybe right-wing teachers do the same, but they are in the vast minority. Maybe giving a "B" for a right leaning essay and an "A" for a left leaning essay...for example. It makes me wonder that with the state of the USA government and the right/left fighting that the left (which includes most teacher's unions) could be having a field-day raising our children to believe that left leaning views are correct and right leaning views are wrong.

One example. My younger daughter asked me the difference between Republicans and Democrats. I was as fair as I could be...being right leaning myself. She commented that her teacher (among other comments) said "Republicans like starting wars". My understanding is quite the opposite.

I would like to propose the following for consideration. A law that states simply that teachers must teach proven facts only, and not opinions. Teach from a book...test upon facts and keep your personal opinions to yourself. I think it is a completely fair idea that doesn't harm or hinder anyone, it may even (in some cases: Religion) support the left side of politics. What does ATS think about this idea?


I firstly want to say I am more concerned with what our youth are not being taught or being taught at too simple of a level to formulate fair, reasonable, rational opinions on their own. That said, I also think that there is a point where a parent needs to start teaching their child crucial critical thinking skills before they get into heavier topics in school, to question everything (even opinions and beliefs they hold themselves), and to consistently seek up-to-date information. A previous member mentioned they would want their child exposed to as much opinion as they could and formulate their own line of thought. I agree with this but they also mentioned the importance of actually sitting down with them yourself from an early age and on going to discuss such things.

That said, the teacher's statement is patently false: Which presidents and political parties were responsible for America's deadliest wars? To what extent can you blame a president or a political party for choosing to go to war? This map may hold some answers. It illustrates the history of American war from 1775 to 2006. War is a necessary evil. Politics, however, shouldn't be. Be advised I have not taken the time to verify the findings in this link, however, I would have no reason to distrust it ... after all, it would be really easy to confirm if one takes the time to go through administrations and wars to match them up.

Now with that said, should the teacher be punished, specifically in the terms you want? No.

Should they be encouraged, have some policy, and incentive for facts? Yes, of course.

Let us not forget thought that teachers are fallible, like you and me, they can misstate things, not remember correctly, have been advised wrongly by their materials, etc. Further, they only have a tiny bit of flexibility in the classroom, the State and district have most control over curriculum, teachers have flexibility in how it is delivered.

Should teachers be able to state their opinion? Absolutely, so long as it is clearly articulated as such or can be easily discerned as such by a rational and reasonable student. As mentioned, if the student is not exposed to other opinions, who is to say the parents are not doing the brainwashing?

With all that said, I plan on home schooling myself when we finally have a kid. My wife is a teacher and loves teaching young kids so we plan on her teaching the first half and me the second half as I like to do a lot of research and have a good sound general knowledge in a lot of areas. Curriculum, lack of what is being taught, and the environment many schools are turning into drives this choice.

If I was in your situation I would make sure I got as much information from my daughter as I could, ask if the teacher stated that was her opinion. I would then first approach the teacher and go one person up the chain from there until it is handled. If she stated that as fact, I would demand a retraction to the whole class followed by the fact as it truly is and mention if the behavior continues you will go to the board next and media. Again, I think the issue here is not whether opinion is stated, but whether or not students know or can reasonably determine opinion from fact.



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 02:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

You don't teach which side is correct and which side is wrong, but you DO teach both sides and then teach the outcome. Let the students decide what was right or wrong on their own. The problem is that history classes have been DESIGNED to teach us that America is always right so whatever course we chose in the past was the right one and the one we didn't choose is the wrong one. This isn't how you teach history. History is a series of conflicts where each side thinks they are correct and many times we still haven't figured out who was right in the long rung. Stop teaching right and wrong and just teach what happened. Both sides of it.

Yes...but that isn't always happening. And I'm suggesting that if it doesn't, there be repercussions against that teacher. I don't know if you have kids in school, but I do and some of the stuff I hear is near frightening. Opinions...lack of personal instruction...blatantly sitting in front of the class and NOT teaching, etc. But that is a larger topic.



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yeah, well, history is also a field that we are constantly learning new stuff about, too.

They taught me that dinosaurs are big, slow-moving creatures that had live in swamps because they couldn't support their own weight without the extra water, and no one knew for sure why they died off.

Guess how wrong that has turned out to be over the years since 1st grade.

Thing is. How do you want to teach it? I could teach the Civil War in two completely different ways using nothing but facts and give you two very different views. I could Lincoln a saint or a villain. So, you need to be careful what you ask for. Facts are facts, but a fact can be viewed in a very different way depending on its context.



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

I don't have kids in school, but I'm 30. I still remember my history education from when I was in high school. I know it hasn't changed much for the better since then. My point is that ALL history classes are taught this way. That is how the text books are written.

Let me tell you, I didn't fully become aware of this slight against education until I entered college and learned REAL history. History that is actually interesting. History that admits that our past is flawed. History that relates to the present.



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 02:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yeah, well, history is also a field that we are constantly learning new stuff about, too.

They taught me that dinosaurs are big, slow-moving creatures that had live in swamps because they couldn't support their own weight without the extra water, and no one knew for sure why they died off.


That's not the history I'm talking about. That's more science than history. I mean I KNOW it is technically history, but when I talk about history I'm talking about the history of society. The history of our civilization. Did you ever wonder why when "World History" taught, after the Roman Empire falls, it's really just "European History"? I certainly did.


Guess how wrong that has turned out to be over the years since 1st grade.

Thing is. How do you want to teach it? I could teach the Civil War in two completely different ways using nothing but facts and give you two very different views. I could Lincoln a saint or a villain. So, you need to be careful what you ask for. Facts are facts, but a fact can be viewed in a very different way depending on its context.


No no no. You don't teach either side of the story. You teach BOTH sides of the story. Then you DON'T proclaim who was more right in the end. You let the students decide that on their own.



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: AllSourceIntel

I respectfully disagree with some of your opinions. I work for a living and if I screw up repeatedly, I expect to be fired. A teacher is no different. They should not express their personal opinions, in my opinion. They should teach facts. They weren't hired to teach what they think of war, politics, race issues, gender issues or if pitbulls are bad dogs. They were hired and are employed to teach our children based upon established facts. Their personal opinion about the facts are just that...personal. If they want to chat with peers about those topics they obviously can. But in a position of "teacher", they should teach their opinions. I can't say how widespread this type of action is...but it is happening and I think such a teacher, if they don't correct this behavior, should be fired.



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 02:22 PM
link   
To consider the matter objectively, perhaps some US exam papers could be posted, here is a UK test paper for International GCSE (14-16 Year olds exam) History June 2014.

qualifications.pearson.com...


Pearson Edexcel Level 1/Level 2 Certificate
Pearson Edexcel International GCSE
Friday 16 May 2014 – Morning
Time: 1 hour 30 minutes




Contents
Depth Studies
• Answer two questions.
• Answer a maximum of one question from each group.
• Do not combine the following:
– Option 1 and Option 5
– Option 2 and Option 4
– Option 3 and Option 7
Group A
1 Development of a nation: Unification of Germany, 1848–71 Page 3
2 Development of a nation: Unification of Italy, 1852–70 Page 4
3 Autocracy and revolt in Russia, 1881–1914 Page 5
Group B
4 Development of dictatorship: Italy, 1918–43 Page 6
5 Development of dictatorship: Germany, 1918–45 Page 7
6 A world divided: International relations between the wars, 1919–39 Page 8
Group C
7 Dictatorship and conflict in Russia, 1924–53 Page 9
8 A world divided: Superpower relations, 1945–62 Page 10
9 A divided union: Civil rights in the USA, 1945–74 Page 11






edit on 17-4-2015 by theabsolutetruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 02:23 PM
link   
I guess I should clarify something here. I'm speaking specifically of children in school...not young adults. I don't think a six year old or ten year old should be taught an opinion.



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 02:24 PM
link   
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Some notable people taught incorrectly by history class:
Christopher Columbus
Squanto
Thomas Edison (Oh God! The amount of ire I have for this man is unbounded! I refuse to call him an inventor)
Woodrow Wilson
Abraham Lincoln
Alexander Hamilton



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 02:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

No, I know the dinosaur thing is more science than history, but history and our understanding of it changes in similar ways.

New things are always coming to light. Someone has a previously unknown box of letters in their attic ... archeologists discover a new tomb or battlefield ... things like that.

And, of course, the real devil -- our own context changes, so we see old events through new glasses and proceed to judge them that way. Was Mohammad a pedophile? In our modern context, yes; in the context of his times, not as much.

Were the Founders a bunch of racists? By the context of our times, maybe. Study their writings, and you see a much more complicated picture.

Were the Egyptian dynasties a bunch of hopelessly inbred fools? By the standards of our time, probably. But in their day, it was considered necessary to preserve the blood, so they married siblings and cousins.

So maybe the problem is that we do not teach these things in their own historical context, but try to transplant them into our own which skews them and makes them something other than what they really were.



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 02:26 PM
link   
And one more little clarification. Students are tested based upon what was taught. They aren't asked their opinion of what was taught...just the facts that they were taught. If they are tested on facts, a teacher's opinion is pointless unless it is meant to influence. And if a teacher grades tests based upon their opinion...that should be an actionable offence.



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 02:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: johnwick

Great until you realize most teaches don't even know how to think.



Lol.

Ron White- you can't fix stupid!!!



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

I think the public school system is a vicious cycle. It starts at the college level. Where leftist ideology is forced upon the educators by professors that were indoctrinated with that ideology by the same vicious cycle during their education.

What happens is people are instilled with such leftist views they cannot function at any type of business level. So the leftist ideology is totally incorporated into the education process. Once a educator becomes indoctrinated with those views, they can't find employment anywhere else ( except teaching) and all they know is to attempt to sway their students to their views. There's an old saying that sums this up perfectly.

"Those who can, do; those who can't, teach."



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

The teachers themselves are products of some kind of conditioning. It just perpetuates.



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse

That is a stupid analogy, I ''can'' and I teach. I am very proficient at that which I do as a subject though my experience leads me to teach and it also suits my hours and lifestyle, I have a long summer holiday off for family.



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 02:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Krazysh0t

No, I know the dinosaur thing is more science than history, but history and our understanding of it changes in similar ways.

New things are always coming to light. Someone has a previously unknown box of letters in their attic ... archeologists discover a new tomb or battlefield ... things like that.


Naturally. History, like science, is always evolving as new information is learned. Our history classes should evolve to reflect this as well. If new sources are uncovered, then we should adapt our lessons to reflect that. If tomorrow a packet of letters appear depicting Abraham Lincoln as a closet homosexual, then it behooves us to teach that, not ignore it.


And, of course, the real devil -- our own context changes, so we see old events through new glasses and proceed to judge them that way. Was Mohammad a pedophile? In our modern context, yes; in the context of his times, not as much.


This is why you try to leave opinions out of the lessons. By teaching all sides, you can show the class that in the times, Mohammad was just as normal in regards to sexual relations as the next man. It was just the way of life. You can contrast that against modern thinking, but you shouldn't paint Mohammad as an evil devil just because he did things we consider reprehensible today but were normal back in his time.

A popular example is Thomas Jefferson. T.J. is a popular person to quote when speaking about freedom and liberty and justly so. However, T.J. also owned slaves which makes him a hypocrite. He didn't even free any slaves on his death bed which is something that was common in his time. Yet despite this, I can still hold his ideals in regard and honor the man he tried to be instead of the man he was, but knowing about his flaws helps me better understand him as a human and NOT a larger than life hero. It makes him relatable as a person.


Were the Founders a bunch of racists? By the context of our times, maybe. Study their writings, and you see a much more complicated picture.


Heh. I should have read further in your post before writing that previous paragraph.


Were the Egyptian dynasties a bunch of hopelessly inbred fools? By the standards of our time, probably. But in their day, it was considered necessary to preserve the blood, so they married siblings and cousins.

So maybe the problem is that we do not teach these things in their own historical context, but try to transplant them into our own which skews them and makes them something other than what they really were.


To me, I think we avoid these conversations altogether. Just pretend that they didn't do these things and then no one asks any difficult questions. We all just rote memorize a bunch of Egyptian dynasties and years then move onto Hellenistic society and repeat without talking about homosexuality in Greece.







 
12
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join