Our View: Telling teachers how to teach
Printer-friendly version
Send to friendLegislation being considered by Arizona lawmakers could have a dramatic impact on what happens in state classrooms.
Three bills being debated by our legislators would have a chilling affect on teachers, potentially changing everything from lesson plans to language within the profession.
SB 1202, otherwise known as the partisan doctrine bill, would punish teachers espousing political beliefs in a classroom setting.
SB 1203 requires prior approval of supplemental materials presented to students and the posting of those materials on the Internet.
SB 1205 is the profanity bill, punishing and potentially terminating teachers who use profane language in class.
Teachers and those involved in education can point to the problems with each of these bills, relating personal experiences on the dangers they represent.
We don’t pretend to be experts in the profession and we admit that on the surface these bills appear plausible. What’s to argue about laws that punish teachers who swear, prevent politics from being foisted on students, and require Internet access to classroom materials?
The science of education and the art of teaching, however, are not easily defined.
One troubling aspect of each of these bills is that the State of Arizona is dictating its will to local school districts. That’s particularly disconcerting when we recognize that politics dominates the Legislature.
Who defines “partisan” teaching? When the Republicans are the majority, as they are now, can a teacher be fired for presenting the positive outcomes of a Democratic administration in civics class? If the Democrats control the Capitol, will an instructor be reprimanded for presenting President Reagan’s “trickle-down” theory in economics class?
Another challenge presented by the proposed bills is the potential role students may play as enforcers. We can anticipate all sorts of problems arising if a student alleges that a teacher unduly emphasized an opposing political opinion in the classroom.
Putting laws between teachers and their mission to educate, seems destined to hurt the profession.
Arizona has been aggressive in its support for charter schools; this state has consistently sought to push the responsibility for education back to the local level.
Legislating what happens in the classroom from Phoenix doesn’t make good sense.
If you find a correction for this story, please contact our editorial department
Related Terms:
This Week's Events
|
April 29, 2012 - 10:00
|
|
April 29, 2012 - 14:00
|
|
May 1, 2012 - 18:00
|
|
May 2, 2012 - 06:30
|
|
May 3, 2012 - 18:30
|
|
May 4, 2012 (All day)
|
|
May 4, 2012 (All day)
|
|
May 4, 2012 - 10:30
|
|
May 4, 2012 - 19:00
|
|
May 4, 2012 - 19:00
|
|
May 5, 2012 - 07:00
|
|
May 5, 2012 - 07:00
|
|
May 5, 2012 - 07:00
|
|
May 5, 2012 - 09:00
|
|
May 5, 2012 - 11:00
|
|
May 5, 2012 - 14:00
|
|
May 5, 2012 - 16:00
|
|
May 5, 2012 - 19:00
|
|
May 5, 2012 - 19:00
|
|
May 6, 2012 - 07:30
|
|
May 6, 2012 - 11:00
|
|
May 6, 2012 - 13:30
|
|
May 6, 2012 - 14:00
|
|
May 6, 2012 - 15:00
|
The taxpayers do pay for public education and should have significant input into how those funds are employed. However, it seem foolish to entrust non-educators with the unfettered power to micromanage the classroom. The legislature typically consults geologists and engineers before issuing dicates the the Dept. of Mines and M.R., consults physicians before telling doctors what they can do, or consults hydrologists before telling the Dept. of Water resources how to fulfill its mandate.
These pieces of legislation don’t address any systemic problem in our schools but they do erode the already diminished authority of the teacher in his or her classroom. Two of these bills would place in the hands of teenagers powerful tools for revenge against people who have had the audacity to hold them accountable for their behaviors. The student who receives a failing history grade reports the teacher as a Marxist. The kid who was written up for disruption claims the teacher used foul language.
An Arizona Daily Independent article on SB 1202, the "partisan doctrine" bill, reveals one teacher’s egregious behavior in promoting his political beliefs to his students.
It would be preferable if school districts closely guided, monitored and disciplined its teachers and administrators without state legislators getting involved. But some educators engage in political propaganda, and partisan political indocrination. They do so with the tacit or overt approval of the administrators.
The issue isn’t state government interference in the classroom. It’s that students should be taught how to think - not what to think.
Share with us how “closely monitoring and disciplining teachers and administrators” would teach students HOW to think?
Seems more likely to teach the students what the monitors want them to think.
Get politicians out of the classroom
If you mean Steve Bracamonte, you are correct that his actions are egregious and would have been unprofessional in most office settings, let alone a school. I can’t, however, see how they warrant a legislative response. The measure is crystal clear with regard to its stiff penalty, the end of a teacher’s career, but remains a little sketchy on definition of the transgression. If a teacher takes a devil’s advocate position or presents “a modest proposal,” ala Swift, has she committed a career ending crime? This measure strikes me as hostile to teaching critical thinking, not conducive to it.
Furthermore, this Klein, out of Anthem, seems more interested in making her bones with the GOP than with doing actual good work. Her no cussing bill is really written by Floyd Brown, creator of the Willie Horton ad and founder of Citizens United. The moral outrage that has impelled her to make craft these bills seems a little specious given her attachment to such a showman.
So their reponse is to pass a law making it a firing offense for teachers to lead students in the Pledge of Allegiance?
Obviously, the schools have failed to teach our state legislators “how to think”.
It should be noted that the school district is the smallest political unit in the US.Yet that school district run by those elected in that school district have no say in the very education they are responsible to provide.
If you want to define what is vulgar and profane turn on your television set. How do I explain to a grandchild of 8 what a K-Y commercial is about?
So a K-Y commercial is profane and vulgar? Do you think a married couple portrayed on television should be sleeping in separate twin beds like Ricky and Lucy too? You are absolutely ignorant. Why would you even let an 8 year old watch television to begin with if you yourself can’t handle the content? I am pretty sure you aren’t aware of the uses for K-Y so maybe you shouldn’t even try to explain it to anyone until someone explains it to you.
If someone objecting to K-Y and condom commercials on television makes them ignorant, then I guess I am ignorant.
You prove my point, the culture is vulgar. Your reply says volumes and I need not add my critique of your intelligence.
Using your reasoning then, sex must be vulgar, I’m glad you are the end of your family linage, me I like the Cialis commercials because of the claw foot bathtubs, now what kind of disfunction are they talking about?
Rancher
You, and a lot of people on this Herald forum in general, would do well to arm yourselves with a little tip. When someone comments that saying or doing something is ignorant or stupid, it does not equate to calling a person ignorant or stupid. I do not consider myself particularly stupid or ignorant, but I do stupid things sometimes and I am ignorant of a lot of things. Being ignorant or stupid about something particular is not a judgment on a person’s complete character and/or level of knowledge or intelligence. You and others might find yourselves becoming more open to dialog and ideas if you realize this. A person can make a comment in ignorance and not be an ignorant person.