Colorado Students Walk Out and Protest

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

They would like to know the real history of America, not just the rah rah rah sisk boom bah of it.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/09/23/hundreds-colorado-students-protest-proposed-history-curriculum-changes/

[cooltigger21 0]

They would like to know the real history of America, not just the rah rah rah sisk boom bah of it.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/09/23/hundreds-colorado-students-protest-proposed-history-curriculum-changes/

not surprised. All these kids have been taught is that America is a rotten country and we are the scourge of the earth. It's been drilled in their heads since preschool.

[cptau 169]

I'm not sure what they were being taught before. Probably just as biased.

Hundreds of student protesting the change in history curriculum? I'm surprised they even care about history...

But it is Denver and the town that is mention has had plutonium contamination

[autigeremt 6,569]

I think both the positive and negative aspects of our history should be taught. I also think there's no problem with promoting America at the same time.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

I can tell you from first hand experience CU is a bastion of liberalism.

[homersapien 11,354]

I think both the positive and negative aspects of our history should be taught. I also think there's no problem with promoting America at the same time.

I agree completely. In fact, to do otherwise is foolish.

IMO, history is learned through personal study. Any bias contained in institutional material will be quickly exposed through such study, which can only lead to cynicism.

And the people who don't bother to learn the real history are likely to support repetition of past mistakes.

And like you said, there's plenty of good things about this country to acknowledge.

[quietfan 233]

I think a history class should reveal fact (positive and negative), promote critical thinking, and avoid dogma.

I think the value of principles like patriotism, good citizenship, and ethical social behavior is self-evident to anyone with critical thinking skills.

I think the relative liberalness or conservatism of the surrounding residential population is irrelevant to the issue.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

Does anyone really think this person is qualified to develop and design a accurate history curriculum?

The board member leading the charge is Julie Williams, a graduate of Front Range Community College in Westminster, Colorado, who works as the manager of a dental office.

Then in the same article it discusses how one book actually credits Moses with playing a major role in the writing of the US Constitution.

http://www.newsweek.com/2014/10/03/textbook-case-bad-textbooking-texas-272351.html

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

I can tell you from first hand experience CU is a bastion of liberalism.

True, but its a hell of a good time when your 17 and visiting. > >

[cooltigger21 0]

I don't know about anyone else but I remember being taught the mistakes that America had made along the way as well as the all the good things. Today's history and civics classes are not just about not being rah rah cheerleaders. They are more about teaching students that America is not good period. Americas' capitalist system is unjust and unfair and we are bullies and all the rest of that rotgut. America is not perfect but it is far from what the people running education today want to portray it to be..

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Texan4Auburn.....I was a little older but not much wiser, but I know what you mean

[cooltigger21 0]

This whole thing was set up by the teachers union because they were upset by the proposal to have their pay based on performance. http://www.breitbart...-Salary-Dispute

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

This whole thing was set up by the teachers union because they were upset by the proposal to have their pay based on performance. http://www.breitbart...-Salary-Dispute

Apparently this is about both. With the Koch group getting involved with and driving it.

So its about the unions and pay, it's about the curriculum, and it's about using tax money to subsidize religious schools. Little bit of everything for everyone to be mad about.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/koch-group-unions-battle-over-colorado-schools-race-99252.html

[cooltigger21 0]

Vouchers are a great idea I think. It goes to the parents and allows them to choose the school they want to send their kids to, religious or public.

[AUtiger98 24]

I think both the positive and negative aspects of our history should be taught. I also think there's no problem with promoting America at the same time.

I agree completely. In fact, to do otherwise is foolish.

IMO, history is learned through personal study. Any bias contained in institutional material will be quickly exposed through such study, which can only lead to cynicism.

And the people who don't bother to learn the real history are likely to support repetition of past mistakes.

And like you said, there's plenty of good things about this country to acknowledge.

Homer, I agree with every thing you said here. However, I know our implementation would be different.

[quietfan 233]

Vouchers are a great idea I think. It goes to the parents and allows them to choose the school they want to send their kids to, religious or public.

If parents choose to instruct/indoctrinate their children in religion, send them to any school of their choice, or even home school them, that's certainly their right.

However public tax dollars cannot constitutionally be spent to provide religious instruction or indoctrination, either as a direct subsidy to a private school, or an indirect subsidy that follows a particular child in the form of voucher. No one pays education taxes simply for the benefit of his/her own particular children, and no one is entitled to withdraw some of that public money for the exclusive use of his or her personal child. Otherwise why should childless individuals pay any education taxes at all?

The concept of public education is not "The state owes you XXX amount of money for your child, wherever or however you choose to educate him/her". It is based on the recognition that it is beneficial to the state and society to ensure an educated citizenry--all citizens--in a public forum. Siphoning off some of that public money in the form of vouchers to private schools weakens the public system.

The history of "segregation academies" in the south is a good non-religious example. Why should public tax dollars be spent upholding a private system of racial discrimination? In another example: Should the government write a check to home-schoolers for teaching their children at home?

I think the educational voucher idea is analogous to saying "Give me a voucher for my defense dollars, and let me decide whether to spend it on a F-22 Raptor or an M1A1 Abrams tank...or even perhaps, to arm my local private militia."

[cooltigger21 0]

Vouchers are a great idea I think. It goes to the parents and allows them to choose the school they want to send their kids to, religious or public.

If parents choose to instruct/indoctrinate their children in religion, send them to any school of their choice, or even home school them, that's certainly their right.

However public tax dollars cannot constitutionally be spent to provide religious instruction or indoctrination, either as a direct subsidy to a private school, or an indirect subsidy that follows a particular child in the form of voucher. No one pays education taxes simply for the benefit of his/her own particular children, and no one is entitled to withdraw some of that public money for the exclusive use of his or her personal child. Otherwise why should childless individuals pay any education taxes at all?

The concept of public education is not "The state owes you XXX amount of money for your child, wherever or however you choose to educate him/her". It is based on the recognition that it is beneficial to the state and society to ensure an educated citizenry--all citizens--in a public forum. Siphoning off some of that public money in the form of vouchers to private schools weakens the public system.

The history of "segregation academies" in the south is a good non-religious example. Why should public tax dollars be spent upholding a private system of racial discrimination? In another example: Should the government write a check to home-schoolers for teaching their children at home?

States can do that if they so choose. The establishment clause of the constitution has been so completely misunderstood and bastardized through the years, like the rest of the constitution that it is hardly recognizable anymore.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

Vouchers are a great idea I think. It goes to the parents and allows them to choose the school they want to send their kids to, religious or public.

Then the parents can pay for it on their own and not have it subsidized by taxes. Then according to the article this is a area that has a average home income of over 6 figures.

[cptau 169]

Vouchers are a great idea I think. It goes to the parents and allows them to choose the school they want to send their kids to, religious or public.

If parents choose to instruct/indoctrinate their children in religion, send them to any school of their choice, or even home school them, that's certainly their right.

However public tax dollars cannot constitutionally be spent to provide religious instruction or indoctrination, either as a direct subsidy to a private school, or an indirect subsidy that follows a particular child in the form of voucher. No one pays education taxes simply for the benefit of his/her own particular children, and no one is entitled to withdraw some of that public money for the exclusive use of his or her personal child. Otherwise why should childless individuals pay any education taxes at all?

The concept of public education is not "The state owes you XXX amount of money for your child, wherever or however you choose to educate him/her". It is based on the recognition that it is beneficial to the state and society to ensure an educated citizenry--all citizens--in a public forum. Siphoning off some of that public money in the form of vouchers to private schools weakens the public system.

The history of "segregation academies" in the south is a good non-religious example. Why should public tax dollars be spent upholding a private system of racial discrimination? In another example: Should the government write a check to home-schoolers for teaching their children at home?

I think the educational voucher idea is analogous to saying "Give me a voucher for my defense dollars, and let me decide whether to spend it on a F-22 Raptor or an M1A1 Abrams tank...or even perhaps, to arm my local private militia."

The state doesn't force citizens to buy an F22, or any weapon ( they actual try to stop you), but the state does force parents to educate their children.

That's the rub, send them to the state and its 'free' state education, or send them to private school or home school them and the parent pays.

[cooltigger21 0]

Vouchers are a great idea I think. It goes to the parents and allows them to choose the school they want to send their kids to, religious or public.

Then the parents can pay for it on their own and not have it subsidized by taxes. Then according to the article this is a area that has a average home income of over 6 figures.

Well for one thing I don't think everyone there makes that kind of money. Second vouchers are income based. D.C. had a voucher program but Barry killed that. D.C. itself has a lot of lousy schools and poor people. All the federal workers and congress live out in the Virginia subburbs. All those D.C. residents are stuck with a pitiful school and no way to get their kids out.

[cptau 169]

Vouchers are a great idea I think. It goes to the parents and allows them to choose the school they want to send their kids to, religious or public.

Then the parents can pay for it on their own and not have it subsidized by taxes. Then according to the article this is a area that has a average home income of over 6 figures.

Well for one thing I don't think everyone there makes that kind of money. Second vouchers are income based. D.C. had a voucher program but Barry killed that. D.C. itself has a lot of lousy schools and poor people. All the federal workers and congress live out in the Virginia subburbs. All those D.C. residents are stuck with a pitiful school and no way to get their kids out.

I think DC spends more per pupil than any school system in the country and the system is rated low. The politicians living in DC all send their kids in DC to private schools. Carter tried sending Amy carter to a DC public school for awhile. She was followed by secret service agents all the time and in class too.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

Vouchers are a great idea I think. It goes to the parents and allows them to choose the school they want to send their kids to, religious or public.

Then the parents can pay for it on their own and not have it subsidized by taxes. Then according to the article this is a area that has a average home income of over 6 figures.

Well for one thing I don't think everyone there makes that kind of money. Second vouchers are income based. D.C. had a voucher program but Barry killed that. D.C. itself has a lot of lousy schools and poor people. All the federal workers and congress live out in the Virginia subburbs. All those D.C. residents are stuck with a pitiful school and no way to get their kids out.

Then wouldn't the argument for that be, least the one used here most often, tough luck.... don't depend on a minimum wage job as your income and you can then send your kid to a private religious school?

I went back through some articles, and you are right that is not for the entire county. It was referring to one of the schools in particular.

Course that would bring up an entirely different argument, because the area in Chicago I was in was a 6 figure area and they discussed changing some school lines that would of brought in a different set of kids, and those people freaked out.

[homersapien 11,354]

I think both the positive and negative aspects of our history should be taught. I also think there's no problem with promoting America at the same time.

I agree completely. In fact, to do otherwise is foolish.

IMO, history is learned through personal study. Any bias contained in institutional material will be quickly exposed through such study, which can only lead to cynicism.

And the people who don't bother to learn the real history are likely to support repetition of past mistakes.

And like you said, there's plenty of good things about this country to acknowledge.

Homer, I agree with every thing you said here. However, I know our implementation would be different.

What makes you assume that?

[homersapien 11,354]

This whole thing was set up by the teachers union because they were upset by the proposal to have their pay based on performance. http://www.breitbart...-Salary-Dispute

Apparently this is about both. With the Koch group getting involved with and driving it.

So its about the unions and pay, it's about the curriculum, and it's about using tax money to subsidize religious schools. Little bit of everything for everyone to be mad about.

http://www.politico....race-99252.html

"...The conservatives who control the board have neutered the teachers union, prodded neighborhood elementary schools to compete with one another for market share, directed tax money to pay for religious education and imposed a novel pay scale that values teachers by their subjects, so a young man teaching algebra to eighth graders can make $20,000 a year more than a colleague teaching world history down the hall...."

I can only imagine what a biology teacher makes teaching a curriculum that includes Ecology. :-\

[homersapien 11,354]

Vouchers are a great idea I think. It goes to the parents and allows them to choose the school they want to send their kids to, religious or public.

If parents choose to instruct/indoctrinate their children in religion, send them to any school of their choice, or even home school them, that's certainly their right.

However public tax dollars cannot constitutionally be spent to provide religious instruction or indoctrination, either as a direct subsidy to a private school, or an indirect subsidy that follows a particular child in the form of voucher. No one pays education taxes simply for the benefit of his/her own particular children, and no one is entitled to withdraw some of that public money for the exclusive use of his or her personal child. Otherwise why should childless individuals pay any education taxes at all?

The concept of public education is not "The state owes you XXX amount of money for your child, wherever or however you choose to educate him/her". It is based on the recognition that it is beneficial to the state and society to ensure an educated citizenry--all citizens--in a public forum. Siphoning off some of that public money in the form of vouchers to private schools weakens the public system.

The history of "segregation academies" in the south is a good non-religious example. Why should public tax dollars be spent upholding a private system of racial discrimination? In another example: Should the government write a check to home-schoolers for teaching their children at home?

States can do that if they so choose. The establishment clause of the constitution has been so completely misunderstood and bastardized through the years, like the rest of the constitution that it is hardly recognizable anymore.

States cannot violate the Constitution.