Remy Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 All of the common sense in this thread comes from people with other user names, funny enough. Sharpshooter, Deb, and J.R. have already covered a decent amount of what I had to say. Namely, forcing teachers to be "neutral" on all issues is not realistic or even desirable, especially in a case like this where, I'd argue, the primary lesson is to teach students that it's important to examine authority closely. By the way, how do you know exactly what goes on in the classroom anyway? Even if the teaching materials may appear one-sided, that's not to say that the teacher isn't incorporating other resources (we often do), or that the discussion in the classroom doesn't involve an element of debate. But let me get back to this idea that teachers should be neutral. When we teach "To Kill a Mockingbird" should we ignore all the racially charged language and ideas, or should we tackle those social (some would say political) ideas head on? When we teach biology, should we also teach Creationism (there's a pretty big movement for that just below the border) so that we're "teaching both sides" and staying neutral. I think you're grossly underestimating how much responsibility and autonomy teachers have. It is part of our job to shape students, morally. If you're so concerned about this apparent bias, then educate your own children at home, like many parents do with such nonsense as "oil pipelines are good", "the earth is 6000 years old" and "condoms are evil, wait until marriage". TOMapleLaughs ... laughs, indeed. The BCTF is being self-serving by serving the kids, which is one of their prime reasons for existing. Got it. The "monee" that the BCTF and teachers are looking for, by the way, is for schools and not salaries. Teachers have walked away from salary increases, time and again, in favour of that funding being allocated to areas that, teachers feel, is more beneficial to the students. So many baffling posts. "How dare teachers guide our children morally!" and "Teachers just want moar monee, rawr". What a sad, misguided view of a profession that is fighting so hard for your children and their futures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Pffft... 'The money is for the schools and not salaries?' Now we're talking propaganda... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 There seem to be a few children who were left behind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 I wouldn't be concerned if my kids were being played as pawns, because in the end it means nothing. I'd be more concerned about schools if the teachers were replaced by computers, and that is potentially where education is heading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 I wouldn't be concerned if my kids were being played as pawns, because in the end it means nothing. I'd be more concerned about schools if the teachers were replaced by computers, and that is potentially where education is heading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-DLC- Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 So? Most of those students will likely grow up to work on the oil sands anyway. In the meantime, the students 'being warped into rabid environmentalists' are able to what, exactly? Recycle more? Well that's a defeatist attitude if I ever heard one. What a horrible argument for/against anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Oil sands also equals a pretty freaking small sector of the work force...so how "most of those students" (being all the ones in BC who are being taught this?) will be working there is a bit of a mystery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remy Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Pffft... 'The money is for the schools and not salaries?' Now we're talking propaganda... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurn Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 I've heard people call teachers nothing but babysitters. So just pay them as babysitters and I'd guess you would not live long enough to hear a teacher complain about their wage. $ 5 per hour x 30 kids = $150 per hour x 7 hrs = $1,050 per day Anyone out there pay their non relative baby sitter less than $ 5 per hour? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jägermeister Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 And religion is part of charter and private schools already. Politics absolutely should be and is taught in secondary school. I don't know what kind of school you go to or what electives you took, but it's already there. What shouldn't be taught in schools is propaganda information from profiteering companies such as in the case of companies in the oil industry. What next? Should we teach about the benefits of high-fructose corn syrup in Home Economics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Common sense Posted October 4, 2012 Author Share Posted October 4, 2012 "There is a huge difference between teaching scientific facts and political issues." Scientific fact is that a ruptured pipeline will harm the environment and pose a threat to the wildlife shown. I do think the comments here are valid and that both pros and cons need to be presented so students can decide for themselves. I also see nothing wrong with bringing current issues and events into the classroom for discussion and commend teachers who go beyond the books to do so. This is a pretty sensitive issue in BC and there's a lot more at stake here than politics and money. To ONLY focus on those aspects in a bid to keep this out of classrooms is equally wrong, as there are environmental issues that tie in to classroom learning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 When I learned about politics in school I learned about all ends of the political spectrum, from Communism to Fascism and everything in between. Not just a select view. We were also encouraged to voice our own opinion on political issues, and not just take what our teacher told us as fact. Religion is a part of private schools... so? Parents sign their kids up for those schools for that reason. If someone wanted to make a private school that only taught liberal ideologies I wouldn't have any issues with that. The issue is that they are doing this in public schools. And again, another ludicrous comparison. But I guess I shouldn't expect anything more from you Like it or not, some people have things to gain from the pipeline, and if schools are going to educate students about it, they shouldn't ignore some of the information. So of course they should educate about the risks and hazards of the pipeline, but they should also educate about possible economic benefits for Canada. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jägermeister Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Who said that teachers would be mandated to not open the discussion up to the economic benefits should they want to?? What's ludicrous is a myopic view that the BCTF are forcing anti-oil or BC jobs information without the ability to open the discussion to them as well in the classroom. But I shouldn't expect anything less from the the myopic, i suppose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armada Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Who said that teachers would be mandated to not open the discussion up to the economic benefits should they want to?? What's ludicrous is a myopic view that the BCTF are forcing anti-oil or BC jobs information without the ability to open the discussion to them as well in the classroom. But I shouldn't expect anything less from the the myopic, i suppose. There's no question that some people have something to gain from the pipeline. Was that ever being questioned?? And when you learned about politics in school, did you learn about the principles and fundamentals of Anarchy, along with democracy and Communism and Fascism?? No? Well, you should be outraged that you didn't get to learn all about that political paradigm and its benefits for society. I mean, you should really write a letter to the BCTF and the Education Minister for depriving you of that necessary and important piece of educational curriculum. Why, you could have been an anarchist this whole time. You poor thing. My heart goes out to your lack of knowledge and the betrayal of our education system towards you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Has this not been the entire point of this discussion? You brought up issue with teachers bringing up any benefits. Well you were the one who compared teaching the benefits to teaching Creationism or Alchemy. "Hocus Pocus" right? I'll take a page out of your book here... "Oh you assumed something blah blah blah, see look how smart I look now" Yeah, I've learned about Anarchy. So... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jägermeister Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 What I said was, that information from the oil companies purporting the benefits of the pipeline is not on the same footing as the risks associated with an oil spill as researched and concluded by the those that work in the natural sciences. Big difference. Again, it went whoosh, because of your myopia. Yep, the benefits are as 'hocus pocus' as the benefits touted by suggesting that one can turn lead into gold. Both which fly farcically in the face of the facts of reality, but that still doesn't mean I or anyone was suggesting that someone or some group wouldn't benefit. You're loony if you think any one here was suggesting that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Absolutely agree with the bolded statement - one reason that I was very interested in worldly affairs was with my socials 10 teacher in 2004-05 who constantly brought up key issues such as SARS, the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, Paul Martin and Harper, and the 2010 Games. Again, what I have issue is that on a divisive topic like this, the union isn't providing teachers with the appropriate materials needed to teach this in a critical manner - the union is only providing the anti-pipeline portion of the argument. There is so much we can cover with this pipelines - issues of oil spills, First Nations rights, Canadian-Chinese relations, the role of corporations in government/society, the science of fracking and extraction - all this is gone simply because the BCTF did not present two sides of the argument and allow students to understand the spectrum of the arguments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 What I said was, that information from the oil companies purporting the benefits of the pipeline is not on the same footing as the risks associated with an oil spill as researched and concluded by the those that work in the natural sciences. Big difference. Again, it went whoosh, because of your myopia. Yep, the benefits are as 'hocus pocus' as the benefits touted by suggesting that one can turn lead into gold. Both which fly farcically in the face of the facts of reality, but that still doesn't mean I or anyone was suggesting that someone or some group wouldn't benefit. You're loony if you think any one here was suggesting that. You learned about Anarchy is secondary school? Pray tell, which grade did you learn that in? and which chapter of your Social Studies or Poli-Sci textbook was that knowledge contained in?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.