Cop takes 'midnight photos' of teacher's classroom

[oLLie]

I bet it makes that old hippy feel good that he can "outwit" any middle-schoolers that don't agree with his liberal views.

?I tell kids from day one: ?I don?t want you to agree with me, I want you to be informed and think for yourselves,? he said. ?I have never squashed dissent in my class in any way shape or form.?

Treece said his message to students is simple: ?Defend what you believe and if you can?t defend it I?m going to pick holes in your argument no matter what side of the issue you?re on.?

Nothing better for his ego than to pick holes in those who don't really know how to make arguments. Woohoo, maintain your liberal elitism!

 

[ConclamoLudus]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: przero
sandorski - I ask again. "Suppose he was opining that abortion was totally wrong and posted pictures of partial birth abortions. would you be so quick to defend him? Anyone? ' You never answered. Would that be o.k. with you?

Well, I still don't think the question you ask is comparable, but to amuse you: If the issue of Abortion was being discussed, sure, why not post pictures of partial birth abortion. It certainly pertains to the issue, you can't ignore different aspects of an issue simply because they are controversial or ugly.

Can he say that it is WRONG in his opinion? Can he tell his students that he thinks they're idiots if they get an abortion? I don't think there is anything wrong with opinionated discussion in a classroom as long as it is between the STUDENTS, as soon as a teacher gets his opinion in there the kids will focus on that as being what the teacher thinks is the truth, and what the teacher thinks is the truth, MUST BE, he is after all the TEACHER. The exchange is subconcious. Kids look up to their teachers no matter what, and why shouldn't they? Why should they think that its just his opinion and not really the way things are. Let the students opine all day, it is a part of critical thinking, but the teacher only has to be there in those discussions as a voice of moderation and to ask the appropriate questions. He is not there to tell the kids what he believes.

I ask again, what if this guy were teaching about segregation and then said that in his opinion it was wrong to integrate the school system? I sure as hell wouldn't defend him then either. I wouldn't defend him if he said that in his opinion people should be able to pray in school. I wouldn't defend him if he was saying that in his opinion the Democrats were soft on defence. Or if he said that in his opinion affirmative action is wrong. I wouldn't defend him to state his opinion to his kids at all. Teach the names/dates, and let the students teach each other critical thinking skills and debate skills while you are there to mediate the discussion.

Teachers like this exist, I had one for my U.S. History class in High School. He would argue both sides until he was blue in the face. I still have no idea what his political alliances are, if any. It can be done.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: oLLie
I bet it makes that old hippy feel good that he can "outwit" any middle-schoolers that don't agree with his liberal views.

?I tell kids from day one: ?I don?t want you to agree with me, I want you to be informed and think for yourselves,? he said. ?I have never squashed dissent in my class in any way shape or form.?

Treece said his message to students is simple: ?Defend what you believe and if you can?t defend it I?m going to pick holes in your argument no matter what side of the issue you?re on.?

Nothing better for his ego than to pick holes in those who don't really know how to make arguments. Woohoo, maintain your liberal elitism!

"..no matter what side of the issue you're on." This statement seems to be quite telling, did he only pick apart those who disagreed with him or did he only pick apart poor arguements?

What you call "ego" is simply good teaching. We learn better from our mistakes than our successes. If arguements are being made that are full of holes, this(or any) teacher is helping the student(s) by shooting their arguements down.

 

[Oakenfold]

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
My political science professor is a big time leftist and very much opposed the Bush administration, most of our classes did agree with him though.

It's called

Groupthink

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: ConclamoLudus

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: przero
sandorski - I ask again. "Suppose he was opining that abortion was totally wrong and posted pictures of partial birth abortions. would you be so quick to defend him? Anyone? ' You never answered. Would that be o.k. with you?

Well, I still don't think the question you ask is comparable, but to amuse you: If the issue of Abortion was being discussed, sure, why not post pictures of partial birth abortion. It certainly pertains to the issue, you can't ignore different aspects of an issue simply because they are controversial or ugly.

Can he say that it is WRONG in his opinion? Can he tell his students that he thinks they're idiots if they get an abortion? I don't think there is anything wrong with opinionated discussion in a classroom as long as it is between the STUDENTS, as soon as a teacher gets his opinion in there the kids will focus on that as being what the teacher thinks is the truth, and what the teacher thinks is the truth, MUST BE, he is after all the TEACHER. The exchange is subconcious. Kids look up to their teachers no matter what, and why shouldn't they? Why should they think that its just his opinion and not really the way things are. Let the students opine all day, it is a part of critical thinking, but the teacher only has to be there in those discussions as a voice of moderation and to ask the appropriate questions. He is not there to tell the kids what he believes.

I ask again, what if this guy were teaching about segregation and then said that in his opinion it was wrong to integrate the school system? I sure as hell wouldn't defend him then either. I wouldn't defend him if he said that in his opinion people should be able to pray in school. I wouldn't defend him if he was saying that in his opinion the Democrats were soft on defence. Or if he said that in his opinion affirmative action is wrong. I wouldn't defend him to state his opinion to his kids at all. Teach the names/dates, and let the students teach each other critical thinking skills and debate skills while you are there to mediate the discussion.

Teachers like this exist, I had one for my U.S. History class in High School. He would argue both sides until he was blue in the face. I still have no idea what his political alliances are, if any. It can be done.

Again, these issues are not quite the same, but my opinion would depend on the lengths to which the teacher would go. Let's consider the 2 extremes here:

1) A teacher who sits in it's chair, puts it's feet on it's desk and tells the class, "Bush is right, discuss." 40+ minutes later the bell goes, "dismissed".
2) A teacher stands in front of the class and in fine Hitlerarian fashion lectures the class on "Bush the Moron". For 40 minutes the students sit listening to a raging lunatic carry on.

What's the point I'm making? Simply this, there is a wide gamut in which the teacher we are discussing may have taught with. He may have been preachy or he may have simply defended his position in a reasonable manner. This cop and some here seem to think he was more like teacher 2, yourself seems to want teacher 1. Teacher 2 is dangerous and quite frankly doesn't "teach" the students anything, teacher 1 is useless and teaches students nothing.

Part of Social Studies(as well as Mathematics) *is* critical thinking. A wise person once said(dunno who), "Those who don't learn from History are doomed to repeat it." Was this person talking about dates/events? Does knowing dates/events have any bearing on "learning from history"? No, in order to "learn from history" one *must* be able to judge events and to be able to understand the context of those events. In order to "understand" one needs to "critically" approach the subject, failure to do so leads to acceptance.

Without Critical Thinking, issues like the Holocaust become just an event that happened, but couldn't possibly happen again, so why worry about the context of it? A "critical thinker" will likely come to this conclusion:"The Holocaust could(probably will) happen again, we need to guard ourselves against the possibility!"

It sounds like you had a good teacher, but that doesn't mean that all teachers need to remain neutral in order to be good teachers. I hold that a teacher can express his/her opinion and still not unduly influence his/her students, the issue at hand is missing some critical info, did the teacher overstep the bounds to the point of indoctrination? So far it seems he merely expressed a view that a corrupt cop(perhaps just an over exhuberant vigilante) thought was subversive.

 

[przero]

Now suppose that teacher had "Right to Life" stickers in his classroom?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: przero
Now suppose that teacher had "Right to Life" stickers in his classroom?

Yea, ok.

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

There's nothing wrong with that unless you want history class to consist of only blindly learning facts

That's exactly what I want my history class to consist of. At least to the extent that is possible with humans involved. Posting Bush pictures with "little idiot boy king" captions does nothing to add to the history lesson and is clearly forcing opinion on students.

The best teachers are the ones who engage their students in discussion, not the ones who make them recite facts. No, if this guy was forcing his views on the kids, I don't agree with that either, but voal and opinionated discussion among teachers/students is one of the best ways for kids (who, for the most part, are generally uninterested in history) to learn.

I don't know what you would know about a 'good teacher'. It's obvious you've never met one. It is also fairly obvious that this "teacher" was more interested in forwarding his own agenda than having any sort of discussion.

Actually, I have met, and been taught by, several very good teachers. People that I still keep in touch with to this day and who have taught me more than any teacher who simply asked me to recite facts. And I love how you are all of a sudden the supreme authority on what this teacher's intentions were. You don't know any more about it than I do from reading the article, so maybe you should refrain from basing your entire argument on inferences.

 

[Moonbeam]

Well I'm still sure that, and I can tell from, and some inferences are obviously......

 

[oLLie]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: oLLie
I bet it makes that old hippy feel good that he can "outwit" any middle-schoolers that don't agree with his liberal views.

?I tell kids from day one: ?I don?t want you to agree with me, I want you to be informed and think for yourselves,? he said. ?I have never squashed dissent in my class in any way shape or form.?

Treece said his message to students is simple: ?Defend what you believe and if you can?t defend it I?m going to pick holes in your argument no matter what side of the issue you?re on.?

Nothing better for his ego than to pick holes in those who don't really know how to make arguments. Woohoo, maintain your liberal elitism!

"..no matter what side of the issue you're on." This statement seems to be quite telling, did he only pick apart those who disagreed with him or did he only pick apart poor arguements?

What you call "ego" is simply good teaching. We learn better from our mistakes than our successes. If arguements are being made that are full of holes, this(or any) teacher is helping the student(s) by shooting their arguements down.

Hey whatever let's you sleep at night for defending idiots like this, go ahead. So he gave the news guys a fvcking sound byte, and you take it like it is the Word out of the bible or something. You think he isn't biased? Even if he intended to pick arguments apart equally, you think he's so perfect that he can set aside his own bias when arguing? Yea, right. It's not good teaching, it's just him reinforcing that his beliefs are correct by beating up on the arguments of children, yeah that's what I call good teaching all right. If he were truly unbiased, he would present pro and con arguments for both sides of any viewpoint, not broadcast his own and shoot down opinions of children who don't agree with him. Nice little image of him you have built up in your head though.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: oLLie

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: oLLie
I bet it makes that old hippy feel good that he can "outwit" any middle-schoolers that don't agree with his liberal views.

?I tell kids from day one: ?I don?t want you to agree with me, I want you to be informed and think for yourselves,? he said. ?I have never squashed dissent in my class in any way shape or form.?

Treece said his message to students is simple: ?Defend what you believe and if you can?t defend it I?m going to pick holes in your argument no matter what side of the issue you?re on.?

Nothing better for his ego than to pick holes in those who don't really know how to make arguments. Woohoo, maintain your liberal elitism!

"..no matter what side of the issue you're on." This statement seems to be quite telling, did he only pick apart those who disagreed with him or did he only pick apart poor arguements?

What you call "ego" is simply good teaching. We learn better from our mistakes than our successes. If arguements are being made that are full of holes, this(or any) teacher is helping the student(s) by shooting their arguements down.

Hey whatever let's you sleep at night for defending idiots like this, go ahead. So he gave the news guys a fvcking sound byte, and you take it like it is the Word out of the bible or something. You think he isn't biased? Even if he intended to pick arguments apart equally, you think he's so perfect that he can set aside his own bias when arguing? Yea, right. It's not good teaching, it's just him reinforcing that his beliefs are correct by beating up on the arguments of children, yeah that's what I call good teaching all right. If he were truly unbiased, he would present pro and con arguments for both sides of any viewpoint, not broadcast his own and shoot down opinions of children who don't agree with him. Nice little image of him you have built up in your head though.

Perfect? I never said any such thing. We don't know! That is the problem here, you think he's the debil, but besides a few pictures of an opinion and a cop that may very well be wearing a tinfoil hat, we have no idea what or how this teacher taught.

 

[ConclamoLudus]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: ConclamoLudus

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: przero
sandorski - I ask again. "Suppose he was opining that abortion was totally wrong and posted pictures of partial birth abortions. would you be so quick to defend him? Anyone? ' You never answered. Would that be o.k. with you?

Well, I still don't think the question you ask is comparable, but to amuse you: If the issue of Abortion was being discussed, sure, why not post pictures of partial birth abortion. It certainly pertains to the issue, you can't ignore different aspects of an issue simply because they are controversial or ugly.

Can he say that it is WRONG in his opinion? Can he tell his students that he thinks they're idiots if they get an abortion? I don't think there is anything wrong with opinionated discussion in a classroom as long as it is between the STUDENTS, as soon as a teacher gets his opinion in there the kids will focus on that as being what the teacher thinks is the truth, and what the teacher thinks is the truth, MUST BE, he is after all the TEACHER. The exchange is subconcious. Kids look up to their teachers no matter what, and why shouldn't they? Why should they think that its just his opinion and not really the way things are. Let the students opine all day, it is a part of critical thinking, but the teacher only has to be there in those discussions as a voice of moderation and to ask the appropriate questions. He is not there to tell the kids what he believes.

I ask again, what if this guy were teaching about segregation and then said that in his opinion it was wrong to integrate the school system? I sure as hell wouldn't defend him then either. I wouldn't defend him if he said that in his opinion people should be able to pray in school. I wouldn't defend him if he was saying that in his opinion the Democrats were soft on defence. Or if he said that in his opinion affirmative action is wrong. I wouldn't defend him to state his opinion to his kids at all. Teach the names/dates, and let the students teach each other critical thinking skills and debate skills while you are there to mediate the discussion.

Teachers like this exist, I had one for my U.S. History class in High School. He would argue both sides until he was blue in the face. I still have no idea what his political alliances are, if any. It can be done.

Again, these issues are not quite the same, but my opinion would depend on the lengths to which the teacher would go. Let's consider the 2 extremes here:

1) A teacher who sits in it's chair, puts it's feet on it's desk and tells the class, "Bush is right, discuss." 40+ minutes later the bell goes, "dismissed".
2) A teacher stands in front of the class and in fine Hitlerarian fashion lectures the class on "Bush the Moron". For 40 minutes the students sit listening to a raging lunatic carry on.

What's the point I'm making? Simply this, there is a wide gamut in which the teacher we are discussing may have taught with. He may have been preachy or he may have simply defended his position in a reasonable manner. This cop and some here seem to think he was more like teacher 2, yourself seems to want teacher 1. Teacher 2 is dangerous and quite frankly doesn't "teach" the students anything, teacher 1 is useless and teaches students nothing.

Part of Social Studies(as well as Mathematics) *is* critical thinking. A wise person once said(dunno who), "Those who don't learn from History are doomed to repeat it." Was this person talking about dates/events? Does knowing dates/events have any bearing on "learning from history"? No, in order to "learn from history" one *must* be able to judge events and to be able to understand the context of those events. In order to "understand" one needs to "critically" approach the subject, failure to do so leads to acceptance.

Without Critical Thinking, issues like the Holocaust become just an event that happened, but couldn't possibly happen again, so why worry about the context of it? A "critical thinker" will likely come to this conclusion:"The Holocaust could(probably will) happen again, we need to guard ourselves against the possibility!"

It sounds like you had a good teacher, but that doesn't mean that all teachers need to remain neutral in order to be good teachers. I hold that a teacher can express his/her opinion and still not unduly influence his/her students, the issue at hand is missing some critical info, did the teacher overstep the bounds to the point of indoctrination? So far it seems he merely expressed a view that a corrupt cop(perhaps just an over exhuberant vigilante) thought was subversive.

You misunderstand if you think teacher #1 is what I would prefer. I would prefer teacher #3 as both #1 and #2 are equally pathetic and useless. I don't see anywhere in my post where I said a teacher should say Bush is right: discuss.



Teacher #3: What do you think about George W Bush's reasons for the war?

Student#1: Its a sham.

Teacher #3: Why?

Student#1: Because he just wants the oil!

Teacher #3: Don't you think he may want to get rid of WMD's and perhaps liberate the people of Iraq.

Student #2: Yeah, after 9-11 he is just trying to protect America.

Teacher #3: But Student #2, what about companys like Halliburton doing the clean-up and receiving a lot of oil money for it?

Student #1: Yeah. He's just wants revenge for his Daddy.

Teacher#3: Does anyone feel that this may be an oversimplification? Why?



Teacher#3 has pointed out holes in both arguments, raised some serious questions, and didn't answer them with his opinion. He let the children answer with their opinions and let them discuss.

I guess if people could be that unbiased though, we would have at least one decent journalist out there though LOL.

Also I am talking about a general case here, I've never sat in this guys classroom so I don't know. That bulletin board doesn't speak well for him though.

When is it okay for a teacher to express his opinion? When he opposes a war? But not when he opposes another political issue, i.e. abortion, affirmative action, etc...How are these different. We are talking about political issues and a teacher can have an opinion on any of it.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: ConclamoLudus

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: ConclamoLudus

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: przero
sandorski - I ask again. "Suppose he was opining that abortion was totally wrong and posted pictures of partial birth abortions. would you be so quick to defend him? Anyone? ' You never answered. Would that be o.k. with you?

Well, I still don't think the question you ask is comparable, but to amuse you: If the issue of Abortion was being discussed, sure, why not post pictures of partial birth abortion. It certainly pertains to the issue, you can't ignore different aspects of an issue simply because they are controversial or ugly.

Can he say that it is WRONG in his opinion? Can he tell his students that he thinks they're idiots if they get an abortion? I don't think there is anything wrong with opinionated discussion in a classroom as long as it is between the STUDENTS, as soon as a teacher gets his opinion in there the kids will focus on that as being what the teacher thinks is the truth, and what the teacher thinks is the truth, MUST BE, he is after all the TEACHER. The exchange is subconcious. Kids look up to their teachers no matter what, and why shouldn't they? Why should they think that its just his opinion and not really the way things are. Let the students opine all day, it is a part of critical thinking, but the teacher only has to be there in those discussions as a voice of moderation and to ask the appropriate questions. He is not there to tell the kids what he believes.

I ask again, what if this guy were teaching about segregation and then said that in his opinion it was wrong to integrate the school system? I sure as hell wouldn't defend him then either. I wouldn't defend him if he said that in his opinion people should be able to pray in school. I wouldn't defend him if he was saying that in his opinion the Democrats were soft on defence. Or if he said that in his opinion affirmative action is wrong. I wouldn't defend him to state his opinion to his kids at all. Teach the names/dates, and let the students teach each other critical thinking skills and debate skills while you are there to mediate the discussion.

Teachers like this exist, I had one for my U.S. History class in High School. He would argue both sides until he was blue in the face. I still have no idea what his political alliances are, if any. It can be done.

Again, these issues are not quite the same, but my opinion would depend on the lengths to which the teacher would go. Let's consider the 2 extremes here:

1) A teacher who sits in it's chair, puts it's feet on it's desk and tells the class, "Bush is right, discuss." 40+ minutes later the bell goes, "dismissed".
2) A teacher stands in front of the class and in fine Hitlerarian fashion lectures the class on "Bush the Moron". For 40 minutes the students sit listening to a raging lunatic carry on.

What's the point I'm making? Simply this, there is a wide gamut in which the teacher we are discussing may have taught with. He may have been preachy or he may have simply defended his position in a reasonable manner. This cop and some here seem to think he was more like teacher 2, yourself seems to want teacher 1. Teacher 2 is dangerous and quite frankly doesn't "teach" the students anything, teacher 1 is useless and teaches students nothing.

Part of Social Studies(as well as Mathematics) *is* critical thinking. A wise person once said(dunno who), "Those who don't learn from History are doomed to repeat it." Was this person talking about dates/events? Does knowing dates/events have any bearing on "learning from history"? No, in order to "learn from history" one *must* be able to judge events and to be able to understand the context of those events. In order to "understand" one needs to "critically" approach the subject, failure to do so leads to acceptance.

Without Critical Thinking, issues like the Holocaust become just an event that happened, but couldn't possibly happen again, so why worry about the context of it? A "critical thinker" will likely come to this conclusion:"The Holocaust could(probably will) happen again, we need to guard ourselves against the possibility!"

It sounds like you had a good teacher, but that doesn't mean that all teachers need to remain neutral in order to be good teachers. I hold that a teacher can express his/her opinion and still not unduly influence his/her students, the issue at hand is missing some critical info, did the teacher overstep the bounds to the point of indoctrination? So far it seems he merely expressed a view that a corrupt cop(perhaps just an over exhuberant vigilante) thought was subversive.

You misunderstand if you think teacher #1 is what I would prefer. I would prefer teacher #3 as both #1 and #2 are equally pathetic and useless. I don't see anywhere in my post where I said a teacher should say Bush is right: discuss.



Teacher #3: What do you think about George W Bush's reasons for the war?

Student#1: Its a sham.

Teacher #3: Why?

Student#1: Because he just wants the oil!

Teacher #3: Don't you think he may want to get rid of WMD's and perhaps liberate the people of Iraq.

Student #2: Yeah, after 9-11 he is just trying to protect America.

Teacher #3: But Student #2, what about companys like Halliburton doing the clean-up and receiving a lot of oil money for it?

Student #1: Yeah. He's just wants revenge for his Daddy.

Teacher#3: Does anyone feel that this may be an oversimplification? Why?



Teacher#3 has pointed out holes in both arguments, raised some serious questions, and didn't answer them with his opinion. He let the children answer with their opinions and let them discuss.

I guess if people could be that unbiased though, we would have at least one decent journalist out there though LOL.

Also I am talking about a general case here, I've never sat in this guys classroom so I don't know. That bulletin board doesn't speak well for him though.

When is it okay for a teacher to express his opinion? When he opposes a war? But not when he opposes another political issue, i.e. abortion, affirmative action, etc...How are these different. We are talking about political issues and a teacher can have an opinion on any of it.

Is the Bulletin Board the Teachers stuff, is it his students, or is it a combination? We don't know. Other than what's on the door, I'd say that the pictures are utterly meaningless.