I support the Church's position on issues of abortion and SSA. As I reflect on my experiences at my local public University in Nebraska, I can see how agendas of special interest group are apart of the educational experience. I am all for tolerence. I am against having alternate levels of lifestyle as part of the subject of educational classes. When I took Social Studies for Elementary Teachers, the professor stated how they needed to have same sex couples in texts, in her opinion, because some children come from homes like that. She seemed to talk about pictures as if you could tell the status from pictures. She also made a statement on a different subject that I found troubling. She said that we would be grateful to China some day for their one child limit. This was an off-the-cuff remark not really tied to any lesson. Well, that class was so poorly organized that we really did not receive any formal lessons, in my opinion. In regards to her comment in China, she did not share any facts or information nor did she discuss how there is a counter view that shows that population growth is not a concern. The subject of Same Sex couples came up in another class that was required for Education majors. The teacher spoke of the issue and did not speak specifically against. In private, he told me that he felt that same sex marriage was selfish. I never shared with him my views or my religion. I do not think education should take one position or another on these topics. That is not their place. I did take Earth Science and Environmental Science and was happy that it was more grounded in Science rather than opinion. We learned that the climates through the centuries has varied so much that there could not be a case for Global Warming presently. That may just be one opinion, but at least it had some Science behind it. I know Science has its flaws too. When I took Biology and the section on Evolution was taught, the professor stated clearly that it was a theory and said that God does not allow lab studies on him to prove or disprove it. In contrast, a few of my psychology professors would always discuss evolution in a manner that it was a fact. My Child Psychology professor did offer for someone in the class to support a Creation view as she thought it was only fair as Evolution was brought up in a video. I respected her fairness! In the education field, I took a class on Anatamony and Physiology of the speech mechanisms for Speech Pathology Majors and my professor would usually say things such as whether it was Evolution or our creator, having two sets of ears is a very good design. I realize that many Christian believers and probably other religions see evolution as being in harmony with their religions. My Catholic High school taught that Evolution happened as Darwin said but that God breathed the breathe into the first single cell if my memory serves. Also, it is my understanding that the Church has no formal position on Evolution. I am not wanting to open up a debate on the subjects. I would rather we discuss whether the edcuational process should openly purport such agendas.
I think bias inevitably enters into instruction. It is totally unavoidable. You can present the other side, but even when you present the other side your own views color your presentation. For instance, Shiz does a fairly good job of presenting the point of view of those who vote third party, but it is still obvious that he believes that voting third party is foolhardy. I can present the point of view of someone who thinks that voting third party is foolish, but it is still obvious that I don't agree. The key, I think, is to allow discussion. That way you get several different viewpoints. They will all be colored by personal interpretation, but at least you get several viewpoints to choose from. From what I've heard and experienced, most classes do not allow contrary opinions to be presented anymore.
__________________
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen! - Samuel Adams
I remember taking Geology in college and the lab instructor saying that this or that was proof that evolution was the way the earth was created blah, blah, blah. I looked at the same rocks and got the exact opposite conclusion. College is one of those places where instructors feel a need to pop off and very little need to be sensative to the beliefs of others. That is unless that popping off insults blacks, hispanics, women, homosexuals, child molesters, and muslims.
At least there were no black/hispanic homosexual muslim women who molested children in your classes. You probably would have been asked to bow down to her.
__________________
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen! - Samuel Adams
Good points! I just remembered that there was an LDS professor who taught Biology and Zoology. I did not have him but from LDS friends I learned that he would inject things in class that I think were anti-Evolution. I think he was subtle about it.
Open discussion is breath-taking. It is what I really visualize College as being. I also see the Professors as really mentoring the students and shaping minds. I experienced some of that in my experience, but not nearly enough.
Well, having earned my undergraduate degree at BYU and my graduate degree from The Ohio State University, I can tell you there really is a day to night comparison between what is considered open discussion. Both schools had their pluses and both had their minuses. While at BYU, I often felt that the campus was the world and most of the valley / Utah was simply an extension of that mindset. But at Ohio State, I often felt that if you were not of the world, you had no business being on campus and that your views could be nothing more than quaint bits of interest. Of course, I felt much like an outsider at both schools, despite being LDS from multi-generations at BYU (wasn't from out west so was culturally an outsider). And at Ohio State, I was in the minority minority for being married with children and Mormon and being one of the oldest in my class (30), despite my having grown up in the city and being around the school and being around LDS professors who worked there most of my life.
I had good professors / instructors at both. I had bad professors / instructors at both. I learned things at both. And neither school, in the long run, did much to inspire me to be a lifelong learner or inspire a lot of self-confidence.
__________________
It seems to me the only thing you've learned is that Caesar is a "salad dressing dude."
So many of the topics you mention, Zealia, are based entirely in conjecture, and the limitations of what we humans really know. I think the biggest eye-opener to me in my educational process, was how quickly in certain subjects we run up against the limits of human understanding.
Yet teachers, ESPECIALLY in High School feel a need to present so many of these topics as facts...
Here's my thinking as to why I think this happens:
1. Admitting you don't know something, as a teacher, in front of highschool students leads students to question why you're even necessary and discipline issues (and I don't mean revolts, I mostly mean apathy).
2. Teachers are not aware of the limitations of human knowledge themselves.
3. Teachers assume that there's gotta be someone out there that knows more than he or she, and thus puts out theories as though they are backed up because lots of scientists endorse them.
4. The Answer book told them it was true.
5. Teachers are often expected to teach things that they simply don't care enough about to engender any sort of alternative thinking about the subject.
...
I'm sure there are lots other reasons, but I need to go home now...
--Ray
__________________
I'm not slow; I'm special. (Don't take it personally, everyone finds me offensive. Yet somehow I manage to live with myself.)
Teaching philosophy: A sage on the stage? Or a guide on the side? I'm a guide. Whenever my students ask me what I think about a politically-charged subject (and that's pretty rare in an elementary classroom, with the exception of immigration because, well, I'm in Texas) I ask them what they think. And why they think that. And point them to resources for more information. My political agenda has no place in the classroom.
My school district policy states that if topics related to homosexuality arise in the classroom, teachers should encourage students to discuss the issues with their parents. Until that particular topic becomes a measurable educational objective in the state of Texas, we won't be discussing it in my classroom.
__________________
The ability to qualify for, receive, and act on personal revelation is the single most important skill that can be acquired in this life. - Julie Beck
But Roper, wouldn't you say that personal opinion even enters into discussions of fact? For instance, in discussions of Philo T. Farnsworth I have noticed that most LDS are very ready to acknowledge him as primarily responsible for development of the television, while non-lds usually only acknowledge him as one of many responsible.
__________________
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen! - Samuel Adams
arbilad wrote:But Roper, wouldn't you say that personal opinion even enters into discussions of fact?
There's my perspective, which I will always have because of what I believe and the experiences I have had, and that will undoubtedly color everything I do and say. I do my best to help students develop their own perspectives rather than mimic mine.
There's my opinion, which I do my best to leave out of my classroom, and when directly asked for it, I identify it as my opinion before I give it. I also strive to help students develop their own opinions.
There's my agenda, which does not belong in the classroom. I am employed by citizens to educate their children according to state guidelines. Teaching to my own agenda is unethical and a betrayal of my employers' (fellow citizens') trust.
Most conservative teachers have this same philosophy. Conservative teachers are a small minority.
Most liberal teachers have no problem pushing their agenda in the classroom. And because conservative teachers believe that to be unethical, guess whose values children get the most exposure to?
__________________
The ability to qualify for, receive, and act on personal revelation is the single most important skill that can be acquired in this life. - Julie Beck
