Jason Stone wrote: > Perhaps Michael Atherton's gripe with peace is that he is > interpreting Peace as Peace At Any Cost instead of Peace > First.
Before I respond to specific comments I'd like to reiterate my major point: I don't believe that the public schools should be endorsing anyone's specific political agenda. It doesn't matter to me if it's William F. Buckley Jr.'s or the Dalai Lama's. We should try to keep political (and religious) biases out of public education. There's no need to inject a "Peace/Global perspective" into elementary school curriculum. I will never cease to be amazed at the glibness with which people are willing to project their ethical values onto other people's children. Elementary schools should focus on their primary mission: teaching children to read, write, do arithmetic, and understand basic science; something that they are not current very successful at. They should not be extending time and energy indoctrinating students in political dogma; something at which they actually seem to be more successful. Unless you are intimately involved with the educational establishment you are probably not aware that many contemporary educators openly profess liberal activism. They are out to remake the world in their ideal image. Unfortunately, the Constitutionally protected beliefs of others are often perceived as obstructionist and individuals who hold alternative viewpoints are subject to censorship, prejudice, and discrimination. Welcome to the "big wonderful Human Family." It's amazing to me that the Minneapolis School Board allows schools to declare themselves as aligned with specific political movements and accept grants that are designed to influence what students are taught. Something needs to be done to provide political neutrality in the MPS. My family should not be forced into the private schools to insure that our children are not indoctrinated in specific political perspectives not shared by my wife and I. David Shove wrote: > What is your position on JROTC - Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps - > in the public schools, directed by the military, but financed in part by > city property taxes? I believe that if it is included along with a choice of vocational options that it is acceptable. The US Military is the most color blind large institution in the country and offers career advancement opportunities unavailable in other sectors. If JROTC is the only option, then it should be delivered though facilities currently available to the Reserves and be funded by the Pentagon. If Peace organizations would like to provide similar career training then I feel they should also be included in vocational programs. WizardMarks wrote: > It seems to me that what's missing is that curricula in schools, > both public and private, has always been politically determined. I won't deny that curricula in schools have historically been determined by religious and political forces, that doesn't make it a good thing or help children to think critically. I do believe that you can teach reading, writing, mathematics, and science without political biases (History might be a different matter). > The other thing that's forgotten in this discussion is that kids, no > matter what particular hogwash adults indoctrinate them with, usually > throw it off, knowing it for what it is. It takes more than school > indoctrination to ensure that kids grow up accepting any particular > notions. I am not sure that it is true that political indoctrination is necessarily unsuccessful. Just look how limited List members political viewpoints are. Even if students are not influenced by indoctrination, it is a waste of valuable instructional time and recourses. Let's be sure that all children can read before we try to convince them that World Peace is the only creditable political option. Brandon Lacy wrote: > Comparing this agenda to the Alabama Chief Justice's posting of the Ten > Commandments is akin to comparing oranges to Bibles. The posting of the Ten > Commandments was illegal. The United States Constitution clearly delineates > a separation of Church and State. Having the foundation for Judeo-Christian > law in the Supreme Court rotunda is clearly a violation of the United States > constitution. While I might agree that there is technically a legal difference between the Ten Commandments and a Peace/Global perspective, both are ethical systems that dictate particular values and beliefs. I think that it the responsibility of the School Board to insure that a single political perspective does not limit how and what students are taught. > So I'm a little confused as to who gets to make the decision about exactly > what political agenda is taught in school. There are a number of factors that influence the decision of what political agenda is taught, the Constitution being just one and the School Board being another. I believe that it is the responsibility of the School Board in insure that instruction is not politically biased. David Brauer wrote: > Also, I find it contradictory that who advocate discipline in the schools > would resist teaching non-violent conflict resolution, I didn't resist teaching non-violent conflict resolution. I stated that I didn't believe that, "...public education should be promoting ethical values beyond those necessary to maintain order in their schools (i.e., manners, courtesy, and respect)." If non-violent conflict resolution is necessary to maintain order in the schools then it should be included in the curriculum, however I don't believe that there is sufficient evidence to show that such instruction is effective. Educators should focus on the primary goals of education, not on social engineering. Although historically many educators have advocated that education would cure societal ills, I don't share that belief. I believe that it is sufficient if primary and secondary education provide basic skills, core knowledge, and the ability to think critically. Niels Strandskov wrote: > In the Minneapolis Public Schools, of which I am a 1993 graduate, > there is an explicit bias in favor of a very politically-determined > view of what constitutes Western culture. We live in a "Western culture," it shouldn't be surprising that instruction is oriented to convey its basic constructs. That's fundamentally different than teaching a specific political philosophy. It also doesn't mean that Western culture cannot be critically analyzed in secondary schools. What many people do not seem to realized is that allowing the schools to promote political perspectives does not mean that they will always promote Peace. What is said from this bully pulpit can change depending on who has possession. I think that we need to insure that students are presented with alternative viewpoints and that they can analyze them critically. After all, isn't what Diversity and Multicultural Education is all about? Or, maybe it's not. Michael Atherton Prospect Park REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
