School cancels Veteran event, says too political

Fash · Post by **Fash** » March 25, 2008, 2:36 pm

http://www.startribune.com/politics/local/16971116.html

A national tour featuring decorated veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan won't be stopping at Forest Lake Area High School today as planned, after school leaders abruptly canceled the visit.

Steve Massey, the school principal, said the decision to cancel was prompted by concerns that the event was becoming political rather than educational and therefore was not suitable for a public school.

He said the school had received several phone calls from parents and others, some of whom indicated that they may stage a protest if the event took place.

"The event was structured to be an academic classroom discussion around military service. We thought we'd provide an opportunity for kids to learn about service in the context of our history classes," Massey said. "As the day progressed, it became clear that this was becoming a political event ... which would be inappropriate in a public setting.
"We decided to cancel," Massey said. Organizers of the National Heroes Tour then scrambled to relocate the event to the American Legion building in Forest Lake. The visit, which U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Stillwater, had been scheduled to attend, is sponsored by Vets for Freedom, a national organization run by Pete Hegseth, a 1999 graduate of Forest Lake Area High School who served with the 101st Airborne in Iraq in 2005-06.

"I think it's extremely unfortunate that a school would bow to the political pressure of outside groups and not bring in a veterans organization," Hegseth said. "Are we saying that patriotism and duty and honor have no place in our public schools?" So far, the tour has visited one school, albeit a private school.

The stop in Forest Lake was supposed to involve about 150 social studies students and was going to be closed to the public but open to the media. But the last-minute venue change left Hegseth wondering how many people would actually show up today.

"I don't know if we'll have a crowd," he said. "We changed venues, but we don't have the ability to publicize it." He said he had talked with school officials ahead of time and assured them that the presenters would not make any political statements.

"We had a number of conversations at the beginning of this to make sure our message was in keeping with the traditions of a public school," Hegseth said.

"We have not endorsed a presidential candidate. We're not in the business of doing that." According to the Veterans for Freedom website, the national tour "is about supporting our troops, honoring their commitment and rallying the country to complete the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

At this critical juncture in our country, we need Americans, lawmakers and the media to fully recognize -- and appreciate -- the sacrifice of our brave military and the dramatic success they have achieved, especially in Iraq with the new counterinsurgency strategy."

When asked whether the part about "rallying the country to complete the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan" could indeed be construed as political, Hegseth said that the group agreed not to advocate about the "progress made in Iraq and Afghanistan."

"It's Iraq and Afghan veterans talking about what they saw and what they did there, and about what it means to put on the uniform of your country," he said. The veterans started their bus tour in San Diego on March 14 and will end April 9 in New York City.

Communist sons of bitches! These people are not thinking clearly... Their own personal bias against the administration and the current war is affecting their judgment. Never should our armed services be turned away from a public school.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » March 25, 2008, 2:41 pm

When asked whether the part about "rallying the country to complete the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan" could indeed be construed as political, Hegseth said that the group agreed not to advocate about the "progress made in Iraq and Afghanistan."

This is unquestionably political. It is political whether they plan to advocate about the progress made in Iraq and Afghanistan or not.

I would like to know more about the sorts of presentations they give before I decide whether I think they ought to be excluded or not, but that is obviously political.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » March 25, 2008, 2:58 pm

Sueven wrote:This is unquestionably political. It is political whether they plan to advocate about the progress made in Iraq and Afghanistan or not.

Political, yes.. Too political? I don't think so.

They get inundated with plenty of anti-American, anti-military garbage on the TV and in the newspaper, I think it's important they get a little first hand info from the other side.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » March 25, 2008, 2:59 pm

Yeah I don't like this either. However, I will assure you that forest lake is one of the biggest shit holes in minnesota, so I'm not surprised.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 25, 2008, 3:11 pm

Patriotism is more than just allowing a Veteran event to happen. We surely can't allow an event to sanction what their country has decided to do. NO NO NO. It is only allowable to sanction an event disagreeing with what the country has decided to so. Nothing to see here. Please move along.

Animale · Post by **Animale** » March 25, 2008, 3:14 pm

I used to volunteer in a middle school helping out the biology teacher once a week. One day they had a "career day" for the 11-13 year olds, with different seminars about stuff such as "teacher," "musician (the Cherry Popping Daddies talked at that as it was their middle school), and other stuff. I got stuck helping out as the "adult" in the session held by the U.S. Marine recruiter. So, he gave his schpiel - and the kids of course had questions about the swords and the advertisements on the TV. But, it was quite appalling at how much he stressed the "money for college" angle on middle schoolers (mostly 6th graders!) while simultaneously glossing over the "hard work" and "killing" aspects of the job (he was directly asked about how hard it was and if he (and by extension the Marines) had show at or killed anybody and he deftly sidestepped these issues).

Now, this is a High School so things are a little different. But, I don't think we should be celebrating death and destruction as a laudable ideal to young students. They are not, in general, able to distinguish between the realities of soldiers at war(which are sometimes necessary) with the political motivations of the leaders who send them there. It becomes "hero worship" with the flashy uniforms and the shiny medals while hiding the dirt, sweat, and blood of war itself. When "support the troops" becomes "don't question authority," then we've lost something as a nation. It isn't hard to see from their statements that the realities of war were not going to be discussed and that this was simply an aggradized recruiting opportunity for the military.

I say that political groups which grandstandsoldiers for their own benefit need to be ashamed. That goes for both the anti-war (rolling out the folks without arms/legs/etc.) and the "rallying the country" folks here.

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » March 25, 2008, 3:39 pm

I don't know. I think giving kids that are only a few years (or months?) away from being able to enlist a chance to actually talk to soldiers who have served in a theater of war (and the same one they could be serving in most likely) without the whole recruiter/salesman pitch isn't necessarily a bad thing...

Be that as it may, the parents objected, and as a parent myself I can respect that to some degree, although some parents are idiots. Kids go to school to learn, and you don't only learn from a textbooks.

Animale - I agree that Marine recruiters should stay away from middle schools (but think they have a perfect right to exist in Berkeley CA

) but I'm not quite sure I agree with your other comments.

But, I don't think we should be celebrating death and destruction as a laudable ideal to young students. They are not, in general, able to distinguish between the realities of soldiers at war(which are sometimes necessary) with the political motivations of the leaders who send them there. It becomes "hero worship" with the flashy uniforms and the shiny medals while hiding the dirt, sweat, and blood of war itself. When "support the troops" becomes "don't question authority," then we've lost something as a nation. It isn't hard to see from their statements that the realities of war were not going to be discussed and that this was simply an aggradized recruiting opportunity for the military.

I mean geeze man, are you saying that everyon under a certain age should be sequestered like a jurist in a controversial trial lest they be influenced by others? Who the fuck is "celebrating death and destruction"? I'm pretty fucking sure teenagers know they can be killed if they become a soldier. I know I did. A standing military does not exist for one specific thing, it exists for a general purpose. Yes, you can HATE the conflicts in the middle east, hell I do, screaming "QUESTION EVERYTHING!!!" at kids doesn't change the fact that we still have a standing military that has the same human resources issues as any other company. Yes, in the military they can be called upon to kill or can be killed. They know that.

EDIT: Grammar

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » March 25, 2008, 3:49 pm

Animale wrote:It isn't hard to see from their statements that the realities of war were not going to be discussed and that this was simply an aggradized recruiting opportunity for the military.

We must have read two different articles then. I saw where they were making sure that the conversations would be appropriate for the audience, and politics would not be involved.

"We had a number of conversations at the beginning of this to make sure our message was in keeping with the traditions of a public school," Hegseth said.

"We have not endorsed a presidential candidate. We're not in the business of doing that." According to the Veterans for Freedom website, the national tour "is about supporting our troops, honoring their commitment and rallying the country to complete the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

At this critical juncture in our country, we need Americans, lawmakers and the media to fully recognize -- and appreciate -- the sacrifice of our brave military and the dramatic success they have achieved, especially in Iraq with the new counterinsurgency strategy."

When asked whether the part about "rallying the country to complete the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan" could indeed be construed as political, Hegseth said that the group agreed not to advocate about the "progress made in Iraq and Afghanistan."

"It's Iraq and Afghan veterans talking about what they saw and what they did there, and about what it means to put on the uniform of your country," he said. The veterans started their bus tour in San Diego on March 14 and will end April 9 in New York City.

Xatrei · Post by **Xatrei** » March 25, 2008, 4:35 pm

They may not have officially endorsed a candidate this year, but this is a political, right-leaning, pro-war lobbying organization. It's a lie that this group is not in the business of endorsing political candidates. They actively endorsed and supported House and Senate candidates in 2006 who were outspoken pro-GWoT supporters of both political parties, and one independent (Lieberman). This isn't just a group of politically unaffiliated veterans seeking to educate kids on life in the military. Their Heros Tour school visits are structured to push an agenda which has no business in a school environment, IMO. I have no issues with school kids getting a presentation on what life as a soldier or marine is like (or an accountant, nurse, welder or mechanic for that matter), but this simply isn't the case with this group. To be clear, I don't feel an anti-war political message should be presented ether. As I've stated before, I'm an Army veteran that is very proud of my service. I'm far from anti-military, but I'm profoundly opposed to the way our military is currently being used.

Before getting all bent out of shape about this, take just a few minutes to look into this group a little. There's plenty of info to be found.

Edit to add: Yeah, I know that they provided assurances that they would not get into political topics, but given this group's agenda and history, I don't think such assurances are credible. A group that is inherently political doesn't need to explicitly discuss political issues to forward an agenda anyway.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 25, 2008, 4:52 pm

OMG how horrible. No one has an issue with the entire teachers union opening endorsing the Democratic candidate every election though. NO NO NO. Of course not. But, if one school shows a leaning toward the republican side, we must call OUTRAGE!!!!!!!

Keep it up hypocrites. Keep it up.

Xatrei · Post by **Xatrei** » March 25, 2008, 4:56 pm

There's no hypocrisy. I have no issue with the teacher's union endorsing a candidate. I would, however, have an issue if the teacher's union came into the kid's classroom and began promoting their political agenda. I have no issue about Vets For Freedom promoting its agenda in any number of ways, but I don't think it belongs in a classroom environment.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » March 25, 2008, 4:57 pm

I think he's saying that the teachers union IS in the classroom promoting their agenda. I would agree. They are.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » March 25, 2008, 4:58 pm

VeeshanVault endorses John McCain

It's posted on the official phpBB forum endorsement list that way.

Xatrei · Post by **Xatrei** » March 25, 2008, 4:59 pm

Fash wrote:I think he's saying that the teachers union IS in the classroom promoting their agenda. I would agree. They are.

I understand and can respect that opinion, but (surprise, surprise) I don't agree.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 25, 2008, 5:01 pm

Xatrei wrote:
Fash wrote:I think he's saying that the teachers union IS in the classroom promoting their agenda. I would agree. They are.
I understand and can respect that opinion, but (surprise, surprise) I don't agree.

Did you go to school? Did you go to college? They push their political beliefs down the kids throats every day.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » March 25, 2008, 5:05 pm

Xatrei wrote:
Fash wrote:I think he's saying that the teachers union IS in the classroom promoting their agenda. I would agree. They are.
I understand and can respect that opinion, but (surprise, surprise) I don't agree.

I really don't think it's an agree/disagree scenario in this particular case. The teachers belong to the union and they collectively care enough about the democratic party to endorse them. Keeping that in mind, to think that they aren't going to show bias in class seems silly to me, even if it is just once in a while (this particular thing with the marines was a 1 time thing.)

It's exactly as mid said it is, complete hypocrisy. But (surprise, surprise) most people here can't/don't/won't see that.

Xatrei · Post by **Xatrei** » March 25, 2008, 6:00 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Xatrei wrote:
Fash wrote:I think he's saying that the teachers union IS in the classroom promoting their agenda. I would agree. They are.
I understand and can respect that opinion, but (surprise, surprise) I don't agree.
Did you go to school? Did you go to college? They push their political beliefs down the kids throats every day.

Yes, I experienced this in college. In public high school? No, frankly, I did not. My teachers in high school taught the subjects they were there to teach, and didn't push any sort of political agenda on us at all. That's not to say that they were perfectly neutral or that their own political biases were completely absent from the lessons. They weren't because that's not possible. However, there was never an incident where a teacher pushed a particular agenda, even when their opinions about a particular topic may have been rather obvious. Before high school, I attended a private, religious school, and I certainly can't say the same for those loons. I don't have an issue with injecting political positions into a college classroom, but we're talking about high school kids here. Now, I'm certainly willing to concede that my experience isn't universal, and I'm sure that there are teachers out there at every level that do inject politics into their classroom. I just don't believe that it's the norm, and I don't think it's appropriate regardless of the political position being forwarded. My wife and I have not yet had children, but judging by what I know from friends / family / coworkers with school-aged children, I don't see this as being much of an issue here. Again, though, things may be different in your school districts. I'll take your word for it (with the usual grain of salt).

Funkmasterr wrote:I really don't think it's an agree/disagree scenario in this particular case. The teachers belong to the union and they collectively care enough about the democratic party to endorse them. Keeping that in mind, to think that they aren't going to show bias in class seems silly to me, even if it is just once in a while (this particular thing with the marines was a 1 time thing.)

It's exactly as mid said it is, complete hypocrisy. But (surprise, surprise) most people here can't/don't/won't see that.

As I said to Mid, I know that the political leanings of individual teachers work their way into the classroom, and that is true whether the teacher is on the left, right or somewhere in the middle. That's different from actively promoting a political agenda, and it's certainly not the same as representatives from a political group, regardless of its affiliation or purpose, entering the classroom and promoting their mission.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » March 25, 2008, 7:03 pm

Xatrei wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Xatrei wrote:
Fash wrote:I think he's saying that the teachers union IS in the classroom promoting their agenda. I would agree. They are.
I understand and can respect that opinion, but (surprise, surprise) I don't agree.
Did you go to school? Did you go to college? They push their political beliefs down the kids throats every day.
Yes, I experienced this in college. In public high school? No, frankly, I did not. My teachers in high school taught the subjects they were there to teach, and didn't push any sort of political agenda on us at all. That's not to say that they were perfectly neutral or that their own political biases were completely absent from the lessons. They weren't because that's not possible. However, there was never an incident where a teacher pushed a particular agenda, even when their opinions about a particular topic may have been rather obvious. Before high school, I attended a private, religious school, and I certainly can't say the same for those loons. I don't have an issue with injecting political positions into a college classroom, but we're talking about high school kids here. Now, I'm certainly willing to concede that my experience isn't universal, and I'm sure that there are teachers out there at every level that do inject politics into their classroom. I just don't believe that it's the norm, and I don't think it's appropriate regardless of the political position being forwarded. My wife and I have not yet had children, but judging by what I know from friends / family / coworkers with school-aged children, I don't see this as being much of an issue here. Again, though, things may be different in your school districts. I'll take your word for it (with the usual grain of salt).

Funkmasterr wrote:I really don't think it's an agree/disagree scenario in this particular case. The teachers belong to the union and they collectively care enough about the democratic party to endorse them. Keeping that in mind, to think that they aren't going to show bias in class seems silly to me, even if it is just once in a while (this particular thing with the marines was a 1 time thing.)

It's exactly as mid said it is, complete hypocrisy. But (surprise, surprise) most people here can't/don't/won't see that.
As I said to Mid, I know that the political leanings of individual teachers work their way into the classroom, and that is true whether the teacher is on the left, right or somewhere in the middle. That's different from actively promoting a political agenda, and it's certainly not the same as representatives from a political group, regardless of its affiliation or purpose, entering the classroom and promoting their mission.

It's hardly different. I'm not comparing oranges to apples here, im comparing Granny Smiths to Washington Reds.

Getting into arguing to what degree they are pushing or not pushing an agenda seems a bit ridiculous to me. Either it is not ok or it is, I personally don't see this as a grey area issue.

Wulfran · Post by **Wulfran** » March 25, 2008, 7:09 pm

I agree with most of what Ashur said about letting kids, who may be entertaining the idea of a career in uniform, meet with soldiers who have been there and can relate some of those experiences to the kids. Maybe I'm taking the wrong impression from this article but when I was in high school we had WW2 and Korean vets come in periodically and talk about their experiences. We now have more recent conflicts and younger veterans to present to students, people they may be able to relate to more easily than someone who looks like their grandfather or great grandfather.

"We have not endorsed a presidential candidate. We're not in the business of doing that." According to the Veterans for Freedom website, the national tour "is about supporting our troops, honoring their commitment and rallying the country to complete the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The above statement enters the realm of politics, IMO because of the last part that I bolded and underlined. They may not be pushing a candidate per se but that is supporting an agenda. HOWEVER, I don't see much wrong with that either in that:

a) there are teachers who push their politics in addition to the curriculum they are supposed to teach (I know this from personal experience and from discussions with friends/family/etc), so I don't see harm in presenting an alternative view point;
b) there will be supervision and I would assume discussion with teachers/supervision to represent an opposing viewpoint and possibly rebutt any spurious/false statements made
c) I believe that politics and current events SHOULD be discussed in schools. Kids need to be informed about the world they are going to step out into one day. There is a lot of disaffection with our political processes in the Western World and its worst in our youth. They need to be informed and taught how to evaluate and if necessary stand up for what they think is important. When you talk about Iraq and Afghanistan, teens will be asked to vote on and in some cases go serve in these missions in the near future as they mature: they need to have some serious thought about these issues.

Spang · Post by **Spang** » March 25, 2008, 11:05 pm

Animale wrote:But, it was quite appalling at how much he stressed the "money for college" angle on middle schoolers (mostly 6th graders!) while simultaneously glossing over the "hard work" and "killing" aspects of the job (he was directly asked about how hard it was and if he (and by extension the Marines) had show at or killed anybody and he deftly sidestepped these issues).

You'd rather the recruiter talked about guns and violence to a bunch of 6th graders?

Asheran Mojomaster · Post by **Asheran Mojomaster** » March 25, 2008, 11:34 pm

I would have to say that politics were rarely brought up in my high school. I can think of 2 teachers who talked about politics in class, and both were republicans. One was my 10th grade history teacher who was always talking about those "bleeding heart liberals" and "crazy feminists". He was a joke and everyone knew that. The other one was my Econ \ American Government teacher. He was career military for 25 years before becoming a teacher, fought in Korea, and was a self made millionaire. He taught because he loved to teach.

Given the classes he taught (American Government specifically), its understandable that politics were brought up, and while he was a republican he never tried to shove anything down our throats. He was an amazing man, and a great teacher (my 2nd favorite, after my Chemistry teacher who is a big part of the reason I am in Chemical Engineering).

But yes, outside of a government class, politics has no place in school. In college its a little more acceptable. I would like to think that most people who are making it through college have the ability to think and reason for themselves. Then again, a big part of the reason I am an Obama supporter is because of my English prof last semester. We were forced to read Obama's book, and that got me interested in him. But, I did not blindly support him after reading his book. I took the time to research the man himself and listen to his speeches.

However, I still think Ron Paul, had he been nominated and elected, would have been the best president so far in my lifetime.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » March 25, 2008, 11:37 pm

Yeah, soldiers from Iraq sure know a lot about honour

Of course, questioning illegitimate bullshit wars and the retards who fight in them is terribly un PC, and not PATRIOTIC, so let's criticise the people with enough brains to make sure their kids aren't introduced on a personal basis with illegal occupiers and murderers.

Hey kids, ask me what it feels like to support the bombing of innocent children, because that's what I did, radical eh?!?!?! AWESOME!

Markulas · Post by **Markulas** » March 26, 2008, 12:02 am

All rambling aside, Michele Bachmann was going to speak at the event. In case you have the luxury of not knowing this wingnut is here's a nice clip of her in action:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=930gQZmC ... re=related

(she's not known to be apolitical)

At my old high school we had former vets come in quite a bit, so I don't think it's the vets that are at issue. Hell in this election cycle veterans gave more money to Ron Paul and Obama than the other candidates even though they want to get the hell out of Iraq.

I personally did not experience political agenda pushing in my high school or college (not liberal arts), although I would have enjoyed hearing political views in college.

I would like to think that most people who are making it through college have the ability to think and reason for themselves.

/agree, although there are still many dumb kids who get into good universities.

Xatrei · Post by **Xatrei** » March 26, 2008, 12:20 am

Asheran Mojomaster wrote:I would have to say that politics were rarely brought up in my high school. I can think of 2 teachers who talked about politics in class, and both were republicans...

I should have mentioned before that my teachers in high school that were more open about their politics were all right wing liberal-bashers. Like I said before, they didn't really push any sort of ideology on us, but they didn't hide their own leanings at all. If Rush Limbaugh had been on the air back then, I'm sure they'd have been big fans. There were also a couple of teachers that were preacher's wives and/or devout church ladies that were far more open about their beliefs than I was comfortable with. I blame this on the fact that we're in a very conservative and religious state.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » March 26, 2008, 12:25 am

There are way too many stupid kids in universities of all calibers. College students should be forced to go to, like, a wilderness survival crash course to learn some life skills.

Seriously, I agree with everything Xatrei has said in this thread.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » March 26, 2008, 1:32 am

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:No one has an issue with the entire teachers union opening endorsing the Democratic candidate every election though.

They have to support the party that has the best chance of helping schools. That sure as hell isn't the Republican party. They would rather build another billion dollar B2 bomber, or invest another couple hundred million in researching future weapons.

Go teachers!

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 26, 2008, 9:30 am

Fairweather Pure wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:No one has an issue with the entire teachers union opening endorsing the Democratic candidate every election though.
They have to support the party that has the best chance of helping schools. That sure as hell isn't the Republican party. They would rather build another billion dollar B2 bomber, or invest another couple hundred million in researching future weapons.

Go teachers!

Oh really? The mandatory testing was implemented by Republicans and it is working out phenomenally well. The education the kids are getting in 6th grade matches up with the shit I didn't learn until 9th and 10th. The school system is doing very well, if the way you rank it by how well they teach the students.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » March 26, 2008, 10:39 am

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Oh really? The mandatory testing was implemented by Republicans and it is working out phenomenally well. The education the kids are getting in 6th grade matches up with the shit I didn't learn until 9th and 10th. The school system is doing very well, if the way you rank it by how well they teach the students.

Do you really know anything about this? Students are no longer taught subjects. They are taught exactly what is needed to pass a test. Ask them a question about the courses they are taking that would not apply on the test and they're clueless. The bilingual students have it even worse, as they have to pass the test in English and Spanish to advance, yet the hispanic dropout rates are generally attributed to gangs, drugs, and having children.

Yes, we do need a way to actually ensure that the children are getting the necessary education, but this testing is not the way to do that. Now, we are only making sure that they are able to pass a test once every few years.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 26, 2008, 11:01 am

Yes Boog, I do know what I'm talking about. I know a few teachers and yes they parrott the whole "we teach them what is on the test" and guess what? They are learning what is on the test. The complaints I've heard sitting in teacher conferences and from my teacher friends is that they no longer have time for fun things like birthday parties, etc. How terrible.

As far as bilingual students...haha. Learn the language of the country you live in and you won't have that problem. It is your responsibility to adapt to the country you move to, not the other way around.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » March 26, 2008, 11:07 am

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Yes Boog, I do know what I'm talking about. I know a few teachers and yes they parrott the whole "we teach them what is on the test" and guess what? They are learning what is on the test. The complaints I've heard sitting in teacher conferences and from my teacher friends is that they no longer have time for fun things like birthday parties, etc. How terrible.

As far as bilingual students...haha. Learn the language of the country you live in and you won't have that problem. It is your responsibility to adapt to the country you move to, not the other way around.

So, learning what is on a test is sufficient for you? It isn't for me.

Also, many of the families of the bilingual students have probably been here for more generations than your family and definitely more than my own. Who are you to make them learn your language? While I agree that it would make life easier, there is no actual reason they should have to do so. This is something that someone in the PA/NJ area probably wouldn't understand since all of the "natives" of that region were "relocated."

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 26, 2008, 11:13 am

Boogahz wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Yes Boog, I do know what I'm talking about. I know a few teachers and yes they parrott the whole "we teach them what is on the test" and guess what? They are learning what is on the test. The complaints I've heard sitting in teacher conferences and from my teacher friends is that they no longer have time for fun things like birthday parties, etc. How terrible.

As far as bilingual students...haha. Learn the language of the country you live in and you won't have that problem. It is your responsibility to adapt to the country you move to, not the other way around.
So, learning what is on a test is sufficient for you? It isn't for me.

Also, many of the families of the bilingual students have probably been here for more generations than your family and definitely more than my own. Who are you to make them learn your language? While I agree that it would make life easier, there is no actual reason they should have to do so. This is something that someone in the PA/NJ area probably wouldn't understand since all of the "natives" of that region were "relocated."

They do go to school to learn the basics, so yes if they are learnign what's on the test it is fantastic. What specifically besides what's on the test do you think they are missing out on? What is your expectation of a school ( a learning institution) to do besides teach our children?

Now to the bilingual thing, if I moved to Spain, why would it make sense for me to expect Spain to adapt to me? Shouldn't I learn Spanish and adapt to their culture if I choose to live my life there?

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » March 26, 2008, 11:15 am

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Now to the bilingual thing, if I moved to Spain, why would it make sense for me to expect Spain to adapt to me? Shouldn't I learn Spanish and adapt to their culture if I choose to live my life there?

You're missing the point. If the US moved to Spain, would you expect the Spanish people to adapt to the US?

Post by **Sylvus** » March 26, 2008, 11:24 am

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:What specifically besides what's on the test do you think they are missing out on?

Aha, I think we've finally arrived at the crux of the matter!

I love eureka moments.

(And to answer your question: critical thinking, problem solving, reading comprehension...)

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » March 26, 2008, 11:26 am

Sylvus wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:What specifically besides what's on the test do you think they are missing out on?
Aha, I think we've finally arrived at the crux of the matter!

I love eureka moments.

(And to answer your question: critical thinking, problem solving, reading comprehension...)

I learned all of those skills in high school, and I think my graduating class was the first to do the standardized tests.

Edit: And boog, we speak English here. It has been majority that way since the country was founded, and just because the numbers of illegal mexican immigrants here have risen to crazy numbers, doesn't mean my children should have to learn fucking spanish - it means they learn english and assimilate, period.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 26, 2008, 11:29 am

Yeah Funk. All of those are part of the standardized testing.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » March 26, 2008, 11:32 am

Funkmasterr wrote:Edit: And boog, we speak English here. It has been majority that way since the country was founded, and just because the numbers of illegal mexican immigrants here have risen to crazy numbers, doesn't mean my children should have to learn fucking spanish - it means they learn english and assimilate, period.

Who said anything about illegal immigrants? Maybe all of the Spanish speakers in your region are illegal, but that definitely is not the case here. While there are illegal immigrants here, they are not the people I am talking about. Also, nobody is saying that anyone has to learn English OR Spanish. I was commenting that the Spanish-speaking students were being required to pass the standardized tests in both languages. If you're so worried about the purity of your children, you might want to think about the impact such radical thinking has had on societies throughout history.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » March 26, 2008, 11:40 am

Boogahz wrote:
Funkmasterr wrote:Edit: And boog, we speak English here. It has been majority that way since the country was founded, and just because the numbers of illegal mexican immigrants here have risen to crazy numbers, doesn't mean my children should have to learn fucking spanish - it means they learn english and assimilate, period.
Who said anything about illegal immigrants?

Me. You were implying the spanish speaking people should be accommodated in their language, I say bullshit. The numbers of hispanic people in the US keep growing exponentially and I can sure as fuck tell you they aren't legal. Even that aside, they move here, they assimilate to how we do things, which is speaking english in school (aside from their ESL classes).

One of two things happens, either they learn to speak english or everyone else learns to speak spanish. And if you think that anyone should be forced to speak spanish because of the increasing number of them here, you are crazy.

Use all the melting pot excuses you want about the US, I still stick to my guns. You go to a country, you assimilate to their culture, use their language, etc. I don't care if it's Ethiopia, Spain or the US.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » March 26, 2008, 11:46 am

Funkmasterr wrote:
Boogahz wrote:
Funkmasterr wrote:Edit: And boog, we speak English here. It has been majority that way since the country was founded, and just because the numbers of illegal mexican immigrants here have risen to crazy numbers, doesn't mean my children should have to learn fucking spanish - it means they learn english and assimilate, period.
Who said anything about illegal immigrants?
Me. You were implying the spanish speaking people should be accommodated in their language, I say bullshit. The numbers of hispanic people in the US keep growing exponentially and I can sure as fuck tell you they aren't legal. Even that aside, they move here, they assimilate to how we do things, which is speaking english in school (aside from their ESL classes).

One of two things happens, either they learn to speak english or everyone else learns to speak spanish. And if you think that anyone should be forced to speak spanish because of the increasing number of them here, you are crazy.

Use all the melting pot excuses you want about the US, I still stick to my guns. You go to a country, you assimilate to their culture, use their language, etc. I don't care if it's Ethiopia, Spain or the US.

This is the part you seem to have missed. I never said that they could not speak English. Bilingual means speaking TWO languages. They are IN the ESL classes you say they should have to take, and they are required to pass the standardized tests in BOTH languages.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » March 26, 2008, 11:52 am

Boogahz wrote:
Funkmasterr wrote:
Boogahz wrote:
Funkmasterr wrote:Edit: And boog, we speak English here. It has been majority that way since the country was founded, and just because the numbers of illegal mexican immigrants here have risen to crazy numbers, doesn't mean my children should have to learn fucking spanish - it means they learn english and assimilate, period.
Who said anything about illegal immigrants?
Me. You were implying the spanish speaking people should be accommodated in their language, I say bullshit. The numbers of hispanic people in the US keep growing exponentially and I can sure as fuck tell you they aren't legal. Even that aside, they move here, they assimilate to how we do things, which is speaking english in school (aside from their ESL classes).

One of two things happens, either they learn to speak english or everyone else learns to speak spanish. And if you think that anyone should be forced to speak spanish because of the increasing number of them here, you are crazy.

Use all the melting pot excuses you want about the US, I still stick to my guns. You go to a country, you assimilate to their culture, use their language, etc. I don't care if it's Ethiopia, Spain or the US.

This is the part you seem to have missed. I never said that they could not speak English. Bilingual means speaking TWO languages. They are IN the ESL classes you say they should have to take, and they are required to pass the standardized tests in BOTH languages.

Well I guess that makes sense to me if their English is not fluent. However, I don't know if that differs state by state (or has just changed since I was in school) but one of my best friends in high school was in ESL and he took the tests in english only.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » March 26, 2008, 11:54 am

Funkmasterr wrote:Well I guess that makes sense to me if their English is not fluent. However, I don't know if that differs state by state (or has just changed since I was in school) but one of my best friends in high school was in ESL and he took the tests in english only.

From what my ex has said, unless you graduated from High School in the last few years, it is new (as in less than 10 years). Also, it might vary since Bush put his lovely standardized tests into Texas schools before bastardizing the US education system with the same crap.

*edit* my ex was one of the bilingual students and is now an ESL teacher.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » March 26, 2008, 12:00 pm

Mid wrote:Yes Boog, I do know what I'm talking about. I know a few teachers and yes they parrott the whole "we teach them what is on the test" and guess what? They are learning what is on the test. The complaints I've heard sitting in teacher conferences and from my teacher friends is that they no longer have time for fun things like birthday parties, etc. How terrible.

This is HILARIOUS. Boog tells you that you don't know what you're talking about. Your response is "of course I know what I'm talking about-- I know a few teachers, and they tell me I'm wrong!"

There are so many problems with that it's hard to know where to begin...

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 26, 2008, 12:02 pm

I'm not sure I understand your negativity on this issue. How is holding the schools accountable by having a standardized test where you can truly gauge the knowledge of the students, a bad thing?

As a parent of a 6th grader, I am thoroughly impressed with the level of the work they are being taught. It is astounding.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 26, 2008, 12:06 pm

Sueven wrote:
Mid wrote:Yes Boog, I do know what I'm talking about. I know a few teachers and yes they parrott the whole "we teach them what is on the test" and guess what? They are learning what is on the test. The complaints I've heard sitting in teacher conferences and from my teacher friends is that they no longer have time for fun things like birthday parties, etc. How terrible.
This is HILARIOUS. Boog tells you that you don't know what you're talking about. Your response is "of course I know what I'm talking about-- I know a few teachers, and they tell me I'm wrong!"

There are so many problems with that it's hard to know where to begin...

Oh Sueven. Such a simple mind you have some times. I know you're in law, but sometimes (most times) you need to look beyond just what is being said or what is in writing. Because someone parrotts something, doesn't make it true. The teachers seem to be in lock step, but rarely have a good reason. They don't like being held accountable. They don't like being told what to teach. It's no different than the millions of cubicle workers who compain about their job on a daily basis over the structure and deadlines and quotas. There will always be push back.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » March 26, 2008, 12:08 pm

Boogahz wrote:
Funkmasterr wrote:Well I guess that makes sense to me if their English is not fluent. However, I don't know if that differs state by state (or has just changed since I was in school) but one of my best friends in high school was in ESL and he took the tests in english only.
From what my ex has said, unless you graduated from High School in the last few years, it is new (as in less than 10 years). Also, it might vary since Bush put his lovely standardized tests into Texas schools before bastardizing the US education system with the same crap.

*edit* my ex was one of the bilingual students and is now an ESL teacher.

I graduated in 00, so I'm guessing that wasn't the case.

Either way, if they don't read/write/comprehend English well enough, I think making them take a combo of English/Spanish testing is logical.. They should be able to communicate at a basic level written and spoken (in English) before they graduate, but maybe some stuff would still be in Spanish. I'm not saying this is the way it is, but a hybrid would make sense to me.

I would also like to point out that the classes and the level of challenge (I guess is the best way to gauge it) in those classes was no different before or after I started taking standardized tests.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » March 26, 2008, 12:25 pm

Hey dipshit: Of course you need to be skeptical of what they tell you. That in no ways means that them telling you that you are wrong is evidence that you are right.

Post by **Sylvus** » March 26, 2008, 12:29 pm

Funkmasterr wrote:I would also like to point out that the classes and the level of challenge (I guess is the best way to gauge it) in those classes was no different before or after I started taking standardized tests.

I thought we were specifically speaking of the tests that came about as a result of the No Child Left Behind Act which was a Bush initiative and not signed into law until long after you'd graduated?

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » March 26, 2008, 12:36 pm

Sylvus wrote:
Funkmasterr wrote:I would also like to point out that the classes and the level of challenge (I guess is the best way to gauge it) in those classes was no different before or after I started taking standardized tests.
I thought we were specifically speaking of the tests that came about as a result of the No Child Left Behind Act which was a Bush initiative and not signed into law until long after you'd graduated?

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 26, 2008, 12:53 pm

Boogahz wrote:
Sylvus wrote:
Funkmasterr wrote:I would also like to point out that the classes and the level of challenge (I guess is the best way to gauge it) in those classes was no different before or after I started taking standardized tests.
I thought we were specifically speaking of the tests that came about as a result of the No Child Left Behind Act which was a Bush initiative and not signed into law until long after you'd graduated?

Yup. Funk went a little astray me thinks.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » March 26, 2008, 1:07 pm

It appears so, however my stance is still the same, so I'm not sure that your pointing that out changes anything.

Edit: My younger brothers went through those extra tests and from what I understand it was just more of the same standardized testing bs, that anybody who finished 6th grade should be able to pass.

Post by **Sylvus** » March 26, 2008, 1:40 pm

Funkmasterr wrote:It appears so, however my stance is still the same, so I'm not sure that your pointing that out changes anything.

It changes it because the discussion at hand is/was about the claim that the mandatory testing implemented by Republicans (No Child Left Behind) is working out "phenomenally well", which led to someone who disagrees with that statement making the claim that teaching for the tests is harmful to education in general. Your experience was that it really didn't change anything for you. If you had been in school while NCLB were in effect, your anecdotal evidence of what changed or did not change might be a valuable contribution to the discussion. Since you weren't, the fact that "the classes and the level of challenge in those classes was no different before or after [you] started taking standardized tests" is irrelevant; we all took standardized tests. What none of us took (afaik; I don't think anyone participating in this discussion was in secondary school after 2002) were the tests implemented by NCLB that people claim are setting education in this country back instead of improving it.

Funkmasterr wrote:Edit: My younger brothers went through those extra tests and from what I understand it was just more of the same standardized testing bs, that anybody who finished 6th grade should be able to pass.

What high school/school district did you and your brothers attend? Honest question, I'd like to try and look up information on it before continuing.

My assumption being that your school was probably not one of the under-resourced schools that generally are the ones who have complaints with NCLB.

Here's something that you might find interesting that I came across while researching this topic:

Ironically, states that set high standards risk having the most schools labeled "failing" under NCLB. Thus Minnesota, where eighth graders are first in the nation in mathematics and on a par with the top countries in the world, had 80 percent of schools on track to be labeled failing according to the federal rules.

I'm unfamiliar with that web site, a quick scan of the headlines on the front page make it appear to be left-leaning, but there are some interesting numbers and comparisons in that article nonetheless.