Teachers drop the Holocaust to avoid offending Muslims

[Draccoca]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=445979&in_page_id=1770&ito=newsnow
Schools are dropping the Holocaust from history lessons to avoid offending Muslim pupils, a Government backed study has revealed.

It found some teachers are reluctant to cover the atrocity for fear of upsetting students whose beliefs include Holocaust denial.

There is also resistance to tackling the 11th century Crusades - where Christians fought Muslim armies for control of Jerusalem - because lessons often contradict what is taught in local mosques.

The findings have prompted claims that some schools are using history 'as a vehicle for promoting political correctness'.

The study, funded by the Department for Education and Skills, looked into 'emotive and controversial' history teaching in primary and secondary schools.

It found some teachers are dropping courses covering the Holocaust at the earliest opportunity over fears Muslim pupils might express anti-Semitic and anti-Israel reactions in class.

The researchers gave the example of a secondary school in an unnamed northern city, which dropped the Holocaust as a subject for GCSE coursework.

The report said teachers feared confronting 'anti-Semitic sentiment and Holocaust denial among some Muslim pupils'.

It added: "In another department, the Holocaust was taught despite anti-Semitic sentiment among some pupils.

"But the same department deliberately avoided teaching the Crusades at Key Stage 3 (11- to 14-year-olds) because their balanced treatment of the topic would have challenged what was taught in some local mosques."

A third school found itself 'strongly challenged by some Christian parents for their treatment of the Arab-Israeli conflict-and the history of the state of Israel that did not accord with the teachings of their denomination'.

The report concluded: "In particular settings, teachers of history are unwilling to challenge highly contentious or charged versions of history in which pupils are steeped at home, in their community or in a place of worship."

But Chris McGovern, history education adviser to the former Tory government, said: "History is not a vehicle for promoting political correctness. Children must have access to knowledge of these controversial subjects, whether palatable or unpalatable."

The researchers also warned that a lack of subject knowledge among teachers - particularly at primary level - was leading to history being taught in a 'shallow way leading to routine and superficial learning'.

Lessons in difficult topics were too often 'bland, simplistic and unproblematic' and bored pupils.

I read this and the most shocking thing to find is that it's in Canada. but anyways I think this is a dumb move. To remove the teachings of the Holocaust and the Crusades is a slap in the face to the Jewish community as well as the Muslims imho.

Two of the biggest atrocities in the history of mankind is going to be essentially forgotten in the generations because it might offend a minority.

The crusades I can understand because it was against the Muslims but why not compare notes and teach both sides of the conflict. But to remove the Holocaust teachings because of possible anti-semantic views and denial, explain to me how this is going to remove the sentiment.

Now here's my opinion on the matter, if the Muslims are that offended then make it possible that they don't have to take the course and they can learn the alternative side from their mosques.

[Squid Vicious]

Originally posted by Draccoca
But Chris McGovern, history education adviser to the former Tory government, said: "History is not a vehicle for promoting political correctness. Children must have access to knowledge of these controversial subjects, whether palatable or unpalatable."

That pretty much sums up what I was going to say.

I'm sure George Orwell and Aldous Huxley are spinning in their graves right now...

[Cyclonus]

Once again, objective historical teaching is sacrificed on the alter of political correctness. Honestly, there's no point to teaching anything if all you can think about is whether or not a few people might get touchy about it.

[Vong]

This is just as bad as teaching intelligent design to kids instead of science...

[outsyder]

Although intelligent design is bullshit, not teaching about the Holocaust in school is MUCH worse, as the first step in having history repeat such a thing is to have people forget it.

[jeo4]

Yep. And what makes it worse is that the Holocaust DIDN'T EVEN INVOLVE ANY FUCKING MUSLIMS.

[electriclite]

Are they also going to remove the history of slavery for the sake of the black students?

Why aren't their "sensitivities" being catered to?

Blacks get the shaft again.

[EVILxxx]

Originally posted by electriclite
Are they also going to remove the history of slavery for the sake of the black students?

Why aren't their "sensitivities" being catered to?

Blacks get the shaft again.

This is England! ;)

[Danger^Cart]

Originally posted by outsyder
Although intelligent design is bullshit, not teaching about the Holocaust in school is MUCH worse, as the first step in having history repeat such a thing is to have people forget it.

*golfclap*

I suppose 9/11 being forcibly stricken from ones memory is the next rung on the ladder.

[electriclite]

Originally posted by EVILxxx
This is England! ;)

Slavery was not just an American thing. Brits had slaves too, they just didn't need a Civil War to end it.

[Beenthere]

Good afternoon. Vacation is over and big mouth is back.

So, we have a fear among the school personnel that gives a birth to an appeasement which in PC times is easier to camouflage.

Aren't students at schools big nobodies whose only responsibilities are studying? Not dictate, study. The professionals, who happen to be adults, decide what is a must for the students to learn. I hope so.

Not to call as usual any schmoes any names including C-word (I don't want to trigger any paranoia) but I got to compare this to Uncle Joe & Co. rewriting the world history to emphasize the importance, overstate the consequences and generally mislead masses about 1917, before and after.

Muslims could be offended by studying History they don't like? Not offended by what some of their Comrades commit around the world, including Darfur?

As young annoying students they wish to erase the Holocaust lesson from schools History class. Tomorrow, as grownups, they may try to erase the Jews. The Law of Logic: denying the Holocaust by creating the "real" one.

[Vong]

Originally posted by outsyder
Although intelligent design is bullshit, not teaching about the Holocaust in school is MUCH worse, as the first step in having history repeat such a thing is to have people forget it.

Whether its teaching kids about intelligent design or not teaching kids about the Holocaust, these children are not receiving the proper education that they should. Both are equally wrong in my books.

[outsyder]

Please, explain to me why they are equally wrong. How is ignorance of a mass execution of a select race of people and the horrors associated with it comparable to the ignorance of the science explaining how the Earth came to be, especially given the consequences of such ignorances. They are not even close to being equal.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by electriclite
Are they also going to remove the history of slavery for the sake of the black students?


This is much different. This is like not teaching slavery so the white students don't get offended.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by outsyder
Please, explain to me why they are equally wrong. How is ignorance of a mass execution of a select race of people and the horrors associated with it comparable to the ignorance of the science explaining how the Earth came to be, especially given the consequences of such ignorances. They are not even close to being equal.

I never thought I'd say this, but I actually agree with Vong on this one. One has to do with how 6 billion people came to be here today, and the other has to do with why 6-12 million of those people aren't here right now.

Besides, it all has to do with the fact that they're deliberately not teaching what HAS to be taught. It's fucking bullshit.

[Badbird]

I would like to know how many teachers is "some teachers." That is beyond vague and is probably just a couple idiots who weren't good teachers to begin with.

[EVILxxx]

Originally posted by electriclite
Slavery was not just an American thing. Brits had slaves too, they just didn't need a Civil War to end it.

I know, I've just been dying to work that in anywhere. Also I don't know how England is treating their blacks nowadays.

I still don't see where teachers get the idea that they can determine the curriculum. That is at least two or three steps above their pay grade.

[shoe1985]

I believe we should give many different views, even at the regular school level. We were thought to believe what we want, but it seems more and more we must believe what a select few believe.

They should teach the holocaust and give different views on it. By this I mean, they should explain what it happened, give the views of the victims who survived, and those who did it. It would show how far we have come as human beings.

[EVILxxx]

Originally posted by shoe1985

They should teach the holocaust and give different views on it. By this I mean, they should explain what it happened, give the views of the victims who survived, and those who did it. It would show how far we have come as human beings.

They pretty much already do this. The people involved in perpetrating the holocaust weren't using it as a means to a righteous end. The only word that comes to mind is "evil" but I might be exaggerating...

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by shoe1985
I believe we should give many different views, even at the regular school level. We were thought to believe what we want, but it seems more and more we must believe what a select few believe.

They should teach the holocaust and give different views on it. By this I mean, they should explain what it happened, give the views of the victims who survived, and those who did it. It would show how far we have come as human beings.


I don't know about you, but every teacher I had always mentioned the Nuremberg trials when the Nazi soldiers were all quoted as saying that they were just following orders. Plus, they mentioned that Hitler's childhood was awful enough for anyone to become a sociopath.

[shoe1985]

Yes, I meant we should stick with the current format. I know my school only gave one view of it. We should not cater to anyone race. It should give the facts of what happened.

[The Postmaster General]

I don't know how it works there, but in America this sort of thing is an indirect consequence of tax payer refusal to properly fund education. There's not enough funds to make our kids well-rounded, which is why we are growing content with raising our kids to be drones.

The comparison to this and intelligent design would only sit well with me if they were teaching that the holocaust didn't happen. This is comparable to the way things actually are - just not mentioning evolution. Actually, no - there's still a pretty huge difference between scientific theory postulating what happened billions of years ago, and man-documented world event from 60 years ago - events in which there are still living survivors to attest to. I mean, I see how one could make the comparison, but personally I don't see how it's not at least some-what offensive to say one's own dogmatic beliefs (no matter how agreeable they are) can be as relevant as the murder of 6 million Jews.

[Vong]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
The comparison to this and intelligent design would only sit well with me if they were teaching that the holocaust didn't happen. This is comparable to the way things actually are - just not mentioning evolution. Actually, no - there's still a pretty huge difference between scientific theory postulating what happened billions of years ago, and man-documented world event from 60 years ago - events in which there are still living survivors to attest to. I mean, I see how one could make the comparison, but personally I don't see how it's not at least some-what offensive to say one's own dogmatic beliefs (no matter how agreeable they are) can be as relevant as the murder of 6 million Jews.

I'm not equating the Holocaust and the teaching of intelligent design in terms of their importance. I am saying that teaching the Holocaust and evolution are equal in a epistemological sense, where the importance of teaching children the truth is key to their growing minds and their knowledge.

[shoe1985]

Originally posted by Vong
I'm not equating the Holocaust and the teaching of intelligent design in terms of their importance. I am saying that teaching the Holocaust and evolution are equal in a epistemological sense, where the importance of teaching children the truth is key to their growing minds and their knowledge.

I disagree with teaching them the truth. What is the truth? Where you there, did you see what happened? I believe we should open kids up to as many different sides, and show them that the world is not as happy as people make it seem. There are bad people out there who will do bad things. Getting to them when they are young, will hopefully persuade them to do good in the long run.

Most kids look at their parents for help. If their parents are racists, the kids will more then likely be racist too. Giving them many views, true or false, will open them up. Of course you would reveal the truth to them in the end.

One thing you should be taught is to make your own decisions in life.

[jolanar]

Originally posted by shoe1985
I disagree with teaching them the truth. What is the truth? Where you there, did you see what happened?

The holocaust happened. That's the truth.


Originally posted by shoe1985

One thing you should be taught is to make your own decisions in life.

Yes but those decisions should be based on the truth, what really happened.

[shoe1985]

Originally posted by jolanar
The holocaust happened. That's the truth.




Yes but those decisions should be based on the truth, what really happened.

I know it is, I mean that we say certain things didn't happen, but some say did. We should give as many views on topics. Like the creation of mankind. What is the truth there? Really, listening to one view is wrong. Many people don't believe the holocaust didn't happen, we should hear these views too.

Things like this should be discussed in a classroom.

[Vong]

Originally posted by shoe1985
I disagree with teaching them the truth. What is the truth? Where you there, did you see what happened? I believe we should open kids up to as many different sides, and show them that the world is not as happy as people make it seem. There are bad people out there who will do bad things. Getting to them when they are young, will hopefully persuade them to do good in the long run.

To quote my sister's favorite cliche: "History is made by the victors".
Each historical event has its sides, and I completely agree that when you teach a particular point in history you mention each parties viewpoints and objectives as well as their interpretations of the event. The Holocaust should not be exempt from this.

I may not have been there, but there is enough documented evidence (photos, diaries, records, videos, mass graves, buildings, etc.) that prove it happened. It is hard to dispute this from happening, but there are those who have denied it. Ernst Zündel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Z%C3%BCndel) is a popular case. I wouldn't go as far as saying all Holocaust deniers are anti-semites, but it is a denial of strong factual evidence.

You can argue the sides to the Holocaust, but you can't teach it in class that it may not have happened.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Vong
I'm not equating the Holocaust and the teaching of intelligent design in terms of their importance. I am saying that teaching the Holocaust and evolution are equal in a epistemological sense, where the importance of teaching children the truth is key to their growing minds and their knowledge.



Yeah, I know where you are coming from, but happen to feel that there's an added insult where the holocaust is concerned. Whereas it is EXTREMELY likely for a student to wonder why school hasn't mentioned the horrible acts their grandparents speak of, it's not likely at all that some kid is going feel confused wondering why his father the Neanderthal isn't considered part of his bloodline. However, with ID, there is a question of if its misinformation or not - that's a separate debate (but not from me)

Regardless, the holocaust was like 2 pages in my history book, but we had a whole chapter about a bunch of guys on a boat bitching about tea. It seems there's ample room teach many different ideas and facets of history, we just need priorities straightened out.

[jolanar]

Originally posted by shoe1985
I know it is, I mean that we say certain things didn't happen, but some say did. We should give as many views on topics. Like the creation of mankind. What is the truth there? Really, listening to one view is wrong. Many people don't believe the holocaust didn't happen, we should hear these views too.

Things like this should be discussed in a classroom.

I know a bum downtown who thinks the world is going to end next week. We should probably teach his views to children too. Maybe he can make a visit to the classroom?

[bigred760]

Originally posted by Draccoca
It found some teachers are reluctant to cover the atrocity for fear of upsetting students whose beliefs include Holocaust denial.


Their beliefs include that it didn't happen. It either happened or it didn't. In other words, you either know it happened or you know it didn't happen; I don't think you can say that your beliefs don't allow you to believe it happened. Give proof, look at the victims, look at the Nuremberg trials where Nazis themselves said that it happened.

This is beyond absurd. A teacher is teaching it and then all of sudden stops because some students say they don't believe it because of their religion. Absurd.

[Lynn7]

Government funded vouchers for school choice is the answer. People can then decide where they want to send their kids and what is being taught. Teh public school can teach evolution and holocaust and the Christian schools can teach creation and the Muslim schools can leave off the holocaust. EVeryone is happy except the teacher unions.

[QUENTIN]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Government funded vouchers for school choice is the answer. People can then decide where they want to send their kids and what is being taught. Teh public school can teach evolution and holocaust and the Christian schools can teach creation and the Muslim schools can leave off the holocaust. EVeryone is happy except the teacher unions.

Except in that system, the children aren't really being educated, they're just having their parents beliefs reinforced. Children learn much of their view of the world at home, but schools need to provide a broader and more accurate education. The only hope for children with ignorant parents is an outside learning environment that teaches according to the facts of math, science, history, grammar, etc... rather than one or two people's limited understanding of the world.

"Oh, little Jonny's parents hate Jews, homosexuals, and people of other races? Let's just send him to the School for Bigots"

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Government funded vouchers for school choice is the answer. People can then decide where they want to send their kids and what is being taught. Teh public school can teach evolution and holocaust and the Christian schools can teach creation and the Muslim schools can leave off the holocaust. EVeryone is happy except the teacher unions.


That has no long term effect on teachers. They don't care. The only people who would be hurting are the parents and students who chose to utilize the public funded schools guaranteed to them by legal rights. They, along with the custodial and other lower paid staff would be the ones who get the short end of the stick, because they are the one's who would be effected by budget cuts or an eventual need to travel for school/work.

Of course I'm sure the plan here is to put private schools in the ghetto, because using government money to pay for a person to go to a school of their choice is totally different than using government money to pay for a school in their district. How? No one really knows, but it really sounds like a good way to attack teachers - you know, because private school absolutely don't need teachers at all, and the teachers who are jobless will probably never go to work for a private school when they need more teachers

So yeah, vouchers for public schools. For what? Lets overcrowd the private schools? Why should public schools be the only ones that get to deal with student tension/ I'm sure one poor kids from low income neighborhoods get to go to a new school, and all of the kids learn they are there on a government funded voucher, while their parents paid themselves.... Oh, how these children will flourish when they get those groovy 40:2 student teacher ratios that are crippling low income-neighborhood schools.

[Lynn7]

Well, then what is the remedy? Who gets to decide what the kids learn? There are a lot of wacky teachers out there. Look at the teachers in the news recently for having sex with kids. A college eduation does not guarantee that a person has good judgement in what they are teaching.

My kids have had some pretty nutty teachers. One time a teacher asked the kids who they were 'voting'for in the election- since the kids were to young to vote they said what their parents were voting and then the teacher started yelling cause he couldn't beleive how many kids were voting for the Republican candidate. Talk about trying to influence a kid through pressure. If your parents don't beleive what the teacher beleives your parents might be stupid.


Why should a teacher think he or she should have the equal right to influence a kid? Did he or she carry the kid in pregnancy, walk the floors with the baby, feed the baby, worry for the kid, buy clothes and food for the kid etc etc? Historically, parents teach their kids their own beleifs. Teachers taught math, science, English, history and language. Now schools are trying to reach beyond their territory. They are trying to set agendas.


To me a teacher's job is to teach facts about history or to lead discussions about events. The teacher should not assert what is right or wrong unless it is an indisputable fact- otherwise it should fall into the realm of discussion with the teacher as facilitator. That is what is wrong with our schools today.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Lynn7
]A college eduation does not guarantee that a person has good judgement in what they are teaching.


You could make that same statement about any profession.

Your feelings about teachers seem to parallel my feelings about clergy members, except I don't think the actions of people working outside the expectations should result in punishment for the whole church, such as losing its tax-exempt status. What difference would that make, except for the members of the church and the good workers who have done nothing wrong? So we take funds away from those people. They probably will be totally groovy going to another church, because travel time, rapport with other members, familiarity - none of those things have no affect on how people learn or live?

The reality is that failing schools are concentrated in low income neighborhoods and it's not so much a matter of a need for lesson plans as it is a need for social services. Private schools aren't going to provide it any better than publi, the only difference is that a kid will probably be worrying about his dad being in jail and failing schoolwork while in a uniform, and no peers for support.

You can have the best teacher in the world, even Mr. Holland, but if a school has had books stolen, and if not stolen vandalized with racial slurs or other profanities - it's going to be much more difficult for teachers and students to get things done. You people look at this voucher lip service as just a way yo put a fire under teachers asses. But the bottom line is that these are teachers who already work under bad conditions - go to work everyday in fear of being assaulted, raped, having their cars broken in to or stolen, being accused of racism by angry crack-addled parents, troubled kids --- despite all of that they remain dedicated to reaching, and our response is, "Well you better shape up or next year you can worry about not having books as well!" Those are the teachers that are best for the kids, that's what they need, but our governments response is to remind those teachers that they are working in a real shithole & that they better get out while the getting out is good - turn your back on those kids and that neighborhood because their is no hope.

What our country spends on education is nothing compared to what we spend on the Iraq war. People tell Bush he is doing poorly in the war and his response is to ask for more money, so I know he understands how this all works. The only difference is hardly no one thinks their kids shouldn't be going to school.

[Tuukka]

Personally I think that teaching should be goverment sanctioned, in order to provide the greatest possible equality and objectivity in education.

That's how we have it here in Finland, and it works very well. It doesn't have any shortcomings that I'm aware of, but it has a lot of benefits.

I don't think parents should have the right to send their kids to a school which is essentially a brainwashing organization, not an education organization. I've said this before, and I say it again: Children are not little toys to their parents. That's why parents shouldn't have 100% power over their children. Parents are supposed to be responsible for their children, they don't OWN their children.

Kids are humans. Not toys.

The only way to guarantee equality for people is to do it through law, which means that education should be governed by goverment. Goverment is voted by people, which means it reflects the majority opinion. Goverment will declare kind of laws that represent a kind of educational model which the citizens can be satisfied with. It's never going to be perfect, but it can be good enough. It's a majority vote issue, and that's exactly what it should be. If you happen to live in a minority who wants to handle his kids differently, you shouldn't be able to. It's an equality issue, voted by majority. That's how democracy works.

It's in the benefit of everyone that kids learn to see different sides of issues, and have the tools to create their own worldview. The idea of creating different schools with different ideologies they use to brainwash kids is against common good. It will only spread ignorance, intolerance and eventually violence.

I agree with the idea the teachers shouldn't try to influence opinions of students. Their job is simply to provide information, and to provide tools so that the students can make up their own mind.

BTW, I don't really see why there is such a big debate in USA about teaching creationism or evolution.

Here in Finland we teach both. Bilogy classes teach evolution, religion classes teach creationism. As a result every kid gets to see both sides of the issue, and can make up his own mind.

That's what education should be about.

[The Postmaster General]

Here in America, those who share you're ideals Tuuka, are fighting with seemingly endless budget cuts. The newest threat is having strong support against including physical education, and music from the curriculum and only focusing on math and reading. Science and history have also been mentioned.

For some reason our country fears complexity. There's this seemingly increasing majority rule towards homogenization, and anything different is broken. This new government funds toward private schools program is another move to drive out public schools.

All that being said, Tuuka, am I wrong, or don't you speak two different languages? More, or just the two? Is that normal? Do you think more of your old classmates could locate Texas on an unlabeled map, or more of mine could locate FINLAND on an unlabeled map? Who's country has the lower poverty rate?

[Tuukka]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
Here in America, those who share you're ideals Tuuka, are fighting with seemingly endless budget cuts. The newest threat is having strong support against including physical education, and music from the curriculum and only focusing on math and reading. Science and history have also been mentioned.

For some reason our country fears complexity. There's this seemingly increasing majority rule towards homogenization, and anything different is broken. This new government funds toward private schools program is another move to drive out public schools.

All that being said, Tuuka, am I wrong, or don't you speak two different languages? More, or just the two? Is that normal? Do you think more of your old classmates could locate Texas on an unlabeled map, or more of mine could locate FINLAND on an unlabeled map? Who's country has the lower poverty rate?

We learn english since 3rd grade, and Swedish since 7th grade. The latter is pretty useless thought, and a relic from the time when Sweden still had major influence over Finland. The Finnish education level is very good thought.

Personally I think that cutting education money is a bad idea for a simple reason: Proper goverment funded education benefits the society on countless of levels, INCLUDING the fiscal level. High education levels means that the people, and the county, make more money.

My native country is probably a very good example: We are rich, and yet we have almost no natural resources, except for high quality tree material. And even that would be useless if we wouldn't have the world's best know-how in paper industry technology.

High education level and the resulting high know-how level in specialized industries is the reason why we have been able to succeed fiscally despite our lack of natural resources.

The less educated the people are, the less money the society will make. so the idea of cutting money from education in order to save money is contradictionary: You LOSE money that way.

I don't think it's a wise move for any country to lose their brightest talents (the potential moneymakers) because those talents weren't nurtured.

[Beenthere]

I thought this thread was not about educational "system"; the revision of History (omitting/skipping bits of what some groups do not want to hear about due to their "special" reasons including pure idiotic ones) was, right?

If dropping make them any friendlier with the Jews... So far it's been so opposite.

[Tuukka]

Originally posted by Beenthere
I thought this thread was not about educational "system"; the revision of History (omitting/skipping bits of what some groups do not want to hear about due to their "special" reasons including pure idiotic ones) was, right?

If dropping make them any friendlier with the Jews... So far it's been so opposite.

The content of education is not related to the educational system?

[Beenthere]

Originally posted by Tuukka
The content of education is not related to the educational system?

Educational systems are about structures and organizing.

Changing the ordinary lessons by omitting/skipping is about avoiding possible confrontations. Do we really have to sacrifice common sense and honesty because some groups feel uncomfortable - those simple things just do not fit to their own agenda, ideology and, let be honest, hatred?

[Tuukka]

Originally posted by Beenthere
Educational systems are about structures and organizing.

Changing the ordinary lessons by omitting/skipping is about avoiding possible confrontations. Do we really have to sacrifice common sense and honesty because some groups feel uncomfortable - those simple things just do not fit to their own agenda, ideology and, let be honest, hatred?

I bought up edutational system as a way to guarantee that education is objective and equal to everyone. There is no way to make sure that individual teachers and schools follow a set of educational principles unless those principles are part of the whole educational system, and a part of the law.

So we are essentially talking about the same thing, only from a different angle.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
You could make that same statement about any profession.

Your feelings about teachers seem to parallel my feelings about clergy members, except I don't think the actions of people working outside the expectations should result in punishment for the whole church, such as losing its tax-exempt status. What difference would that make, except for the members of the church and the good workers who have done nothing wrong? So we take funds away from those people. They probably will be totally groovy going to another church, because travel time, rapport with other members, familiarity - none of those things have no affect on how people learn or live?

The reality is that failing schools are concentrated in low income neighborhoods and it's not so much a matter of a need for lesson plans as it is a need for social services. Private schools aren't going to provide it any better than publi, the only difference is that a kid will probably be worrying about his dad being in jail and failing schoolwork while in a uniform, and no peers for support.

You can have the best teacher in the world, even Mr. Holland, but if a school has had books stolen, and if not stolen vandalized with racial slurs or other profanities - it's going to be much more difficult for teachers and students to get things done. You people look at this voucher lip service as just a way yo put a fire under teachers asses. But the bottom line is that these are teachers who already work under bad conditions - go to work everyday in fear of being assaulted, raped, having their cars broken in to or stolen, being accused of racism by angry crack-addled parents, troubled kids --- despite all of that they remain dedicated to reaching, and our response is, "Well you better shape up or next year you can worry about not having books as well!" Those are the teachers that are best for the kids, that's what they need, but our governments response is to remind those teachers that they are working in a real shithole & that they better get out while the getting out is good - turn your back on those kids and that neighborhood because their is no hope.

What our country spends on education is nothing compared to what we spend on the Iraq war. People tell Bush he is doing poorly in the war and his response is to ask for more money, so I know he understands how this all works. The only difference is hardly no one thinks their kids shouldn't be going to school.

Money has nothing to do with the problems in our schools-it's discipline. Kids who are disruptive need to be removed from classes and even expelled. Then things will go smoother. You can have all the books in the world but many of the kids aren't reading them. The biggest problem in our schools is the kids mostly lack motivation and are testing limits all day long. The kids act up, they are sent to the office and the office sends them back to the class with a slap on the wrist, if any.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Tuukka
Personally I think that teaching should be goverment sanctioned, in order to provide the greatest possible equality and objectivity in education.

That's how we have it here in Finland, and it works very well. It doesn't have any shortcomings that I'm aware of, but it has a lot of benefits.

I don't think parents should have the right to send their kids to a school which is essentially a brainwashing organization, not an education organization. I've said this before, and I say it again: Children are not little toys to their parents. That's why parents shouldn't have 100% power over their children. Parents are supposed to be responsible for their children, they don't OWN their children.

Kids are humans. Not toys.

The only way to guarantee equality for people is to do it through law, which means that education should be governed by goverment. Goverment is voted by people, which means it reflects the majority opinion. Goverment will declare kind of laws that represent a kind of educational model which the citizens can be satisfied with. It's never going to be perfect, but it can be good enough. It's a majority vote issue, and that's exactly what it should be. If you happen to live in a minority who wants to handle his kids differently, you shouldn't be able to. It's an equality issue, voted by majority. That's how democracy works.

It's in the benefit of everyone that kids learn to see different sides of issues, and have the tools to create their own worldview. The idea of creating different schools with different ideologies they use to brainwash kids is against common good. It will only spread ignorance, intolerance and eventually violence.

I agree with the idea the teachers shouldn't try to influence opinions of students. Their job is simply to provide information, and to provide tools so that the students can make up their own mind.

BTW, I don't really see why there is such a big debate in USA about teaching creationism or evolution.

Here in Finland we teach both. Bilogy classes teach evolution, religion classes teach creationism. As a result every kid gets to see both sides of the issue, and can make up his own mind.

That's what education should be about.

Parents should have 100% control over their kids as long as they are not abusing them. It is the way of the world from the beginnning of time. Why would you think it should be different than how it has always been?

Why do you think government would be objective about what is being taught to kids? Do you trust government? What if your government changes and you don't agree with them? Then they still will be in control? How would you feel if government wanted the kids taught what you do not agree with? You are liberal right?What if the gov became conservative and they taught that agenda? You would be OK with that? Government is not always (or usually) objective.

[electriclite]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Money has nothing to do with the problems in our schools-it's discipline. Kids who are disruptive need to be removed from classes and even expelled. Then things will go smoother. You can have all the books in the world but many of the kids aren't reading them. The biggest problem in our schools is the kids mostly lack motivation and are testing limits all day long. The kids act up, they are sent to the office and the office sends them back to the class with a slap on the wrist, if any.


I find it hard to agree with that assessment knowing teachers these days have to buy supplies for their classrooms out of their own pocket.

And the problem with discipline does relate to money. A teacher can not maintain full control of a classroom that is filled with 40+ students at a time. That is directly related to money. Schools do not have enough money to expand the size of their outdated buildings to fit the rising number of children entering their doors, and therefore can't thin out the number of children per teacher per class.

If a teacher could have 15 students in a class, he/she would have a greater amount of control over them and therefore, greater discipline. Plus if schools had the ability (i.e. money) to take better care of themselves, the children would be forced to act in kind. Students can only show as much respect and courtesy to an environment as that environment shows to itself.

[Tuukka]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Parents should have 100% control over their kids as long as they are not abusing them. It is the way of the world from the beginnning of time. Why would you think it should be different than how it has always been?

Why do you think government would be objective about what is being taught to kids? Do you trust government? What if your government changes and you don't agree with them? Then they still will be in control? How would you feel if government wanted the kids taught what you do not agree with? You are liberal right?What if the gov became conservative and they taught that agenda? You would be OK with that? Government is not always (or usually) objective.

The parents still maintain most of the control. Up to age of 7 they have 100% control. Between ages of 7-18 they still control over kids approximately 75% of time during the 24 hours of school days, and 90% of all time when you include weekends and holidays.

I think it's good that up from the age of 7 kids can have that 10% of outside influence.

If school teaches something that I personally oppose, I still have a much greater influence over my children than school does. That 10% works as a safety network, as something that a democratic society can give to EVERYONE, in case the child happens to be parented by people who are not good parents.

It's all about the chance - The chance for equality.

I believe in democracy. I believe that in a democratic society every member of the society deserves a chance and an access to information that has been approved by the majority in democratic process. This 10% provides the child a chance to form his own personality, if it happens to be in the interests of his parents to deny him one.

It's to the benefit of the society to provide a safety nework for the minds of children, so that they don't become mindless toys for their parents. It's also a very MORAL principle for the society to have, something that gives every person a chance to become a full person, with his own mind and his own choices.

[TheAxeGrinder]

Frankly, you can't make everyone happy, and the holocaust did happen, and not just Jews died, but POWs, homosexuals, disabled people and others. So why pussyfoot around the issue at the risk of offending a small group of people and tell it like it is: This is history, this happened, and you don't like it? Deal with it.

[MacReady]

I was in the U.K. a few weeks ago, and even managed to ask my tour guide (a native) about this. He said he'd never heard of it, and that it sounded silly.

I disagree. The story sounds like a ridiculous heap of racist propaganda, that doesn't even sound remotely realistic. Honestly, did the people at Michelle Malkin's blog come up with this crap?

Anyway, there might be some truth to this (like a teacher being told not to teach it), but I call bullshit.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

A cousin of mine went to a Christian school and a bunch of the parents protested over the fact that they had to read Night because they thought it contained a "pro-Judaism message."

Funny, considering the author is now an athiest.

[jeo4]

Originally posted by MacReady
I was in the U.K. a few weeks ago, and even managed to ask my tour guide (a native) about this. He said he'd never heard of it, and that it sounded silly.

I disagree. The story sounds like a ridiculous heap of racist propaganda, that doesn't even sound remotely realistic. Honestly, did the people at Michelle Malkin's blog come up with this crap?

Anyway, there might be some truth to this (like a teacher being told not to teach it), but I call bullshit.

With Iran's president callling the Holocaust "a hoax", I have no doubt that there is at least some truth behind an effort not to teach it in select schools. Though admittedly, I can't speak for how valid this particular story is.

[MacReady]

Originally posted by jeo4
With Iran's president callling the Holocaust "a hoax", I have no doubt that there is at least some truth behind an effort not to teach it in select schools. Though admittedly, I can't speak for how valid this particular story is.

Well, Iran is run by a bunch of religious fundamentalists, while the U.K. has been a liberal secular democracy for some time now. Also, muslims are still a minority in the U.K. Finally, would that country's education really not have a sort of penalty rule against students spouting racist crap like the holocaust being a myth? Seriously, why pander to these people. To me this would be like if a bunch of neo-nazi students in your country were able to convince the entire education board to start teaching that slavery and segregation were good things.

[Scarfather]

They're basically calling an entire denomination of people inherently anti-Semitic, which is prejudiced against Muslims obscenely.

[boombche_stum]

Originally posted by Scarfather
They're basically calling an entire denomination of people inherently anti-Semitic, which is prejudiced against Muslims obscenely.

No offense, but read some Hadiths (volumes of written knowledge about Muhammad by those who knew him best). People can take Christs death out of context if they chose to spread their anti-semitic views, but their prophet Muhammad WAS an anit-semite. As seen through his actions and words towards jews. One of the main reasons being they did not accept him as a true profit. If you don't believe me, look it up. In the Hadith's he compares them to monkeys, and quoted Allah as saying they are not to be trusted and even assured his followers that they SHOULD wage Jihad against Jews and christians alike.

[QUENTIN]

Just wanted to update, since this caused some interesting discussion, that this was never true. It was overstated to the point of being a hoax or propoganda, inherently racist itself, that has been shown to be wildly exaggerated and false by factcheck.org

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_the_uk_suspend_its_holocaust_curriculum.html

Q: Did the U.K. suspend its Holocaust curriculum because it offended Muslim students?
Could you check out the following e-mail that is circulating? I am particularly interested in whether the UK actually has removed reference to the Holocaust from its school curriculum.


In Memorial

This week, the UK removed The Holocaust from its school curriculum because it 'offended' the Muslim population which claims it never occurred.

This is a frightening portent of the fear that is gripping the world and how easily each country is giving into it.

It is now more than 60 years after the Second World War in Europe ended.

This e-mail is being sent as a memorial chain, in memory of the:

six million Jews,
20 million Russians,
10 million Christians
and 1,900 Catholic priests

who were murdered, massacred, raped, burned, starved and humiliated while the German and Russia peoples looking the other way![sic]

Now, more than ever, with Iran, among others, claiming the Holocaust to be 'a myth,' it is imperative to make sure the world never forgets.

This e-mail is intended to reach 40 million people worldwide!

Be a link in the memorial chain and help distribute this around the world.

Don't just delete this. It will take a minute to pass this along!


A: No, neither the United Kingdom nor the University of Kentucky has suspended teaching the Holocaust.
This particular bit of bunk (along with an even more ridiculous version that turns the U.K. into the University of Kentucky) has been in circulation for several months now. A simple Google search reveals the falsity of the rumor, yet the e-mail continues to be passed along by the overly credulous.

The suggestion that the U.K. had banned teaching the Holocaust began appearing after the publication of a report from the British Historical Association. That report, titled Teaching Emotive and Controversial History 3-19, noted that "a history department in a northern city recently avoided selecting the Holocaust as a topic for GCSE coursework for fear of confronting anti-Semitic sentiment and Holocaust denial from some Muslim pupils."

In the English educational system, a GCSE (or general certificate for secondary education) course is roughly the equivalent of an American high school course. But unlike in the U.S., English and Welsh students can opt for a number of different GSCE courses (many of which provide vocational training). Thus, only about a third of British children opt to take GCSE coursework in history. While GCSE courses are high school level, they function more like American college courses, with teachers free to choose the curriculum and students free to take or not take the classes. So the outcry spawned by the Historical Association report is based on a decision at a single school (out of 4,500 in the U.K.) to remove study of the Holocaust from an elective course.

According to the Holocaust Educational Trust, study of the Holocaust remains part of the compulsory national curriculum for all children in England. The Holocaust is not required in the national curricula of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. But according to the BBC, this has not changed recently.

There is no real basis at all for asserting that the University of Kentucky has banned teaching the Holocaust. The rumor apparently began when someone failed to recognize that the U.K. is a country in Europe and thus altered "U.K." to "University of Kentucky." The university officially denied the rumor, pointing out that the Department of Judaic Studies offers History 323: The Holocaust. In fact, that course is being offered in the spring 2008 semester.

We continue to be disappointed by the persistence of chain e-mails like this one, particularly considering that it has already been debunked by Snopes, TruthorFiction and UrbanLegends. We suggest as a general rule that the more times something has been forwarded, the less likely it is to be true.

- Joe Miller

Sources
"Holocaust 'Ban' E-mail Confusion." BBC, 17 Apr. 2007.

The Historical Association. Teaching Emotive and Controversial History 3-19. London, UK: The Historical Association, 2007.

The Holocaust Educational Trust. About the Holocaust Educational Trust. April 2007.


The University of Kentucky. University Debunks Holocaust E-mail Rumor, 8 Nov. 2007.

[EVILxxx]

Well that's just...retarded.


I miss Lynn. :(