Texsox

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Nov 9, 2007 -> 05:33 PM) I absolutely don't support the public to offer input in a teacher's curriculum for an elective class. If a parent doesn't want to expose their children to the coursework for an elective class, they shouldn't be able to reap the benefits that this class can offer. Sorry your opinion is not valid. You are not a High School English teacher, so you do not have the necessary skills to offer even an opinion. So please, do not respond anymore*. Not even the administration? The Department head? What does the public lack that a High School English teacher has to review this decision? I think a poor teacher was hired if they can only teach using one book. AP History is basically the tract that most major Universities want their applicants to take so the choice may become take the class or forget about a major University. And all honors classes are electives, there are very few mandatories so you are basically telling the best and brightest to just sit back and accept whatever the school decides is best and that their parents are idiots and cannot be trusted with an opinion on what you are taught? Can the public decide how the money they are paying in taxes is spent? Remember that no taxation without representation thing? Public schools should have public oversight, which is why we elect a school board. Don't like their decision, vote them out. *just making a point, you know I respect your opinion which is why I argue that you should have a voice in what is taught in your schools.

QUOTE(Mplssoxfan @ Nov 9, 2007 -> 01:20 PM) Tex, it's tough for me to tell what it is you're trying to get at here. If a parent wants to take their concerns to the School Board, that is fine. I would hope the School Board had the good sense to allow the teacher to teach. Are you advocating that a School Board should accede to the wishes of anyone with an axe to grind? If a history or lit teacher wanted to present Uncle Tom's Cabin and someone objected to that, should it not be used? Should Of Mice and Men be thrown out? Where do you propose we draw the line? Should every teacher in a school system submit their lesson plans to the electorate every year to be voted on yea or nay? Or to the School Board? I think there are two separate and distinct issues and they were too closely linked. Not that it matters, but I really liked Prince of Tides. I am working towards a double major, Psychology and English, so this fits right in with two of my favorite subjects. I happen to prefer The Picture of Dorian Gray as the best example of a Psychological novel, but that is off topic. I recommended PoT to my 18 year old son and will recommend it to my daughter as soon as she finishes her Intro to Psy course this semester. But just because I like the book, believe it is suitable for my children, doesn't mean it is appropriate for any High School classroom, or that it is the best book to be used. One of the reasons I would like to see something else has nothing to do with the content, but I prefer a reading list that cannot be circumvented by heading to Blockbuster. And as movies of this vein go, I preferred Ordinary People. From my time as President of the PTO and PTAs, and being a very active parent, I have watched as school administrators wanted parental involvement if it meant making photocopies, baking cookies, and working on fund raising. As soon as a parent stood up and said, I think we need to look at what is being taught here, the reaction was exactly like LCR's. Scoffing, mocking, etc. I think that is very wrong. I do not want every lesson plan checked, that is way to burdensome, I think when a parent sees something in the homework (which is almost never at the high school level) and questions the inclusion, there should be a method of review that is respectful of everyone. And I certainly believe there is at least enough there to warrant a review. It clearly is a controversial subject and the school should be called to task to answer why this and not, for example, Dorian Gray.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Nov 9, 2007 -> 08:37 AM) From your own personal experience, as you have posted here, your better educational experiences seem to often involve non-traditional teachers and non-traditional class structure. It's an odd contrast that you're advocating a cookie-cutter, teach-what-the-public-wants position here. These are literary works, not pornography or gratuitous snuff, and I don't see why parental consent to let their kids read the material in an elective class doesn't satisfy all parties. We both agree that one citizen without broad support shouldn't be able to effect broad change, and that at least is good common ground. As a tangent, haven't you in previous threads supported the idea of elective, non-denominational high school classes on the Bible as literature? (I support that as well, btw.) Well, certainly there's a whole lot more discussion of sodomy. . . as well as rape, incest, adultery, murder, beastiality, etc., in that work than in anything Pat Conroy ever penned. On the principle of preserving the innocent minds of students, you've apparently rethought the appropriateness of bteaching that literary work as well, yes? Perhaps I was not clear. I support the publics' efforts to be part of the education process. I object to making a High School English teacher omnipotent in the subject material covered. I see good reasons to review this material and the appropriate venue. Of all the thousands of High School English teachers out there, will we agree that there is the potential that maybe one or two aren't the best at choosing representative works? I think it is entirely appropriate that there be some mechanism for review. Any required reading list should involve conscious selections and that process should be open. Just like I would support the public questioning a book that I happened to think was appropriate. My support of the Bible being taught centers on placing it in historical context with other major religious works. Wars have been fought over religion, history has been altered based on individual's religious beliefs. If there is a new round of crusades over The Prince of Tides, I would probably alter my opinion as to the historical nature of that book. Again, I cannot make the leap from saying if you dissect a pig or read Genesis, we therefor must allow anything and everything. I also believe there are works that are appropriate for College students, High School students, and Middle School. While AP English is an elective, it allows High School Seniors an opportunity to test out of college work. Factoring in the loss of that opportunity when a teacher chooses a controversial works should also be factored in. In the end, the public may or may not support using a certain book in the program. I am more comfortable with checks and balances when controversy erupts, not making a High School teacher the only public employee in America above scrutiny. As far as the cookie cutter approach, based on the outcry here where this book is so important to teach and children should not be kept in the dark, it would seem you would advocate for it being required reading nationwide. Wouldn't that be cookie cutter? By recognizing support for local review wouldn't that assure a wider variety? We support a teacher's right to not teach the book on whatever criterion they choose, but why not allow the public that same input?

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Nov 8, 2007 -> 08:09 PM) Tex, some other famous banned books. I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings To Kill a Mockingbird Grapes of Wrath Great Gatsby 1984 Ulysses Of Mice and Men Catch 22 Invisible Man (Ralph Ellison) The ALA has a ton of books for Banned Book Week. Plus:2. High school subjects are generally graphic in nature. I dissected a fetal pig for weeks in high school. I also learned about Samurai gutting themselves, Caligula pretty well personifying debauchery, the Inquisition, the Holocaust, massive genocides around the world and the lynchings during the civil rights movement. A depiction of violence in a work in literature seems fairly tame compared to that. There are tens of thousands of books that could be chosen. Is there a difference between a High School teacher that looks at the above, or similar works, and elects to use a different work and the public that asks that the same action be taken? We can look at this list and obviously agree that they are classics and great readings for adults. I would state they are clearly not appropriate to use in fifth grade, but maybe that too would be a point of disagreement. Perhaps they are appropriate for High School. Bottom line, teachers should not be omnipotent, nor should one parent. I cannot take the leap from learning A&P by dissecting a pig and teaching students about anal sex in English. I can see some value in seeing internal structures of the body. I could see covering anal sex in a health class, but it seems unnecessary in English. Bottom line I support parental involvement in their children's education, beyond selling candy for the senior trip. I know that is so threatening to teachers in their ivory towers.

QUOTE(Mplssoxfan @ Nov 8, 2007 -> 09:49 PM) If you want a challenging class, you must have challenging material. I took a class in High School that featured Giles Goat-Boy by John Barth. I wonder how these parents would have dealt with that? I'm actually fairly certain that not many High School teachers would even try to teach that book. So what is the difference between a High School teacher that doesn't teach a book, and the public who does want to teach that book? No matter what books are selected, hundreds of thousands more are omitted. These are public schools, and there needs to be public involvement. There should be mechanisms and procedures to make certain what is being taught is what the masses want, not one teacher. Likewise, one citizen, without broad support should not make the decision.

The public should have some input in what is taught in public high schools. Who should teach your kids about sodomy? The English teacher of course! How could kids ever learn English Lit without being exposed to sodomy? And those sure are terrible parents for not wanting the high school English teacher to teach their children about anal sex and child abuse. And let's have the Math teacher teach them about racism. I can't believe the only way to teach English is via anal sex and child abuse. No wonder parents want to take back the schools.

QUOTE(Mplssoxfan @ Nov 8, 2007 -> 10:21 AM) It was a voluntary elective. If the parents don't like the books, withdraw the kids from the class. If the parents want to ban the books from the class, and therefore deprive the other students the opportunity to read those books, that's not their prerogative. Then why elect a school board of you are just going to allow teachers to do whatever they want? In Texas, and I suspect every where else in the United States, kids are free to read whatever they want. They can go to the library, they can go buy the books. No one is telling them they cannot read the book or deprive them. What is in question is who should expose them to "controversial topics". Perhaps every High School English teacher is better equiped than you, but I doubt it. QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Nov 8, 2007 -> 10:45 AM) Literature is not about teaching concepts. Literature is about the literature. What book are you going to substitute for Catcher in the Rye to teach Catcher in the Rye? What book are you going to substitute for Huckleberry Finn to teach Huckleberry Finn? ^^^ Not about concepts? Romanticism, Realism, Modernism, poetic forms, autobiography, historical, biogra[hies, etc. None of these are taught in High School anymore? Is this class called Prince of Tides? or AP English? LCR mentioned the controversial topics. Who would say "I want my kids exposed to these topics, and a High School English teacher is the best person to do it"? This is also about age appropriate readings. A teacher made a conscious decision about what book to teach and to what level. There should be some oversight. This is public education, and should be available to all and should be as inclusive as possible. There certainly should be room for compromise and an alternate book selected. You may not be concerned about what people teach your children, but I am. And the sooner parents start caring what is fed to their children the better we all will be.

Is WLUP still rock? That was my fov station before I moved. Brandmeier, Mathews, Dahl, Stroud had a noon time gig.

Society demands that parents be responsible for their children and raising them. Schools beg for more parental involvement. They wring their hands and wonder what can be done to get the parents interested in what their children are learning. Yet as soon as parents go beyond the fundraisers, and buying tickets to games and plays, teachers feel threatened. Willfully ignorant is a loaded phrase. Different topics are presented better in different venues. Perhaps I would rather be teaching my children about sex, drugs, love, and war, not having you do it. For that, I am mocked and accused of wanting my kids willfully ignorant? The hubris to think you are the best to do that is willfully ignorant. Parents that do not know what is being taught to their own children are the ones embracing willful ignorance not the ones that are standing up. But they are your best customer. They keep their mouths shut and keep sending their kids to school. Tell me this, what literary concepts cannot be taught using less offensive works. It seems the goal here is to expose them to controversial topics? Why? How does exposing them to these controversial topics fit the mission statement of the school? Why is it the school's business? Amazing that you have time. Perhaps there should be a course Controversial Topics 101 and allow parents and students to make that choice? The idea of parents and educators selecting books that teach the concepts is right. Parents just blindly turning their children over to strangers is what is wrong. When the kids act out in ways that society does not approve, is it the teachers standing next to their students in court? No. They are back in their ivory towers, wringing their hands, trying to figure out why parents are not involved selling more M&M for the Senior trip.

Is there any books that you would deem unsuitable for that age level? At what age should parents stop being parents and just turn their kids over to teachers to raise?

QUOTE(knightni @ Nov 7, 2007 -> 03:22 PM) Re-signing Uribe is the most secure move for the short term. Now they have the freedom to avoid mediocre shortstops in free agency and shore up their bullpen, while getting a better CF. This also helps in trades. They can focus on Crede or Fields in trade offers and shop Garland. Uribe re-signing doesn't mean he's annointed 2008 starter, it just means that he was the youngest, easiest option that KW had at the time. For all we know, they may trade for a SS and send Uribe packing in another trade later on. Uribe can also be plan C at third base. Fields might be better in leftfield or traded for a centerfielder, Crede can be sent to New York/Anaheim/San Francisco for younger players. It's all speculation at this point, but hey, it's November. ^^^ Thanks for saving me the typing.

McCain on the GOP side.

McCain was royally screwed in the 2000 race by Bush's push poll. But McCain stayed reasonably loyal to the party and I think the party will begin to believe they "owe" him a shot.

Baseball needs an independent commissioner, just like the other sports.

If you were being tortured, wouldn't you make up anything to make it stop? While the reasons are compelling, the whole save a million lives kind of thing, but bottom line, the information at best gives a false sense of accuracy to someone's already formed idea.

I believe he is the best of the GOP bunch.

Welcome to the slippery slope. In 3,000 years it will include balls and strikes

She really needs to just go away. Release the records.

QUOTE(Soxy @ Nov 6, 2007 -> 10:05 AM) Why don't you go for the ones that know what they want? Because those are the ones that know they don't want him

QUOTE(Soxy @ Nov 6, 2007 -> 09:24 AM) To us Yanks it's all the same. As long as you're getting your protein, you don't miss meat. Except bacon. Oh, how I miss bacon. pig belly is yummy.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 6, 2007 -> 09:48 AM) I'd bet that none of those three (Bonds, Palmeiro, McGuire) get in. Bonds is the most likely. But none will make it, IMO. Bonds will, no doubt in my mind. I also think it is likely the voters will elect one or two of the other guys and force this mess back into baseball's lap, where it belongs. Remember who votes on the Hall.

The hall is going to have to somehow recognize the "steroid era". When (I agree with Steff) these guys start entering the Hall, there will be an outcry and baseball will look foolish (again) if they stand there like nothing is wrong.

That seems more like ranchero beans than a chili. I'm slowly eliminating meat from my diet. I've dropped it from almost all my breakfasts and about half my lunches. Dinner is still an issue, but getting better.

Texans know how to pull in the cash. [/size] We may never know, but I'm guessing Clinton was a better Presidential fundraiser than Bush. But that's just my guess.

QUOTE(Soxy @ Nov 6, 2007 -> 08:20 AM) Wrong. I make some awesome herbivore chili. And to get that protein? A side of quinoa. y'all ain't from around here. That must be that Yankee cityfied, sissyfied, chili. Recipe?