OIS in Kenosha Wisconsin, civil unrest

[GyroF-16]

A agree that your hypothetical situation could be problematic.
But I’d submit that preventing parents from observing the virtual classroom activity is addressing the wrong end of the “problem.”
The source of the problem isn’t the parent observing the classroom- it’s the actions of the parent.
So, rather than create a policy that makes it appear that there’s something to hide in the classroom lessons, why not create a policy (with a signed acknowledgment) that it is inappropriate for a parent of one student to contact other students? That address preventing inappropriate behavior, rather than appearing to shield the classroom from “prying eyes”.

Because my reaction to being told that I can’t monitor the virtual teaching of my children would be very similar to @RJ.

I fully support your decision, but keep this mind: your district did what it did as a CYA in case another PARENT does something nutty to your kid, not to shield the teacher from your prying eyes. Let me give you a (partially) hypothetical example.

Say your kid is in my class. Also in my class is a student who is bipolar/schizophrenic with tendencies toward paranoia. This student decides your kid "has it out for them." Her parent, who is merely "disturbed" not "crazier than a shit house rat," looks in on an online class and decides that your kid indeed has it out for her little darling. She decides to contact your kid via social media and make threats, or she drops by your home or workplace to "have a talk..."

That's what those agreements are for.

If I was speaking to a parent with your concerns, I would give them the old "I'm not saying this..." and advise as long as no other students become aware of the observation, who's to know?

I would only say that on the phone tho, not an email, and not to some parents.

[Baldanders]

"I sure wasn't teaching kids Texans are Nazis who deserve to drown. I was making a point about how the US is depicted abroad" I find this very interesting. You are teaching our children that the world thinks the US are Nazis? I guess I'm not understanding this statement. I don't believe this is true so were you just using this to stimulate discussion and also provide a counter-argument to this view?

Edit: To be clear I believe that stating the US is viewed this way abroad is false.

SOME folks depict us as Nazis---as the example proves! Dear lord, absolutes are usually wrong. Some folks still see us as "the city on a hill."

It was an example I came up with AFTER talking with my students about how other countries are viewed in the US, and my students proffered the opinion that maybe we are unfair to other countries. "Well, maybe we get judged unfairly too."

I do my best to teach kids HOW to think critically(not like "Critical" Theory). Not WHAT to think. No way to teach the former without having actual discussions about topics that folks argue about, and presenting a bunch of viewpoints.

When I taught a unit on Columbine, I was upfront about my views on gun control, but I was able to give the "anti-" kids plenty of advice on how to argue their points more effectively.

I'm an atheist, but one of my happiest moments as a teacher so far was helping a student with her personal narrative about how God has been central in her life, because she really "caught fire" as a writer in that assignment in a way I hadn't seen her do before.

Good teaching isn't indoctrination.

[Baldanders]

A agree that your hypothetical situation could be problematic.
But I’d submit that preventing parents from observing the virtual classroom activity is addressing the wrong end of the “problem.”
The source of the problem isn’t the parent observing the classroom- it’s the actions of the parent.
So, rather than create a policy that makes it appear that there’s something to hide in the classroom lessons, why not create a policy (with a signed acknowledgment) that it is inappropriate for a parent of one student to contact other students? That address preventing inappropriate behavior, rather than appearing to shield the classroom from “prying eyes”.

Because my reaction to being told that I can’t monitor the virtual teaching of my children would be very similar to @RJ.

Because we can't control parents that way. 1st Amendment, you know... The agreement ain't there to stop anything as a primary purpose--it's a CYA so the school can say "we tried. It was against our policy," if someone is an asshole.

Trust me, there are plenty of parents you DON'T want observing your kid in the classroom, ever.

If you want to know what your kid is doing, look at their readings and their assignments. Ask them what they learn in class. Contact their teacher directly and ask what they teach! Ask to meet with them virtually or in the flesh. Most teachers will be thrilled you give a damn!

[Joe in PNG]

The funny things is that the way we're perceived, and the way we think we're perceived is often quite different, as is our perception about a lot of things other countries do.

For instance, this cartoon from Denmark:

[Baldanders]

My response to a former student who said she was thinking about being an English teacher when I was chatting with her at graduation:

"I didn't know you were a masochist!"

OTOH, modern Education departments do encourage the SJW thing for the most part, so I understand the wariness. But the stark reality of "how can I get barely literate kids to do better on this standardized test" and the like eliminates folks whose real mission is to create political clones of themselves. Hardcore ideological warriors are going to end up teaching college or maybe in administration.

(IMO, the dream job for many woke warriors is probably in HR in a big corporation. No pesky parents to deal with!)

My biggest concerns with a teacher for a child of mine now would probably be "are they at least literate?" (not a given) "Do they actually know their subject? Can they maintain order in the classroom enough for students to be able to focus and learn?"

[rv245]

Just another example of where this dangerous horsesh** starts:

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/202...-slave-owners/

I'm sorry but an apology doesn't cut it. The teacher/teachers who's lesson plan was to hand this out should of been fired on the spot. For one thing stuff like that should of haven't been bought to school or on school property, it's no different than a student bring it in.

[GyroF-16]

I'm sorry but an apology doesn't cut it. The teacher/teachers who's lesson plan was to hand this out should of been fired on the spot. For one thing stuff like that should of haven't been bought to school or on school property, it's no different than a student bring it in.

So... cancel them? That would make us no better than those whom we despise.

[Grey]

So... cancel them? That would make us no better than those whom we despise.

That is false equivalence. Cancel culture is "cancelling" someone/thing because the outrage du jour tells us we need to. Firing someone for teaching our students utter destructive horseshit is not cancel culture. Fuck people trying to brainwash our kids.

[Joe in PNG]

So... cancel them? That would make us no better than those whom we despise.

ALICE MORE: Arrest him!

SIR THOMAS MORE: For what?

ALICE: He's dangerous!

WILLIAM ROPER: For libel, he's a spy!

MARGARET MORE: Father, that man's bad.

MORE: There is no law against that.

ROPER: There is! God's law!

MORE: Then God can arrest him.

ALICE: While you talk, he's gone!

MORE: And go he should, if he were the Devil himself, until he broke the law!

ROPER: So! Now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!

MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

ROPER: Yes! I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

MORE: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?

This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast — man's laws, not God's — and if you cut them down — and you're just the man to do it — do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?

Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

-A Man for all Seasons

[Joe in PNG]

That is false equivalence. Cancel culture is "cancelling" someone/thing because the outrage du jour tells us we need to. Firing someone for teaching our students utter destructive horseshit is not cancel culture. Fuck people trying to brainwash our kids.

Firing people for overt propaganda means that the next people just switch to hidden, more insidious versions of the same stuff.
It also makes those people martyrs, and their causes 'dangerous' and 'cool'.