Black History classes now ****** in Arizona
- Thread starter mushroomhunting
- Start date
Arizona: Eliminating one race at a time since 2010.
Can you blame her? You know, it's because of Black History Classes their Negroes got all uppity and wanted a holiday for Martin Luther King Jr.
and equal rights.
Who wants to see pictures of their ancestors burnt bodies hanging from trees, it you don't teach it then eventually no one will know if it ever even happened. In History lessons in the UK we were never taught that Britain even had an ****** Empire. We get taught about the Romans and Normans up to the Spanish Armada (1600s) then it jumps 400 years to Hitler and **** Germany!
It seems to me these kinds of issues (along with evolution vs. creationism, absitenence vs. sex-ed etc.) would be totally avoided if government would just stay the hell away from education all together.
You tax people to create public schools which massively shrinks the private sector (so private schools end up being just for the wealthy) and then is it any wonder that you have a massive clash of various interests trying to impose their idea of what's "best for our ********" on everyone ?
You tax people to create public schools which massively shrinks the private sector (so private schools end up being just for the wealthy) and then is it any wonder that you have a massive clash of various interests trying to impose their idea of what's "best for our ********" on everyone ?
Texas isn't in the running?
Arizona will never be a destination for me. Hard to believe this garbage.
I imagine I'll catch some flak for this, but I don't really see the issue here?
I interpret this statement as: no classes promoting revolutionary actions/ideas (why would a country's government give federal funds to a school that teaches classes that promote the concept of overthrowing that very same government?), no classes promoting racism/classism/sexism etc. (seems pretty cut and dried), and no classes that cater to a group of students from 1 particualr ethnicity (all courses should be designed for the benefit of all students, not just a particular ethnicity). What's the problem?
Also,
This one seems self explanatory? Why let people who don't speak proper english, teach english classes? If disallowing that is considered discriminatory, then how should one view the plight of the students that have to learn the finer points of the english language from someone who does not speak it properly, or whose accent makes it extremely difficult to understand?
And contrary to the title of the thread, I don't think black history falls under the purview of this development. Simply because a course is "about" a paricular ethnic group, doesn't mean that the course itself is "designed primarily for students of a particular ethnic group," a measure the mandate claims to require. If there was sarcasm implied in the thread title, I missed it, and thus apologize.
I interpret this statement as: no classes promoting revolutionary actions/ideas (why would a country's government give federal funds to a school that teaches classes that promote the concept of overthrowing that very same government?), no classes promoting racism/classism/sexism etc. (seems pretty cut and dried), and no classes that cater to a group of students from 1 particualr ethnicity (all courses should be designed for the benefit of all students, not just a particular ethnicity). What's the problem?
Also,
This one seems self explanatory? Why let people who don't speak proper english, teach english classes? If disallowing that is considered discriminatory, then how should one view the plight of the students that have to learn the finer points of the english language from someone who does not speak it properly, or whose accent makes it extremely difficult to understand?
And contrary to the title of the thread, I don't think black history falls under the purview of this development. Simply because a course is "about" a paricular ethnic group, doesn't mean that the course itself is "designed primarily for students of a particular ethnic group," a measure the mandate claims to require. If there was sarcasm implied in the thread title, I missed it, and thus apologize.
Under the ban, sent to Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer by the state legislature Thursday, schools will lose state funding if they offer any courses that "promote the overthrow of the U.S. government, promote resentment of a particular race or class of people, are designed primarily for students of a particular ethnic group or advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals."
As ThinkProgress notes(ThinkProgress is a notorious UltraLeft extremist org), the Tucson Unified School District's popular Mexican-American studies department is the target here. The state superintendent charges that the program exhibits "ethnic chauvinism."
Meanwhile, in a move that was more covert until the Wall Street Journal uncovered it, the Arizona Department of Education has told schools that teachers with "heavy" or "ungrammatical" accents are no longer allowed to teach English classes. [Thank you! And common sense rears it's seldom used head...:thumbsup:]
As outlined by the Journal, Arizona's recent pattern of ... education policies is ironic -- and is likely a function of No ***** Left Behind funding requirements -- given that the state spent a decade recruiting teachers for whom English was a second language.
In the 1990s, Arizona hired hundreds of teachers whose first language was Spanish as part of a broad bilingual-education program. Many were recruited from Latin America. (See? Many said it was a bad idea, fueled by good intentions.They were correct...)
Then in 2000, voters ****** a ballot measure stipulating that instruction be offered only in English. Bilingual teachers who had been instructing in Spanish switched to English.
Teachers who don't meet the new fluency standards have the option of taking classes to improve their English, the Journal reports, but if they fail to reach the state's targets would be fired or reassigned. Damn...how mean and unfair...learn your subject and speak the language you are teaching coherently and fluently. Or move aside after 10 years...:rofl:
Anyone notice no mention of any particular subject being unacceptable? Only criteria that a third grader would see is fair and sensible...
so, once again a real racist Lefty BS post being ****** off as "upset over unfairness"...
"Black History classes now ****** in Arizona" is as untrue as is most of the first 4 or five posts in this thread...as usual. BS is the trademark of most of the really racist Lefties here...thank God they are so transparent and only influence other Lefty simple minded racists like themselves.
Most of us have moved on and have no time for stupid PC irrelevance...Arizona seems like a good place to live and a state that takes things like the law, freedom, and equlal rights for all seriously.:thumbsup:
(Stay tuned for desperation, sputtering, and silly name-calling by outed Lefty racists...!:rofl::rofl::rofl
As ThinkProgress notes(ThinkProgress is a notorious UltraLeft extremist org), the Tucson Unified School District's popular Mexican-American studies department is the target here. The state superintendent charges that the program exhibits "ethnic chauvinism."
Meanwhile, in a move that was more covert until the Wall Street Journal uncovered it, the Arizona Department of Education has told schools that teachers with "heavy" or "ungrammatical" accents are no longer allowed to teach English classes. [Thank you! And common sense rears it's seldom used head...:thumbsup:]
As outlined by the Journal, Arizona's recent pattern of ... education policies is ironic -- and is likely a function of No ***** Left Behind funding requirements -- given that the state spent a decade recruiting teachers for whom English was a second language.
In the 1990s, Arizona hired hundreds of teachers whose first language was Spanish as part of a broad bilingual-education program. Many were recruited from Latin America. (See? Many said it was a bad idea, fueled by good intentions.They were correct...)
Then in 2000, voters ****** a ballot measure stipulating that instruction be offered only in English. Bilingual teachers who had been instructing in Spanish switched to English.
Teachers who don't meet the new fluency standards have the option of taking classes to improve their English, the Journal reports, but if they fail to reach the state's targets would be fired or reassigned. Damn...how mean and unfair...learn your subject and speak the language you are teaching coherently and fluently. Or move aside after 10 years...:rofl:
Anyone notice no mention of any particular subject being unacceptable? Only criteria that a third grader would see is fair and sensible...
so, once again a real racist Lefty BS post being ****** off as "upset over unfairness"...
"Black History classes now ****** in Arizona" is as untrue as is most of the first 4 or five posts in this thread...as usual. BS is the trademark of most of the really racist Lefties here...thank God they are so transparent and only influence other Lefty simple minded racists like themselves.
Most of us have moved on and have no time for stupid PC irrelevance...Arizona seems like a good place to live and a state that takes things like the law, freedom, and equlal rights for all seriously.:thumbsup:
(Stay tuned for desperation, sputtering, and silly name-calling by outed Lefty racists...!:rofl::rofl::rofl
i have never come across a class that promotes the overthrowing of its government. Yet any history/society class is going to come to points where we are going to have to think critically of our government. If we are not able to do that, than does that not defeat the idea of a democracy?
Anyway, you interpret one way. I completely understand that. But that is exactly what schools and teachers are going to be in a bind about. What is the proper way to interpret any of this without getting themselves in trouble? Teen goes home telling *** and *** about The Trail of Tears or Civil Rights movement. *** & *** get mad that their **** are learning what they feel is U.S. government resentment. School has to remove this chapter from the books.
Jagger69
Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
Not to be redundant but, an excerpt from the article:
"The new bill would make it ******* for a school district to teach any courses that promote the overthrow of the U.S. government, promote resentment of a particular race or class of people, are designed primarily for students of a particular ethnic group or "advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals."
The bill stipulates that courses can continue to be taught for Native American pupils in compliance with federal law and does not prohibit English as a second language classes. It also does not prohibit the teaching of the Holocaust or other cases of genocide."
It doesn't say anything about prohibiting the teaching of black history so let's be a little more objective here. I think what is much more troubling and is contained further down in the article is this little gem:
"The Arizona Department of Education recently began telling school districts that teachers whose spoken English it deems to be heavily accented or ungrammatical must be removed from classes for students still learning English. State education officials say the move is intended to ensure that students with limited English have teachers who speak the language flawlessly. But some school principals and administrators say the department is imposing arbitrary fluency standards that could undermine students by thinning the ranks of experienced educators
Source is here:
Premium Link Upgrade
Obviously, this is aimed at teachers of Hispanic heritage who may have "heavy" accents. Who determines what constitutes "heavy"? What about an Anglo teacher from Mississippi who speaks with a serious southern drawl? This is dangerous ground. It appears that the Arizoniacs have really jumped off the deep end this time.
"The new bill would make it ******* for a school district to teach any courses that promote the overthrow of the U.S. government, promote resentment of a particular race or class of people, are designed primarily for students of a particular ethnic group or "advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals."
The bill stipulates that courses can continue to be taught for Native American pupils in compliance with federal law and does not prohibit English as a second language classes. It also does not prohibit the teaching of the Holocaust or other cases of genocide."
It doesn't say anything about prohibiting the teaching of black history so let's be a little more objective here. I think what is much more troubling and is contained further down in the article is this little gem:
"The Arizona Department of Education recently began telling school districts that teachers whose spoken English it deems to be heavily accented or ungrammatical must be removed from classes for students still learning English. State education officials say the move is intended to ensure that students with limited English have teachers who speak the language flawlessly. But some school principals and administrators say the department is imposing arbitrary fluency standards that could undermine students by thinning the ranks of experienced educators
Source is here:
Premium Link Upgrade
Obviously, this is aimed at teachers of Hispanic heritage who may have "heavy" accents. Who determines what constitutes "heavy"? What about an Anglo teacher from Mississippi who speaks with a serious southern drawl? This is dangerous ground. It appears that the Arizoniacs have really jumped off the deep end this time.
figure it out. All it takes is an angry(gasp racist) ****** of a ***** to use this new ban as a way to block the teachings. " My ***** is learning anti-america in history class!" It is not bullshit at all. It is teachers and schools being held back even more by lawyers.
Disagree...Jagger, you have made an unfounded and dangerously close to assuming conclusion...whereas a Nigerian would also qualify if his accent was almost unintelligible, or a Ukrainian. And I have known some who never improved their English, but in a teaching position it is not forgivable.Not to be redundant but, an excerpt from the article:
"The new bill would make it ******* for a school district to teach any courses that promote the overthrow of the U.S. government, promote resentment of a particular race or class of people, are designed primarily for students of a particular ethnic group or "advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals."
The bill stipulates that courses can continue to be taught for Native American pupils in compliance with federal law and does not prohibit English as a second language classes. It also does not prohibit the teaching of the Holocaust or other cases of genocide."
It doesn't say anything about prohibiting the teaching of black history so let's be a little more objective here. I think what is much more troubling and is contained further down in the article is this little gem:
"The Arizona Department of Education recently began telling school districts that teachers whose spoken English it deems to be heavily accented or ungrammatical must be removed from classes for students still learning English. State education officials say the move is intended to ensure that students with limited English have teachers who speak the language flawlessly. But some school principals and administrators say the department is imposing arbitrary fluency standards that could undermine students by thinning the ranks of experienced educators
Source is here:
Premium Link Upgrade
Obviously, this is aimed at teachers of Hispanic heritage who may have accents. It appears that the Arizoniacs have really jumped off the deep end this time.
Anyone who has ever tried to understand an order or business call from a heavily accented non-English speaker understands why teaching in "heavily accented or ungrammatical " English is not wise for those learning English.
We have a very good man working one of our offices who has an atrocious Mexican accent, and although we wanted him to run the satellite office several people complained he was way too hard to understand clearly over the phone...and customers calling in with problems who aren't aliens, legal or *******, couldn't get what he was saying as well. So...someone else had to be found.
Not just accented...heavily accented or ungrammatical is seriously opposite what is needed as a teacher of English to non-native speakers.
They won't be using English on Abuela or Tia Rosita so it does matter...life can be hard, folks...learn to pronounce English with proper vowel sounds. Or teach Spanish classes to Gringos...
Not to be redundant but, an excerpt from the article:
"The new bill would make it ******* for a school district to teach any courses that promote the overthrow of the U.S. government, promote resentment of a particular race or class of people, are designed primarily for students of a particular ethnic group or "advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals."
The bill stipulates that courses can continue to be taught for Native American pupils in compliance with federal law and does not prohibit English as a second language classes. It also does not prohibit the teaching of the Holocaust or other cases of genocide."
It doesn't say anything about prohibiting the teaching of black history so let's be a little more objective here. I think what is much more troubling and is contained further down in the article is this little gem:
"The Arizona Department of Education recently began telling school districts that teachers whose spoken English it deems to be heavily accented or ungrammatical must be removed from classes for students still learning English. State education officials say the move is intended to ensure that students with limited English have teachers who speak the language flawlessly. But some school principals and administrators say the department is imposing arbitrary fluency standards that could undermine students by thinning the ranks of experienced educators
Source is here:
Premium Link Upgrade
Obviously, this is aimed at teachers of Hispanic heritage who may have "heavy" accents. Who determines what constitutes "heavy"? What about an Anglo teacher from Mississippi who speaks with a serious southern drawl? This is dangerous ground. It appears that the Arizoniacs have really jumped off the deep end this time.
Who among us native English speakers ever learned how to enunciate the English language from a teacher in a school? Not a fucking one. You learn how to articulate the language from the people you are around most of your life. You only learn (or should learn) how to be grammatically correct in a school. Technically a teacher needn't say one word to be able to teach English Most **** have the phonics down before they even get to the more technical aspects of the language from indirect home training.
Jagger69
Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
I don't disagree with having our teachers be as proficient as possible in the English language when teaching our ******** either, Philbert.
However, you didn't include my complete statement. For the record, here's what I said:
Obviously, this is aimed at teachers of Hispanic heritage who may have "heavy" accents. Who determines what constitutes "heavy"? What about an Anglo teacher from Mississippi who speaks with a serious southern drawl? This is dangerous ground. It appears that the Arizoniacs have really jumped off the deep end this time.
If you're willing to allow some unknown "authority" make arbitrary determinations about what constitutes a "heavy" accent without oversight....well, I guess that's your prerogative. I strongly disagree.
While I think that you're being a bit sensational here (The teaching of ToT and Civil Rights - along with several other subjects for that matter - if taught properly and objectively can be understood as inescapable, yet important and impactful parts of American history, that can be targeted towards the entire spectrum of Americans, without engendering resentment for the government), I indeed understand your point, and agree that there will undoubtedly be some contentious times to come regarding all of this. The question to my mind, though is: will the contention stem from the contemplation of this mandate or the application of such? As in, will the contention be more about "what could happen," or "what actually does happen." As neither you, nor I have any direct say in this matter, it is nonetheless something that has been implemented and we will simply have to see how the mandate plays out in actuality to see what the ultimate impact will be and what reprecussions will follow thereafter.
As a side note, I'm not sure what public school you attended that promoted cricical thinking of any kind, let alone with regards to the US government, but that was certainly not my experience!
