By John Roberts, Sedona Resident
(March 22, 2021)
The Arizona legislators are debating a proposed new law, SB1058, to control teachers. It would restrict or reject good teaching practices. It will only apply to public school teachers.
This law would require these teachers to prepare a rigid teaching plan for an upcoming year and not allow any changes in it for the year. In actual practice teachers regularly prepare teaching plans but revise them once they know what the students already know about the subject or if new techniques or information becomes available to improve the learning process all after getting to know their new class.
This legislation is being advanced and supported by CEOs of private schools and charter schools who happen to also assist Governor Ducey with financial aid. It is an obvious obstruction or headwind for public school teaching. And what’s far more ominous is that it would serve to improve the financial well being of these CEOs by legislation.
This self serving action is wrong and ominous with politicians dictating how to teach to professional teachers.. It needs to be stopped . Call or write your state legislators to demand SB 1058 be rejected.
This is an advertisement
17 Comments
You omit key aspects and reasoning behind the proposed legislation. Senate Bill 1058 would require schools to fully disclose, online, the content that’s actually going into children’s classroom learning so parents can see what’s being taught before they’re forced to make an enrollment decision.
This gives parent’s the right to see the liberal indoctrination being forced upon kids without knowledge or consent.
From the Daily Independent by Matt Beienburg, just a sampling of items currently being forced into curriculums here in AZ include:
“7 of the 11 vocabulary words deemed most essential to students’ grasp of the principles of America’s constitutional republic were “boycott,” “civil disobedience,” “Jim Crow,” “stand your ground,” “lynching,” “segregation,” and, perhaps most bizarrely, “COINTELPRO (Counter Intelligence Program): a series of covert and, at times, illegal projects conducted by the U.S. FBI aimed at surveilling, infiltrating, discrediting and disrupting American political organizations & program[s].”
This was week one of understanding American government.
Then, after presenting to students its shortlist of materials, including readings and videos such as “The Black Panthers: Vanguard of the Revolution,” “Chicano! Fighting for Political Power,” Malcolm X’s speech “The Ballot or the Bullet,” and “The Constitution and the Political Legacy of Slavery,” TUSD encourages students to consider: “Is it the people or the U.S. Constitution that protects the rights of American citizens?” It’s not too difficult to see that students will be gently guided to concluding that street activism protects their rights, whereas the Constitution simply impedes them.”
Democrats never like the light to shine on what they’re forcing on kids in classrooms and deflect and hide the truth to create the narrative that allows for them to constantly push their agenda upon the people.
Jason, your post is as thin as a slice of baloney. It is in fact just so much baloney. You ignore the sinister aspects brought out within my post.
Maybe you don’t know it or are too narrow minded, the critique you offered dealt only with one subject -CIVICS. It proves you failed to understand the reality or threat of our liberties inbred in 1058.
I too think civics is not sufficiently taught in our k-12 schooling, but that’s not what this issue is about.
There are other subjects taught in K-12 according to two of my daughters both of whom have masters degrees in education – something obviously far above you ken in that occupation.
Next time you become inspired I suggest you do more research into what you might say so as to come across to readers as much more intelligent than you exhibited in your dismally prepared post above..
Get smart Jason, you are badly short in it. But then I told you this before.
John
By the way, it’s abundantly clear in all of your posts that it is you who in fact cares what readers think and how you appear to them. Pot meet kettle.
As always, Roberts, you resort to childish insults when your ignorance is challenged. I’d say grow up but your history commenting here says that will never happen.
Someone that says, “Get smart Jason, you are badly short in it. But then I told you this before.”, should not be telling a third grader to get smart.
This state needs to be 100% vouchers. Dollars go with the kids, let the best schools and teachers compete for those dollars, and that would include public schools. Everybody competes..
Then parents decide. When you take government out of the teaching BUSINESS, then they are responsible only for the collecting and disbursement of educational funds, you have a winner.
That would absolutely be the best policy but the Liberals will never go for it because of the staunch financial support they get from teachers unions. They long ago sold out our kids and continue to do so.
MIKE, I would agree were it not for the intervention of politicians.
John
Mike Schroeder’s 3/29 post says it well – how to organize. This proposed new law is far removed from the goals Mike cites with the private school and charter school CEOs influencing the legislators to produce a law satisfying only them and harming public school programs.
Jason Stone’s posts, except for agreeing with Mike, have nothing to do with the subject and so therefor in keeping with the Biz’s practice to stick with original subject matter, do not rate any time to read or any substantive comments.
Thanks Mike.
John
Roberts you know full well they are wholly related in as much as Democrats and teacher’s unions are vehemently opposed to school choice and it’s disingenuous of you to imply otherwise. Part of this legislation is about reducing parent input into their children’s education and therefore limiting choice while at the same time cramming their far-left agenda down the throats of Americans. Liberals never cease to amaze and how you can spin anything.
Jason, if you even had a very minimum knowledge about this subject it would be good to exchange thoughts. I doubt you do. Again I remind you that you are still off subject. Are you not capable of understanding this simple thing ?. Guess not. Too bad.
I much prefer communications with intelligent folks even though we might disagree.
John
No you don’t, you always denigrate people in your initial posts and resort to name calling when challenged. You’ve even admitted previously your purpose is to provoke. You seem very angry and quite frankly, not a very nice person.
Seems like there’s at least one goofy in the crowd who thinks he has something worthwhile to post.
Cannot get the message thru that thick skull. So I’ll stop trying and return to my phone and talk with my beautiful very intelligent girl friend.
Drivel on boy . That seems to be the epitome of your capabilities.
John
Glad to be rid you. Of course, as you depart you can’t help yourself from leaving with a final example eof xactly what I said about you in my last post. Get help.
John, removing the state from ANY control of teachers or curriculum IS the point. To say my post has nothing to do with the original comment is ludicrous.
I know you do it all the time Roberts but see, you can’t just make up your own facts in spite of the evidence to the contrary right in front of your face (literally!).
You boiled the whole the bill down to a single aspect of it and deny other aspects raised that denies parents the right to have a say in their children’s education. Your twisting and omission of inconvenient facts and being devoid of independent thought would be dangerous except you influence no one in any positive or meaningful way.
Lily, good to inject the humorous side loved it. Maybe you are new to the Biz and that would mean you have not had the pleasure of reading posts of some of the very most stupid residents in these hills. They’re not hard to find.
Welcome and keep it coming.
John
Said the guy who calls others names and denigrates them when he is challenged and loses an arguement (frequently).
BTW, calling others “stupid” when responding to someone that hasn’t even commented on this story is, well, stupid.