Social Studies: Your Tax Dollar at Work
Education
| February 23, 2005
| Tim
Students write letters to soldiers all the time. Even if you don't agree with this particular conflict, you can at least keep things civil and encouraging -- you know, thank them for their service and willingness to sacrifice, and omit the part where you add, mentally, "however misguided."
But what do you make of a 6th-grade NYC social studies class who ends up writing missives like these...
David Andreatta:
One girl wrote that she believes Jacobs is "being forced to kill innocent people" and challenged him to name an Iraqi terrorist, concluding, "I know I can't."
Another girl wrote, "I strongly feel this war is pointless," while a classmate predicted that because Bush was re-elected, "only 50 or 100 [soldiers] will survive." ....
Even one kid smitten with soldiers couldn't keep politics out of the picture, writing, "I find that many extreme liberals are disrespectful to you."
From another article:
Even some of those that praised soldiers for their bravery were laced with divisive political rhetoric and ominous predictions.
One boy who wished soldiers would come home wrote, "From what I see on TV and in the newspaper, I don't think the US is even close to obtaining Iraqi freedom."
He went on to say: "I'm concerned that George W. Bush is president for four more years, because he doesn't want to get troops out, so you might end up staying longer."
Another boy wrote: "Bush thinks he's brave . . . in his safe little white house with as many guards as he thinks he needs." He concluded with: "By the way, when you shoot someone, is it great or horrible?"
WEB Commentary:
As an example, a letter from a Muslim boy included: "Even thoe [sic] you are risking your life for our country, have you seen how many civilians you or some other soldier killed?" and "I know your [sic] trying to save our country and kill the terrorists but you are also destroying holy places like Mosques." To add insult to injury, Andreatta also advised that the envelope had a ‘smiley-face’ stamped on it.
While I'm always glad we live in a country where people -- including sixth graders -- can express opinions, I'm not of the belief that all opinions are equally valid, nor am I of the belief it's equally wise or tasteful to share them with a man who may soon be shot at or blown up.
In particular, regardless of the student's political stances, I'm appalled at the incredible ignorance reflected in these segments of letters. If these are result of a typical NYC sixth-grade social studies project on the Iraq War, taxpayers should be demanding a refund!
First, if you'll read the story, you'll see that the soldier who received these letters was stationed in Korea, so it makes little sense that children would be led to believe he was destroying Mosques already. A little geography lesson about where the war is versus South Korea might be helpful. It would also be helpful, perhaps, point out South Korea is not a predominantly Islamic nation.
Next, we have the student who is convinced that only "50 or 100 soldiers will survive." I have no idea who coached this child, but it's clear the child was given an utterly unrealistic understanding of what is happening, and what the likely outcomes might include. Who would deceive a child this badly for partisan purposes?
Similarly, the child who comments that the media gives the idea (despite the recent election, apparently) that Iraqis will have "freedom" no time soon is undoubtedly speaking the truth as received.
Then there is the girl who believes that soldiers are apparently being forced to kill civilians they know to be innocent. Imagine the world this girl is being raised in. Or perhaps we don't need to imagine: we know already that she somehow is convinced there are no terrorists in Iraq, and that her ignorance on this matter somehow constitutes an irrefutable debate point. Surely she has been told one too many times what a great job she's doing, regardless of the actual quality of the effort. I weep to think we might be sending her, and millions like her, into the world in such a state.
The kid who noted that "liberals are disrespectful to you" just made me laugh: At least one kid was able to observe what was going on. That's hardly a debatable point, given the content of the other letters!
Perhaps a good antidote would be to invite an actual soldier to class to present an alternative view of the Iraq war and answer children's questions. But I suspect that might be just a bit "too much information" for this particular teacher and some parents -- that might be propaganda, you know, and the rule is that propaganda can only go one way.
when I see the state of education created by liberal design, I weep for all the lost minds whove been indoctrinated instead of taught.
a total lack of critical thinking skills on display.
How dare those 6th grades be allowed to express antiamerican and anti Bush ideals. No doubt they are terrorists in training and traitors to our beautiful country. The Pro Libral anti-american al qAeda supporter who taught them should be tried for treason and the kids should be drafted and sent to Iraq so that they can witness for themselves what it means to die for freedom.
OUr men and women on the ground have no right to be critized and 6 graders should not be allowed to speak out against our country.
"How dare those 6th grades be allowed to express antiamerican and anti Bush ideals. No doubt they are terrorists in training and traitors to our beautiful country. The Pro Libral anti-american al qAeda supporter who taught them should be tried for treason and the kids should be drafted and sent to Iraq so that they can witness for themselves what it means to die for freedom.
OUr men and women on the ground have no right to be critized and 6 graders should not be allowed to speak out against our country. "
Or perhaps we can just hire educators who have the ability to teach those children critical thinking skills, absent of all political and social commentary. Perhaps we can get teachers who can teach a 13 year old girl that lacking the ability to name a terrorist in Iraq does not constitute evidence that there are no terrorists in Iraq, simple rational thought.
Hell, most of us might be content with teachers who can teach our children the realities of war, namely that short of a wide spread chemical, biological, or nuclear attack in Iraq, KIAs in the war are never going to approach 99%, and instead hover around or below 1%.
Its fairly obvious that you are or were in the same boat as the children mentioned in the article above. I pity your inability to apply logical reasoning and rational thought to an arguement, which is why those of us who do possess those abilities should simply avoid debating complex political/social issues with you and those poor souls like you.
Thank God I had some great teachers in school who were able to convey to me the importance of rational thought and how to apply it to everyday problems.
at least these children are being taught the truth about the society they're going to be living in. you people are so afraid of the truth, that you hide from it and call everyone who out against it a "terrorist". you must really enjoy letting THEM take all your tax dollars away. why dont you open your eyes and take a look at the big picture. your never going to see any money from social security, and if you have it now, they're going to take it from you. remember, america was created by people who didnt want to be oppressed by a higher power, not to mention, that they didnt want to pay taxes to the british anymore. at least these teachers are teaching these children something about LIFE and the realities that it encompasses. they teach them these things because the government doesnt allow proper funding for these children to get a proper education. they have lowered their standards so much, that by the time these kids graduate high school, they can barely read, they cant spell, and its still challenge for them to complete simple math equations. there. the's your hard earned tax dollars at work. your paying to help produce morons.
Is "American" being sarcastic? I hope so. Being against Bush is 'anti-american?' That sounds like the bedrock of fascism rather than democracy, to equate the ideals of a political leader with the good of the state.
I remember when I was in 1st grade I wrote a recipe where food should be cooked "at 7 degrees." This is not because someone misled me, or because I lacked critical thinking skills, but just because I was uneducated when it came to cooking. It's probable that many of the students simply didn't know the numerical realities of the war. If you're distressed that the students weren't able to intelligently recite a conservative position, they weren't able to intelligently recite a liberal position either. So it's odd to pick and choose letters and then blame things that you don't like on 'liberal education' unless you mean it in the apolitical sense i.e. 'liberal arts.'
I think it'd be good to get a solider into the classroom. And bring in a representative from Iran and Egypt too. Have a debate, which seems to be a lost art in this country. That would be a real 'liberal' answer - to allow various sides fair time to express their views. But I suspect that might be just a bit "too much information" for some parents. In the last debate, presidential candidates weren't even allowed to address each other. And we're surprised that people lack critical thinking skills? Critical thinking requires that we critically examine both sides of an issue, somthing that just doesn't happen with designated 'conservative news sites' and 'liberal news sites.' Today, we have pseudo debates on talk shows which don't let a person talk for more than 20 seconds without being interrupted.
Honestly, how can anyone hope to make a reasoned argument and change another person's view in less than 20 seconds?
If you don't have a good 2-3 minutes at least to make your case without being interrupted, you can do nothing but assert things that the audience already believes. If you have a differing opinion, you can disagree, sure, but you'll have no time to support your dissenting views.
You're missing the points:
- 11-year olds lack the development necessary to evaluate complex political thought, and can only parrot the opinions they absorb from influential people (parents, teachers, etc.) around them. Look at how simplistic and inaccurate their views are. They only have a chld's understanding. This is why children are not allowed to vote. Their expressed opinions cannot (in 99% of cases) be authentically their own. That leaves them (those expressions, not the children) bereft of any value in the dialogue.
- Letters from schoolchildren to soldiers exist in the first place to provide a bit of comfort and support to the dogface in the field. It's tactless in the extreme to replace the sweet and innocent "we miss you/think about you/pray for you" letter written by an American child for a "you're a killer sent by a madman" letter written by a juvenile Tokyo Rose. The debate can go on all day over here, but it's just thoughtless (even cruel) to demoralize troops with this political fodder. What possible outcome is desired? It's not likely American troops will begin laying down their arms because their souls have been seared by children's clumsy, commissioned remarks. The soldier will just have to carry additional pain with him throughout his tour.
- It's obvious here that the teacher is unable to remain dispassionate and unbiased, and is using these children as a means of leveraging his own political voice. This is akin to hiding a bomb in a box of Girl Scout cookies, then having the child deliver the box, and is particularly despicable. Manipulating children, using them as political tools, is reprehensible.
That's what this article is about.
Winsome,
I haven't found any good evidence, even from the radical right, that this teacher prompted the responses that he got.
The best accusation I can find is that he
1. Allegedly reviewed the letters and allowed them to be sent anyways,
and
2. That he first told the students that the letter would be to a fictitious soldier and then, once they were written, told them they would be sent to a real one.
I don't know if this is true or not. They're internet based rumors.
New York was an anti-Iraq-war enclave before this incident and without this teacher. Even without a teacher's influence, we would expect a majority of these students not to support the war in Iraq simply from what they heard at home. Furthermore, we were most likely given a biased sample to read, given that this story has been passed around the Fox and Hannity circuit.
In the second half of Tim's essay, he brings in an issue which was not brought up in the linked-to articles. Namely, the quality of the education that these kids were getting as judged from the factual inaccuracy of the letters. This is what I was responding to.
All Social Studies or history courses (or news sources, for that matter) are political and the product of a particular viewpoint. The Japanese view of WWII and the reasons for the war are different than the ones taught to American children. Both include some information that the other would leave out. You can partially solve this problem by including multiple viewpoints, but you can't eliminate all viewpoints.
In the second half of Tim's essay, he was addressing misinformation and the presumed lack of multiple viewpoints which led the students to have their not surprisingly ill-articulted opinions in the first place.
Tim wrote;
In particular, regardless of the student's political stances, I'm appalled at the incredible ignorance reflected in these segments of letters. If these are result of a typical NYC sixth-grade social studies project on the Iraq War, taxpayers should be demanding a refund!
Perhaps a good antidote would be to invite an actual soldier to class to present an alternative view of the Iraq war and answer children's questions. But I suspect that might be just a bit "too much information" for this particular teacher and some parents -- that might be propaganda, you know, and the rule is that propaganda can only go one way.
Tim's problem as stated seems to be; 'the apparent poor quality of the education these kids were getting, judging by the content of the letters' and that 'propaganda can only go one way.' Both of these are subtly different than what is suggested by the original articles, and it's these differences I tried to address.
I'm frustrated by the fact that nowadays, any perception of one-sided propaganda, real or imagined, is not met with a call for a fair mediated debate with each party given enough time to voice their opinions in order to try and resolve the issue, but with a call for more one-sided information going in the opposite direction.
I'm beginning to suspect that a carriage return undoes italics on a posting. It's happened more than once.
The following from the above quote should be in italics;
Perhaps a good antidote would be to invite an actual soldier to class to present an alternative view of the Iraq war and answer children's questions. But I suspect that might be just a bit "too much information" for this particular teacher and some parents -- that might be propaganda, you know, and the rule is that propaganda can only go one way.
...hm. Yeah. I previewed it. There seems to be a bug in this web application
The comment rules will apply. Please post only once.
« Giving Credit Where Due: Rocketman Apology |
Front Page |
Page Two
| Capitalism is the most environmentally friendly economic system? »
|
when I see the state of education created by liberal design, I weep for all the lost minds whove been indoctrinated instead of taught.
a total lack of critical thinking skills on display.
Posted by: rumcrook on March 8, 2005 03:35 PM