4 ms·

Well, one of the basic premises of public schooling is that the parents have a significant say in what is taught, via the election of school boards and other po

by nickff 5y ago

Well, one of the basic premises of public schooling is that the parents have a significant say in what is taught, via the election of school boards and other politicians. This report details a subversion of the 'consent of the governed', which is troubling.

woodruffw 5y ago
It's remarkable how the underlying grievance has been dressed up over the years. I remember how it was teachers "failing" to "teach the controversy" re: evolution when I was in middle school; now they're "subverting" the democratic will! Gack.
- potatolicious 5y ago
  Whenever someone speaks in lofty ideals it's always important to get them to be specific about what those ideals look like in practice, and be specific about what they're looking for. "Subversion of the consent of the governed" can be anywhere from "making the kids smoke cigarettes at recess" to "teaching the works of MLK Jr. even though it makes local parents uncomfortable". The classic example of this is the whole "states' rights" canard re: the American Civil War. The states' rights to what, exactly? People often defend the hard-to-defend by talking in generalities and appealing to abstractions. The real test of the idea is if you can defend it both generally and specifically.
  - nickff 5y ago
    >"The classic example of this is the whole "states' rights" canard re: the American Civil War. The states' rights to what, exactly?" The states have rights according to the tenth amendment (the last amendment in the 'Bill of Rights'): >"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
    - fknorangesite 5y ago
      > The states have rights Why don't you answer the question? The Civil War was fought over a state's right to do what, exactly?
      - vkou 5y ago
        The declarations of secession by Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, Virginia, and Texas only mention slavery 83 times [1][2] between them, but if revisionists are to be believed, they were obviously not about a state's right to enslave human beings and to own them as property. [3] [1] https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states#Texas https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declarati... [2] That word happens to be mentioned only 11 times in the entirety of the text of Huckleberry Finn, by the way. [3] The word 'property' appears 16 times, and refers to human beings in every single one of those instances.
        woodruffw 5y ago
        I like it when people link the actual declarations, because Mississippi's in particular is a doozy: > Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth.
    - potatolicious 5y ago
      Indeed you're still talking in generalities: which rights were being asserted under this reading of the Constitution? The quote you provided could mean literally anything, from regulating the sale of beef to taxing bread. I suspect neither hamburgers nor dinner rolls were the subject of the Civil War. Which rights were in dispute?
  - itronitron 5y ago
    Also worth mentioning that prior to the Civil War the South was very much opposed to states rights because that would have allowed northern states to block the capture and return of runaway slaves. >> https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/underground-railroad-states-rights-114536/ https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/underground-...
- nickff 5y ago
  I don't know what else you'd call it if an unelected organization uses the governments money & power to do things that the public doesn't want. I am open to using different terminology, in case you have any suggestions.
  - woodruffw 5y ago
    Normally we'd call that a "civil service." They don't traditionally answer to the electorate, because the electorate appoints their boss(es). And, whether you like it or not, must of the public does want its teachers to be supportive of children who aren't straight or cis.
    - nickff 5y ago
      I think the civil service is supposed to execute the laws of the jurisdiction, and defer to the elected branches when there are policy decisions to be made. If the unions are making their own policies, it doesn't really matter whom the electorate has appointed. I would use the same term ('subvert') for a government contractor siphoning government funds for activities outside their contract terms. I really don't know what else to call this.
      - woodruffw 5y ago
        I think a concrete example of a law being broken by teachers not being actively homophobic or transphobic would be a substantive contribution to this discussion. Until then, it's not clear what law or regulation the teachers represented by the CTA are violating.
        nickff 5y ago
        It seems like the CTA is attempting to make policy, without obviously violating laws. Areas without clear policies either require clarification by the elected officials, or should be left to individuals in the field. Unions and corporate lobby groups have no place in making policy.
multjoy 5y ago
Basic premises of public schooling in the US. The rest of the world, not so much.
kennywinker 5y ago
Consent of the governed… seems like the kids are the ones being governed, and nobody is really asking for their consent.
- dvt 5y ago
  Oh come on, parents should obviously have the final say in what their kids are taught (via voting for school boards, etc.). How is this even remotely controversial?
  - kennywinker 5y ago
    Because kids actually should have a say. Like you don’t just all of a sudden gain sentience on your 18th birthday. Kids are people too and have should have a right to control their life to some degree. It also works. Have you heard of democratic schools (also known as free schools)? The kids govern themselves, set rules, dictate curriculum. They have quite strong outcomes for students.
    - dvt 5y ago
      > The kids govern themselves, set rules, dictate curriculum. They have quite strong outcomes for students. What a privileged childhood you must've had to think that this is a viable schooling system for anyone but upper-middle-class hippie rich kids. You do realize middle schoolers are routinely recruited into gangs in rough cities like Chicago, right?
      - kennywinker 5y ago
        > You do realize middle schoolers are routinely recruited into gangs in rough cities like Chicago So, are you saying that there's some inherent difference between rich kids and inner city kids? Like, beyond their circumstances? Because if rich hippie kids can govern themselves, and inner city kids can't, that is either because rich kids are just better - or that poor kids have shitty circumstances that take that ability away from them. If you believe the former, we can't go any further because you're just racist or classist or both. If you believe the latter, then clearly kids deserve a say in their circumstances wherever they have that ability - and where they don't, something else needs to change first.
kawera 5y ago
In the U.S.

by nickff 5y ago

woodruffw 5y ago

It's remarkable how the underlying grievance has been dressed up over the years. I remember how it was teachers "failing" to "teach the controversy" re: evolution when I was in middle school; now they're "subverting" the democratic will! Gack.

potatolicious 5y ago
Whenever someone speaks in lofty ideals it's always important to get them to be specific about what those ideals look like in practice, and be specific about what they're looking for. "Subversion of the consent of the governed" can be anywhere from "making the kids smoke cigarettes at recess" to "teaching the works of MLK Jr. even though it makes local parents uncomfortable". The classic example of this is the whole "states' rights" canard re: the American Civil War. The states' rights to what, exactly? People often defend the hard-to-defend by talking in generalities and appealing to abstractions. The real test of the idea is if you can defend it both generally and specifically.
- nickff 5y ago
  >"The classic example of this is the whole "states' rights" canard re: the American Civil War. The states' rights to what, exactly?" The states have rights according to the tenth amendment (the last amendment in the 'Bill of Rights'): >"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
  - fknorangesite 5y ago
    > The states have rights Why don't you answer the question? The Civil War was fought over a state's right to do what, exactly?
    - vkou 5y ago
      The declarations of secession by Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, Virginia, and Texas only mention slavery 83 times [1][2] between them, but if revisionists are to be believed, they were obviously not about a state's right to enslave human beings and to own them as property. [3] [1] https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states#Texas https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declarati... [2] That word happens to be mentioned only 11 times in the entirety of the text of Huckleberry Finn, by the way. [3] The word 'property' appears 16 times, and refers to human beings in every single one of those instances.
      - woodruffw 5y ago
        I like it when people link the actual declarations, because Mississippi's in particular is a doozy: > Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth.
  - potatolicious 5y ago
    Indeed you're still talking in generalities: which rights were being asserted under this reading of the Constitution? The quote you provided could mean literally anything, from regulating the sale of beef to taxing bread. I suspect neither hamburgers nor dinner rolls were the subject of the Civil War. Which rights were in dispute?
- itronitron 5y ago
  Also worth mentioning that prior to the Civil War the South was very much opposed to states rights because that would have allowed northern states to block the capture and return of runaway slaves. >> https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/underground-railroad-states-rights-114536/ https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/underground-...
nickff 5y ago
I don't know what else you'd call it if an unelected organization uses the governments money & power to do things that the public doesn't want. I am open to using different terminology, in case you have any suggestions.
- woodruffw 5y ago
  Normally we'd call that a "civil service." They don't traditionally answer to the electorate, because the electorate appoints their boss(es). And, whether you like it or not, must of the public does want its teachers to be supportive of children who aren't straight or cis.
  - nickff 5y ago
    I think the civil service is supposed to execute the laws of the jurisdiction, and defer to the elected branches when there are policy decisions to be made. If the unions are making their own policies, it doesn't really matter whom the electorate has appointed. I would use the same term ('subvert') for a government contractor siphoning government funds for activities outside their contract terms. I really don't know what else to call this.
    - woodruffw 5y ago
      I think a concrete example of a law being broken by teachers not being actively homophobic or transphobic would be a substantive contribution to this discussion. Until then, it's not clear what law or regulation the teachers represented by the CTA are violating.
      - nickff 5y ago
        It seems like the CTA is attempting to make policy, without obviously violating laws. Areas without clear policies either require clarification by the elected officials, or should be left to individuals in the field. Unions and corporate lobby groups have no place in making policy.

multjoy 5y ago

Basic premises of public schooling in the US. The rest of the world, not so much.

kennywinker 5y ago

Consent of the governed… seems like the kids are the ones being governed, and nobody is really asking for their consent.

dvt 5y ago
Oh come on, parents should obviously have the final say in what their kids are taught (via voting for school boards, etc.). How is this even remotely controversial?
- kennywinker 5y ago
  Because kids actually should have a say. Like you don’t just all of a sudden gain sentience on your 18th birthday. Kids are people too and have should have a right to control their life to some degree. It also works. Have you heard of democratic schools (also known as free schools)? The kids govern themselves, set rules, dictate curriculum. They have quite strong outcomes for students.
  - dvt 5y ago
    > The kids govern themselves, set rules, dictate curriculum. They have quite strong outcomes for students. What a privileged childhood you must've had to think that this is a viable schooling system for anyone but upper-middle-class hippie rich kids. You do realize middle schoolers are routinely recruited into gangs in rough cities like Chicago, right?
    - kennywinker 5y ago
      > You do realize middle schoolers are routinely recruited into gangs in rough cities like Chicago So, are you saying that there's some inherent difference between rich kids and inner city kids? Like, beyond their circumstances? Because if rich hippie kids can govern themselves, and inner city kids can't, that is either because rich kids are just better - or that poor kids have shitty circumstances that take that ability away from them. If you believe the former, we can't go any further because you're just racist or classist or both. If you believe the latter, then clearly kids deserve a say in their circumstances wherever they have that ability - and where they don't, something else needs to change first.

kawera 5y ago

In the U.S.