eym_sirius

Okay --- that wouldn't work either! You do know that you couldn't frame your question about slavery in the present tense, right? You really can't make a question about slavery as if it's still going on - what's the point of that lesson? Why would you make a math question about slavery anyway??? What could possibly be the point of it? You just couldn't justify this lesson to the parents! What??? No, it could not be "some other country". Do you know the story here????

I know - I hear ASSED a lot. And AXXED.

We all have the same opportunities? I grow up in a household of college educated professionals, the parents are the pillars of the community. Another person grows up with parents who were the grandchildren of slaves/sharecroppers, nobody in the family has ever graduated from high school, and while they always worked to support their families, the possibilities were limited for those without a quality education. So the folks from the second background have the same opportunities as people who come from "old money"? And their problem is that the people who came from the second group jus

Yeah, TC - I've stipulated that it could have been stupidity, but even then, the lead teacher or administrator who is supposed to check lesson plans and assignments should have see this coming. While the scenario that I suggested was conjecture, it does jibe with the way that things work in schools. It's not possible for teachers not to know about racially insensitive issues. We took countless classes on that subject. I taught classes on the subject having been a teacher of teachers, planning and conducting inservices for teacher work days. It IS typical for the system, especially Gwin

Here's another one that I hear all of the time - instead of masonry, people say, "mason-AIRY" As in, Pick me up a box of mason-AIRY nails".

I'd say that if it's a history class incorporating math, and you've been studying the issue of slavery in pre-civil war America that question would not be inappropriate. That statistic might even prompt further discussion on the storied "ONE-PERCENT" that is still oppressing people today! Good point! However, if it's a math test incorporating history, the "slave" reference might appear out of context, random and possibly racist if it's coming out of the blue in the eyes of the students and their parents.

LPPT - It wasn't that plantations couldn't be profitable. It's that they were MORE profitable if they had cheap, nearly free labor. All that was required was to treat the individuals like animals. Now, try to put that into a test question, combining math and slavery. See if you can make it non-offensive. Good luck with that one!

I saw one of my faves today in another thread. It's when people are trying to paint a word-picture and describing someone or some group charging in to save the day. They say of the rescuers ---- "Here Comes The Calvary!" What they mean to say is "Cavalry" Calvary was where jesus was crucified. Big difference.

LPPT, when you make out the specific test question -- It's still inflammatory. Try it yourself and talk specifically about slavery, not just plantations. Oh, man - and if a teacher were to try to use the "region heavily dependent on agriculture as a justification for slavery" Omyhell! Have you ever seen a Frankenstein movie where the townspeople all get out their own farm implements as weapons against the monster? That's what you'd have if a teacher said what you said! ["After all slavery was based on a region heavily dependent on agriculture. It also explains why slave labor was used.

I don't think that this was a plot to inject anything specific into the educational system. It's a stretch to make this a conspiracy, since it's limited to a few questions on a single test at a single school. I think that it was an administrator who has had an issue with a particular teacher - they have a "history" and there was a memo sent out for teachers to incorporate black history into their lessons, somehow. So this guy (for instance) a tenured math teacher told the administrator that it was a stupid idea to mix math and black history. The administrator said 'you'll do it or get wri

Don't use beatings. See if you can in any way combine math and slavery and come up with a test question that is not offensive. I think that it's not possible at all, but you indicated that it would be easy using different imagery. Give it a go and let's see how you do! I agree that beatings makes for bad imagery. So pick another and see how that image works out.

Can you give an example? I considered possibilities of lessons on math and slavery and -- nothing that wasn't offensive. You may be able to do it, though. I'd be interested in your non-offensive test question.

Part of the reason for cross-curriculum teaching is to make instruction more interesting. Part of a geography lesson might be a challenge for students to map a route from one state capital to to next, add up all of the miles, the challenge being to come up with the shortest route and visit all of the capitals of the lower 48. Contrast that method with supplying the student with an alphabetical list and tell the student to learn the capitals. The student would fall asleep before completing that task and still would have no idea of where the places are located, pretty much the main point o

S & D's - There's a great reason for cross-curriculum application of lessons. Life isn't history or math or science, each neatly compartmentalized. They are all interconnected! There' nothing wrong with, for instance, a math teacher using Paul Revere's ride and figuring out how fast he was going if he went a certain distance in a certain time. Or requiring students to convert the distance to metric or even the number of inches in a particular distance. There's nothing wrong with a health teacher having students calculate how long they have to exercise and at what intensity to

There's simply not an inoffensive way to "do the math" regarding slavery. Give it a try!

Thoughts: I'm not sure that this is anything more than an experienced teacher expressing his disdain for cross-curricular mandates by his administration. I think that it's an isolated incident and that the teacher in question was being a smartass - A math teacher not certified in history making his point about the stupidity of teachers teaching outside of their fields of expertise. He likely resented being forced to incorporate those areas into his lessons. And on a related note, MLK day is 8 days from today. Lowrider - I think that possibly dissent and spite played into this

Pubby - An experienced teacher knows better because that teacher has attended umpteen inservices (it's what they do on teacher work days) on sensitivity issues. I think that it's naive to accept the story that this was a mistake. It's common practice for the school system to cover for the teacher and then handle the issue internally. I think that it was done on purpose, the purpose being spite. In any event it's a failure on the part of the lead teacher or the administrator who supervises the teacher's plans. How could this have slipped through the cracks? If it was a new teacher - everyth

You're right - No excuse. I'm skeptical about this being a cross-curricular event honestly entered into by teachers trying to do their best. This seems like a teacher who was pissed off at being made to come up with a cross-curricular assignment and this was the way that he chose to undermine it. "Okay -- They want me to incorporate HISTORY into my MATH lessons -- Let's see how they like THIS lesson!!!" Teachers have many sensitivity training inservice sessions. They know what is appropriate and what is not. I don't believe that this could have been a mistake. The blame should be shar

I'm glad that we agree, BB! I can't dictate anything for you. You are your own person and you have the skills sufficient to determine what is best for yourself. You'll want to disregard my comments, though, on this subject, lest they make too much sense to you. Or join in the discussion if you want to! C'mon! It's fun!!!

We're just talking here BB! You needn't be defensive. This isn't an indictment against you unless -- unless -- you are in one of the two groups highlighted in my comments, politicians and criminals. So if you're a career criminal, a career politician or both, then you probably would feel a little exposed right now. Other than that, we're just talking here!

People outside prison identify with a BRAND of religion in roughly the same percentages that they do IN prison. The moral lessons weren't learned very well before incarceration, apparenltly Recidivism rates show that inside the joint the lessons aren't much more successful. Does anyone actually believe the "finding god in prison" thing? I've always thought that anybody who made a show of religion was a phony. It's called "conversation". If you don't want to participate in this discussion - get to steppin! If you have a comment that is germaine to the conversation, then Welcome

There's an absurdity to giving power to people who will pretend to take a particular religious stance. Why vote for a person's CLAIM to religion, anyway? GWB claimed to be religious. What difference did that make? It's what they have to say to get the vote of the right wingers, so it means nothing. Of course mormons are not evil or bad and there is no reason to be suspicious of them as a group! The one who stuck with mormonism are to be commended for not flip-flopping on their religion just to get a few votes. I think that Jimmy Carter is a great man. He was not a great President. Very p

I'm pretty sure that most everyone agrees with that assessment. That's the way that things SHOULD be - not the way that they ARE, and there are exceptions that include psychological disorders/mental illness, which is why it's not the end of the story.

I think that you're onto something! A background isn't a predictor of how someone will behave or what an individual believes. That's why it doesn't make any sense to consider religion at parole hearings and it doesn't make any sense to consider the religion of a politician.

I agree that the prison populations today do not coorelate to the religious self-identifying categories of the late 1990s. The premise is the same, that people on the outside of prison, who identify with a religion at, roughly 7 or 8 out of 10 will behave in society so poorly that they will be incarcerated for a length of time in prison. Regardless of the individual denominational affiliations, the inmates had been introduced to religious teachings, including morality and continued to identify with that religion. Similarly, a political candidate claims a political affiliation. There was p