Ban political talk in public school, K-12?

[temporal1]

Appleman:
Here is the point as I see it. It is a public school. It is being paid for by all tax payers.
As long as that is the case than teachers in my opinion should be required to teach all perspectives from an unbiased position whether that is religion or politics.

Yes.

Appleman:
Now the question of course is if that is even possible.
I could make a good argument that it is not possible to do it well which basically makes my point that the public school system as we now have it is a very bad idea.
In the private system parents can choose the type of teaching they want for their children and speak with their pocket book.

More than a few believe the U.S. DOE should be abolished.

Appleman:
And if you really believe that the only fair way to ensure that every child has equal access to an education than you should be a strong supporter of a voucher system that then gives every parent and child regardless of wealth the ability to choose a school that would in fact meet their expectations.

My unease with the voucher system is the loss of independence private schools would suffer as a result - which would quickly result in loss of quality (the very goal being sought).
“Be careful what you wish for.”

Appleman:
I guarantee that schools would improve almost over night as they would be forced to meet parents expectations.

This might be the early result. Problem being, politicians+activists+lobbies would NOT leave them alone. Soon, there would be nowhere to turn. Probably including homeschools.
Take gov funds, submit to gov mandates.

Appleman:
Teachers would be hired based on the type of children (parents) they are trying to attract.

Those who control purse strings.

Appleman:
For example if the school senses that the parents of their children want a left wing socialist outlook taught to their children they can hire teachers that teach that. If they want to cater to parents wanting an unbiased view then they can hire teachers that are capable of presently different views fairly. Teachers could then teach to the best of their ability knowing they were hired particularly for that.

Appleman:
The fact is that it will probably never happen largely due to such strong teachers unions that are incapable of thinking outside of the box and have scared their teachers into believing that change would be bad.

The importance cannot be overstated.

Appleman:
it is very sad.
And it it is why I was very glad to be able to make the sacrifices needed to send my kids to a private school. No regrets whatsoever.

i believe it was in the 1960’s when public schools became infiltrated with politicians-activists-lobbyists, unions. what began with the best intentions has developed into a beast. i can hardly imagine how teachers/admin put up with it.

home schools and private schools are the obvious alternatives. but, many cannot begin to afford either, or would otherwise not be capable of following through.

attempting to make these options available to all would likely devolve into a worse mess than the present. to repeat, instead of the present, some get a better education than others, it would become, compromised ed for all. gov is very good at that particular “formula.”

[temporal1]

Appleman:
Here is the point as I see it. It is a public school. It is being paid for by all tax payers.
As long as that is the case than teachers in my opinion should be required to teach all perspectives from an unbiased position whether that is religion or politics.

To add a bit to above ..
i sense there is some conflation on what’s being discussed here.
There should be “apples to apples” references.
That is, here (i believe) you are referring to teaching stated material in stated, defined classes, that it should be presented in balanced perspective, personal opinions seriously avoided. i agree.

However, much of the problem is when teachers ad lib personal political views in any ol’ class, or, activity, just because they can. It’s been tolerated.
This is the big problem. Not new, but, “it’s never too late to do the right thing.”

Unfortunately, this has flown under the radar for so long, many “feel” teachers are entitled to carry on this way. Certainly, those with (political, or religious) views in agreement LIKE it, and, emotionally rally for it, making all sorts of illogical, baseless claims+accusations (Hitler, Communism, etc.)

Teachers who indulge in this make life more difficult for responsible teachers trying to do their stated jobs.
They often have a Pied Piper charisma, getting students to cheer for them, when questioned.
The best teachers are not Pied Pipers, they do not need to seduce students to teach/do their jobs.
In my opinion.

[Bootstrap]

This bill was proposed by a Republican in Pennsylvania, which has a Republican majority in both the House and Senate. Despite that, one of the articles from the OP says this:

His proposal most likely stands no chance of becoming law and legal experts panned it as an unconstitutional attempt to curb free speech.

Has a bill even been proposed? The article refers to it as a "memo".

So why are we wasting so much energy on it? If it ever gets to the point of being a bill that has any chance of passing it might be worth revisiting.

I'm trying to figure out how this could even work. Suppose you are in a classroom discussing Watergate and a student asks, "Mr. Bootstrap, how is this different from the Mueller investigation"? What is the teacher supposed to do, refuse to discuss the question because it brings up a political controversy? If I were the teacher, in a high school class at least, I would bounce the question back to the classroom, put a variety of opinions up on the board, and answer technical legal questions and such, helping the class have a lively discussion of ways that the two are similar or different.

Isn't that precisely what you want? Isn't that what we need to have citizens educated enough to think things through, make their own decisions, and vote?

[Josh]

I would compromise at some kind of regulation that prohibits public school teachers from taking students on "field trips" to demonstrate for or against specific legislation or to participate in union activities to which the teacher belongs.

[Bootstrap]

I would compromise at some kind of regulation that prohibits public school teachers from taking students on "field trips" to demonstrate for or against specific legislation or to participate in union activities to which the teacher belongs.

Teachers in public schools are very accountable to the parents of their children, who can bring up any issues they have with the teacher, bring in the principal, or organize groups of parents who share the same concern. It is extremely difficult for a teacher to just brush this kind of thing off.

Parents are close to the action, they are much better placed to understand what is actually going on in the classroom than some politician. Parents getting involved is a very good thing. Politicians getting involved in classrooms they know little about is a bad thing.

And look, politicians love publicity. This isn't legislation, this is a memo designed to get media attention. At least so far, nobody has even bothered to draft it as a potential law. It's political clickbait.

[Josh]

Politicians getting involved in classrooms they know little about is a bad thing.

I agree. That’s why public schools shouldn’t function as an arm of the Democratic Party.

[JimFoxvog]

Politicians getting involved in classrooms they know little about is a bad thing.

I agree. That’s why public schools shouldn’t function as an arm of the Democratic Party.

Or any party. It's a good thing they don't. In mostly conservative areas, such as where I live, most of the teachers are conservatives.

[Josh]

But there isn’t a widespread problem with teachers being biased towards being Republicans and recruiting students for help with political activity. There is a definite problem with doing so for Democrats.

This kind of whataboutism gets tiresome. Democrats and Republicans are different in terms of which spheres they habe influence in.

[MaxPC]

Appleman:
Here is the point as I see it. It is a public school. It is being paid for by all tax payers.
As long as that is the case than teachers in my opinion should be required to teach all perspectives from an unbiased position whether that is religion or politics.

To add a bit to above ..
i sense there is some conflation on what’s being discussed here.
There should be “apples to apples” references.
That is, here (i believe) you are referring to teaching stated material in stated, defined classes, that it should be presented in balanced perspective, personal opinions seriously avoided. i agree.

However, much of the problem is when teachers ad lib personal political views in any ol’ class, or, activity, just because they can. It’s been tolerated.
This is the big problem. Not new, but, “it’s never too late to do the right thing.”

Unfortunately, this has flown under the radar for so long, many “feel” teachers are entitled to carry on this way. Certainly, those with (political, or religious) views in agreement LIKE it, and, emotionally rally for it, making all sorts of illogical, baseless claims+accusations (Hitler, Communism, etc.)

Teachers who indulge in this make life more difficult for responsible teachers trying to do their stated jobs.
They often have a Pied Piper charisma, getting students to cheer for them, when questioned.
The best teachers are not Pied Pipers, they do not need to seduce students to teach/do their jobs.
In my opinion.

It's also happening at the university level and that may be where this idea of personal politics in the classroom has sprung from. Bad ideas "roll downhill" too.

I agree that the broad brush that gets painted by the media because of the actions of a few penalizes those excellent teachers who are responsible, professional, and have the integrity to present all sides as much as is possible. In the hard sciences as well as the soft sciences, mathematics, etc, you would think that information would not embroil political opinions, but even there professors get political. It happens frequently in this day and age of politicization.

[appleman2006]

Couple of things I think I need to clarify. First as a rule parents have very little say anymore in the public school system. I am not saying there are not some teachers that will listen to and honour parents concerns but depending on the topic you better be very careful who you talk to about what. Perhaps the US is still a bit different but here in Canada I think not.

As to the voucher system. I do not get the argument that just because the money is filtered through the public purse that the politicians should automatically dictate what is taught. Think about it. The money is coming from the people. It is being used to teach the people's children. Hence each school should be allowed to lay out exactly and with transparency what they are going to teach. If the parents do not like it they will move their children and the money that follows them to a different school. Schools that refuse to serve any particular group of parents wants and needs would simply disappear. They could not survive. Actually there might even be a market for schools that try to be everything to everybody. If so and the parents approve so be it.

The only argument I could see for being against this is to say, what if my beliefs are so polarised that no school can meet that need and I say then that you either need to take a real good look at your belief system or perhaps in some isolated cases you need to home school. Parents or schools could still have the option of opting out of the voucher system.

Do you get what I am saying. I am not saying that parents if they wish should not have the right to have their children indoctrinated in a leftist socialistic Godless environment if that is what they deem to be best for their children. Their tax dollars can go towards that just as mine can go towards a school that I deem good for my children.

When put this way anybody against a voucher system is really being quite selfish and arrogant in thinking that unless things are done exactly the way I think they should be done that the school should be non funded. What is interesting to me is that it is often the proponents of voucher systems that are portrayed as being selfish. How backward is that?