<p>Again, haven’t had time to read all this, but sjmom’s post makes sense to me. Why on earth would a school promote illegal activities?</p>
<p>EXCELLENT post, sjmom!!! :)</p>
<p>sjmom, I do think a panel discussion is best if it presents a variety of viewpoints that fosters lively debate. </p>
<p>As far as who decides what is presented in school, this is a very sticky issue. There are parents who object to certain books or materials in our classrooms. They don’t think these materials align with their values. Often these materials are lauded by educators. Often these materials are ones that a majority of parents are fine with. So, who then decides?</p>
<p>I still don’t get how this new morphed conversation has to do with the very first post asking about the degree of friendship in teacher student interactions. Well, at least you got your discussion, HH, that you wanted on the BHS topic. It can easily be its own discussion. I had refrained because it didn’t seem to relate to the topic of teachers as authority figures vs. friends.</p>
<p>Funny, soozievt. I hadn’t even heard of this case until beurah posted the link. I did think it relevant to the OP, which was about boundaries, not friendships. I was indeed, however, trying to get off the yearbook topic, as you expressed repeatedly that you wished to do.</p>
<p>Susan, I think that the original issue has been discussed to death. It doesn’t bother me that the discussion has veered to a related topic, and I don’t think it bothers anyone else who is still here. It does seem to be the nature of CC that conversations meander, doesn’t it?</p>
<p>^^SOME educators laud all sorts of things, like experimenting with drugs or sex at 14. I’d have to respect the educator to trust his/her judgment.</p>
<p>
Please don’t blame hh, susan. <em>I</em> brought this up because it relates very well with the topic at hand and because it is an EXTREMELY egregious example of what can happen under school auspices when responsible parents get busy and look the other way–on second thought, they didn’t even HAVE to be looking the other way. This was like a bolt out of the BLUE! :eek: </p>
<p>I am not sure why you have had such an objection to this thread’s “morphing.” As sj said, most lengthy threads on CC do this. Seems to me that the marilee jones thread morphed into an AA discussion over time. Welcome to CC!!! ;)</p>
<p>~berurah</p>
<p>More than one poster here has wondered how I could reason so acutely on topics where they agree with me and yet be so stupid when I disagree with them. I think the answer is that the constant which attracts my attention is deliberately misleading presentation of half-truths as facts, feigned motivations as the real reason for actions, etc. In this thread I have been disturbed by more than one. After having been called on the claim that the yearbook “encouraged cheating” that assertion has, for the most part, dropped away. The insertion of the Boulder High School assembly (presented by U of Colorado and, I believe, not mandatory for students) is an interesting bit of sleight of hand. Not only is it off-topic, look how it was presented:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But here’s the rest of the transcript which was left out:
Now I can understand that reasonable people may argue that this is an inappropriate way to present a message to high school students; others might find it to be more effective and thus appropriate: all fair argument, as far as I’m concerned. But the cropped excerpt as presented to the CC community in post #225 certainly did not convey that the message being presented was “use condoms or you’ll get VD” - which clearly was the gist of the (admittedly coarse) message. </p>
<p>Additional context:
</p>
<p>So I find that a slanted and misleading presentation has been made of something that happened off-topic. Why? I’ve got a theory, but I’ll post it later.</p>
<p>I give CC’ers credit for reading the entire text linked to if they are going to comment on it. I thought we’re all smart enough not to rely on excerpts, especially if they’re written by someone whose viewpoint we are normally at odds with. :)</p>
<p>Morphing is fine. As I said, early on, I didn’t realize at first that the first post was related to the yearbook controversy and I thought it was on teachers as authorities or friends. I then later realized it was the same teacher you had a problem with over the yearbook. Fine. I get it now. </p>
<p>HH, I never said I wanted to get off the yearbook topic. If that was the case, I would not have responded to points of views expressed here about the yearbooks. I engaged in that discussion. I simply said I wasn’t sure why the yearbook controversy was raised again with a new thread and the rationale behind doing so. I never said NOT to discuss it!</p>
<p>Discuss the Boulder thing too if you want. I see that as its own topic but again, that’s fine. That is my own opinion and I only said so because HH asked why I was ignoring the post about the Boulder controversy and it was because I wasn’t that interested in it in relation to this thread and see it as its own topic. However, I now have engaged in that new discussion as well. Berurah, I am not “blaming HH”…I was responding to her asking me why I was ignoring the post on Boulder HS and it was because I chose which sub topics and posts I wished to respond to. That’s all. She seemed to want me to not ignore it and so I obliged. </p>
<p>I surely hope you don’t think that those who have differing viewpoints ae not also “responsible” parents. </p>
<p>The discussion morphing is not a problem. I think the original topic about a quote about the yearbook teacher went away quickly and it turned into the original debate about the yearbook controversy at that high school and I guess I would have just continued the old thread on it. That’s all. </p>
<p>As far as what issues are discussed at school and who decides, that is a topic in itself. A good one, just not what I thought the subject heading about teachers as friends or authority figures was about. I think there was more to this from the get go.</p>
<p>Hereshoping, I’m less likely to be “at odds” with someone who doesn’t try to mislead me to advance their argument…</p>
<p>That’s the thing about the Boulder transcript. When read in total, I agree with many of its messages. The excerpts out of context are misleading to say they promoted sex and illegal drug use. One might not agree with their manner or even their message. However, their message was not quite the one being claimed here.</p>
<p>Kluge, I don’t see your added context changing how inappropriate the panel discussion was. It’s a very coarse, very simplistic way to deal with sexuality. And guess what — condoms do not=safe sex. That’s the biggest problem of all. STDs can still be transmitted & the girls face the greatest risk. Not to mention emotional consequences. And the panelists should know that adding drug use to the mix leads to even more risky sexual behavior. Sorry, but this panel was hugely disturbing and may have put kids at risk.</p>
<p>I also think the thread started out on one topic about teacher friendships but really was about much more. I now realize that but did not when I responded in post number 2.</p>
<p>“I feel fortunate that I do not possess the kind of mentality that needs to “checkmate” your kid’s views (which are exactly like yours, I take it) with my kid’s. In fact, my kid is his own person, so it’s very likely he has views that differ from mine. In fact, both my sons are more liberal and less liberal/more conservative and less conservative than I am on different subjects. I teach my kids to think for themselves–something I try to do. My views are not black/white on all topics–far from it, although people here consistently try to paint me as a right-wing, religious zealot reactionary. The attempt by you and others here to paint “the gang of four” as such is either consciously designed to shut down discussion, or is simply indicative of your own limitations.”</p>
<p>Boy you write in the above paragraph how your all open and that, but 10 seconds later you’re somebody else. 
And is it people who are missing who you are or is it how you present yourself? </p>
<p>I think I have you figured pretty well. It ain’t my first rodeo hon. </p>
<p>By the way, have I named anyone to the gang of four? 
</p>
<p>Are you appointing yourself? </p>
<p>I was hoping to wait till thanksgiving and have it be part of Madden’s all drumstick team.</p>
<p>Opie, slay some other dragons. Really you started this a long, long time ago when you took exception to some of my views. It’s very tiresome for all, I’m sure. If you can’t comment on the discussion at hand, instead of the people here, just drop it. Find another venue to show off your wit.</p>
<p>I think the thread is about what are the boundaries between teachers, students behaviour? and about lines being blurred as to how teachers talk to students, what they talk about, and so forth. And that covers a lot of territory.</p>
<p>Kluge, </p>
<p>Excellent points. I looked a little deeper too and have came to the same sort of conculsion about this post and “post-ets”. Just depends where you decide to edit when you cut and paste. You can turn a point 180 degrees depending on where you cut and snip.</p>
<p>The link to the transcript is at post #225 so people can read it and decide for themselves.</p>
<p>“Opie, slay some other dragons. Really you started this a long, long time ago when you took exception to some of my views. It’s very tiresome for all, I’m sure. If you can’t comment on the discussion at hand, instead of the people here, just drop it. Find another venue to show off your wit.”</p>
<p>Don’t play innoccent victim dear, it doesn’t suit you. You always been the one to personalize first any difference in opinion, so forgive me for not cowtowing.</p>
<p>What is the issue at hand? It has been twisted and morphed into several different issues and places that should be 10 different threads. Everytime something starts to get questioned, the topic moves slightly and doesn’t revisit. Are we talking of the school in Kansas or Collorado. I agree with Kluge that the latter is a somescreen to what went on at Berurah’s school in Kansas. </p>
<p>Sooz gone from agreement to questioning and is now under assualt for not lockstep marching. I was sympathic until I googled more on the local story, now I just find it pathetic and thank my lucky stars I live no where near such nonsense. and I’m talking about the Kansas school, not the drugs in Col thing. Of course that’s stupid thing to put the drug in there, but it’s being used to screen “Kansas HS” defense. Here, look at my left hand now, not the right.</p>