Ah, so the premise of the book was that MLK was a good man (no ifs, ands or buts), and that each page of the book supported that premise.In this case the 1st grade coloring book was actually called "MLK Was A Good Man Because....." And each page started with those words.
As I said the teacher quit after the school board sided with my group. Alls good now.
The question is, were the children allowed to come up with their own answers that might be contrary to the premise that MLK was a "good man"? That would truly be critical thinking.Were the children allowed to come up with their own answers to the "because"?
I don't blame her. I would want to teach in that kind of school district, either.
1. "Good" or "not good" are moral judgments.
Do you honestly think that a little elementary kid who goes against the teacher's statement that MLK was a good man isn't going to experience negative response to his critical thinking?
I keep seeing that word bantered about. I suppose telling young children that it is "good" to stay in school, or "good" to learn to read is indoctrination as well. I'm sure there are those parents that would disagree with that statement, too. The fact is, you cannot teach children to think critically by limiting their exposure. And that is what all those crying "indoctrination" are attempting to do. When does the book burning start?
1. Not if the teacher has the teaching skills necessary to instill the critical thinking process. Of course, we are talking about very young children here, since the whole topic is about a coloring book. And no doubt the reason that simplistic language that children of that age would be able to comprehend, as well as concepts appropriate to their development.
2. Then you quite simply ask them to think of any ways that would contradict that premise.
3. Indoctrination.
Nope.
Which goes to show how sensitive little kids are to their teacher's response.
I didn't say that at all, did I? I said, at least a couple times, that the deeds and impact of MLK should be taught.
Apparently, the one in question did not.
There are still simple ways to teach about MLK without requiring a "good" or "bad" judgment of the man.
But that isn't what the question was on each page of the book, was it? The book assignment didn't provide that option, and the book was designed by the teacher.
"Good" in that sense means of benefit and rewarding to the child. It's not a moral judgment.3. Indoctrination.
I never said to limit their exposure. It has to do with the method of presentation of material that is appropriate to the age of the child.
3. Indoctrination.
stuff. Those poor ADers... they got the most of brute force for me 
just finished reading this thread. good thing I stayed out for a long while because I knew I would be dealing with
I don't care how the schools in each state teach because there's no such thing as one-answer-for-all. I understand that it's always political and whatnot. It's fine for them to teach the content leaning to liberal view or conservative view or both. School A would teach MLK as a great man who broke down the segregation barrier and School B would teach MLK as a flawed womanizer and School C would teach that MLK was an important figure in American history that defined our civil rights and some in-depth stories covering all sides.
My high school is the School C. It was awarded with Blue Ribbon - one of the best public school in NJ. It has produces over 80% Ivy League-bounded graduates. I was taught on both sides of the stories with some bias, of course.
But I'm extremely disturbed by their agenda behind this change - to Christianize it
I don't know how MLK would have been covered in my text books or taught in my schools He was killed in 1968, and I graduated from high school in 1969, so everything we learned about MLK was current events on the TV, in newspapers, and in magazines like Time and Life. He wasn't history then, he was news.just finished reading this thread. good thing I stayed out for a long while because I knew I would be dealing with
I don't care how the schools in each state teach because there's no such thing as one-answer-for-all. I understand that it's always political and whatnot. It's fine for them to teach the content leaning to liberal view or conservative view or both. School A would teach MLK as a great man who broke down the segregation barrier and School B would teach MLK as a flawed womanizer and School C would teach that MLK was an important figure in American history that defined our civil rights and some in-depth stories covering all sides. ...