Oof... it's no secret that some parents don't know that they are to be their child's first teacher:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/04/kindergartener-cuffed-after-tantrum-in-principals-office/

That teacher knew the job.

I vividly remember walking into my first period 11th grade History class one day when the teacher had Martial music playing on a record player (remember those!?) with the national flags of all the WWII combatants hanging all around the room. You never saw a bunch of 16 and 17 year-olds so quiet. And yes, the Nazi Party flag was present.

One German spymaster during world war ii found out that he could increase efficiency considerably simply by going out of his way to transmit information to his superiors in a presentable way.

.
Kim, your last comment echoes Gail Godwin who said, “Good teaching is one-fourth preparation and three-fourths pure theatre.” Perhaps that’s because lack of interest is one of the biggest obstacles to learning.

I agree. I think teachers would be better off imitating fun actors and actresses, making learning interactive.

Quite true, Kim. It is not an either or. However history should be chewed like a cud, and not just memorized. And therefore a history teacher who stomps a student for disagreeing with him(with reasonable respect of course) doesn't know what he is about.

I fear, Lee, that postmodernism rears its ugly head in Ellen's battles. I'm sure that the people pushing for "creative" math, would be the first to cry foul if their students became engineers. I certainly wouldn't want to go into a building or drive across a bridge that they helped design.

Jason, It's not an either or, but both. Teach some things, like multiplication tables, dates in history, etc. through memorization, but follow it up with why the lesson matters.

I had a terrific Chemistry teacher at Glendale City College in Southern California. When the class was chuckling over people's misconception about an atom being a "plum pudding" of protons and electrons - which was proved wrong by the gold foil experiment - she asked, "What assumptions do we hold today that might be proved wrong?" The class became quiet and thoughtful.

That and one other were the two moments I really remember in the class. The other was, "If you remember nothing else, remember this: Likes Dissolve Likes."

(okay, okay, I also remember the time she told me that I had the highest score when she was handing back tests.)

In any case Lee, teachers should learn to abide such "challenges" to their authority as teaching history with a protoplasmic tape recorder standing in front of students is like assuming tactics is the same as close order drill. Or assuming that painting walls is the same as karate. Or assuming that students who can diagram a sentence can thereby be skillful writers.

Well Lee, much of my history CLASS experience was rote memorization. Which is the inherent flaw in teaching history like that. History is about people.

Fortunately I got interested in history OUTSIDE school. My first impression was not "this happened on this day, etc, etc." My first impression of history was, "Cool dude! Violence! Bloodshed! Stuff Blowing Up!" For the matter of that, that is still much of my impression. However my interests have become more subtle and mature as time went on.

Well, Jason, perhaps your high school experience was vastly superior to mine. I remember not discussing the meaning of the Battle of Hastings, but only memorizing that it occurred in 1066. Places, names and dates, all without meaning. So I think of history and math as very similar; memorization and rote. Actually weighing pros and cons was rare, since it represented a possible challenge to the authority of the teacher.

It is quite ironic that for me the one class where dissent was possible was in biology, but today all other classes have almost nothing but dissent, while biology requires a law to even permit discussion of alternatives.

Lee, history is definitely not the same thing as math, and if history teachers can't abide erudite dissent from young Mr. Taylor in the third row they aren't doing their job. Fortunately some of Mr. Taylor's history teachers were tolerant of young Mr. Taylor's dissent.

Kim, while I agree with you about the teaching of evolutionary theory as theory, and not as historical fact, I wonder about how much teachers should really encourage curiosity about strengths and weaknesses. Certainly that's appropriate for science classes, but what about other subjects? I think of Ellen's battles with her local school board over math curriculum, where 2+2 is not settled by popular vote, for example. Or some poor history teacher steeling herself for yet another erudite dissent by young Mr. Taylor in the third row.

Shucks, I'd probably be getting a C-minus in Ms. Dalfonzo's English class, just for arguing about correctness versus contemporary usage of ellipses alone . . . ;-)

So, it's an interesting question about exploration or indoctrination, especially in a post-modern environment. With a topic like evolution, presenting both sides and encouraging scholarship would be very valuable. For other topics, I'm somewhat less certain.

You're right, Kevin. This education should not be reduced to biblical studies, but whether a particular theory has merit, what are its strengths and weaknesses, etc.

I really hope they do this right. If they can demonstrate that they are simply picking apart a very flawed theory and not bringing a hint of religion into it, the legality should be unquestioned. Then they've got a chance to do a lot of good. This could be a big opportunity to counteract the brainwashing that tells young people you have to be an idiot to not side with evolution.