Well, that isn't the headline that appears on the article, but it is certainly much more accurate than the one that did appear on the article.

Teacher under investigation for alleged liberalism

You see, it is the teacher's unwarranted injection of his political views into his classroom materials and vocabulary assessments that are the problem, not the views themselves.

"I wish Bush would be (coherent, eschewed) for once during a speech, but there are theories that his everyday diction charms the below-average mind, hence insuring him Republican votes," said one question on a quiz written by English and social studies teacher Bret Chenkin.

The question referring to the president asked students to say whether coherent or eschewed was the proper word. The sentence would be more coherent if one eschewed eschewed.

Another example said, "It is frightening the way the extreme right has (balled, arrogated) aspects of the Constitution and warped them for their own agenda." Arrogated would be the proper word there.

Chenkin claims, of course, that the quizzes are being looked at out of context. While he may have a point, I have a difficult time imagining a context in which these items would be appropriate -- and I say that as a social studies teacher who is also a certified English teacher (though not, as many of you have noticed, a typing teacher). I suppose if one were teaching a unit on propaganda or the use of biased language it would be possible to justify such assessment items, but I'm not sure that i would be comfortable using them in my classroom.

Do I want to see Chenkin fired for this lapse in professional judgement? No, I do not. I don't think he has crossed the line far enough for that. Do I think he needs to be cautioned and reminded that there are lines beyond which a teacher should not go? Yeah, I do.

I'll be watching to see how this situation plays out.

(HAT TIP: Michelle Malkin)

Posted by: Greg at 11:19 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 344 words, total size 2 kb.