> 3. I think that the form in which the teacher
> deliverd his presentation was not the most effective,
> to say the least. People do not like being lectured,
> especially when the ideas being presented to them are
> either unfamilar or objectionable to some.
>
> A far more effective delivery method would be to start
> with a dialog with the students in which all sides
> would agree on the principles which the teacher argues
> the US is violating. Having agreed on these
> principles, the teacher could then give examples of
> policy behavior, including but not lmited to the US,
> and ask the students to evaluate how these policies
> square with these principles.
>
I agree with Wojek's assessment of his lecture, but I also think that the comments we have from the teacher suffer from being without a context. The recording picks up in the middle of class and it is obvious that there was something he was responding to. And there are several student comments--made mostly by the kid making the recording--to which he responds respectfully and critically, thanking them for their questions at the end of class. I also don't know what this class is actually like from day to day. Perhaps he announced that he would be responding to the SOTU or something out of the ordinary (can't imagine the the student tapes every class and It would hardly be effective if he said all of this everyday since he'd pretty much be repeating himself.) There are some moments where he definitely gets a bit vociferous, but I don't know what he is responding to overall. By the end, I thought this statement made his speech seem pretty equivocal.
"I am not implying in any way that you should agree with me. I'm not even sure I'm taking a position. What I'm trying to do is to get you to do is to think about these issues more in depth. And not to just take things from the surface. I'm glad you asked all your questions because they're good legitimate questions. And I hope they have allowed other people to think about those things too."
I also find the argument that he doesn't present a balanced view of the state of the union (which is what the district is arguing) puzzling. The SOTU *is* the other view. Still, this statement in the school district policy on controversial issues is telling http://pdfserver.ccsd.k12.co.us/vol1policiespdf/imb.pdf
"Each teacher has the right and the obligation to teach about controversial issues. It is his responsibility to select issues for study and discussion which contribute to the attainment of course objectives and the educational program established by the Board and to make available to students materials concerning the various aspects of the issues. He also has the obligation to be as objective as possible and to present fairly the several sides of an issue. Although he has the right to express his own viewpoint and opinions, he does not have the right to indoctrinate students to his views."
First of all "He"?!?
Second, placed against the statement earlier in the document "Only the school is able, in an organized way, to encourage development of a relatively homogeneous society which can be called distinctively American" it's clear that the problem isn't indoctrination--just renegade indoctrination. No surprise there.
Wojek also mentions the possibility of this being a nationally broadcast politcal speech. If people actually listened to it and thought about it critically might be a good thing. But since most people will just hear 30 second clips from the whole 20 minutes (and a few 30 seconds in that speech make him sound a bit wacky) it is much more likely that it just makes him appear as a left wing nut we should all avoid being (and by all, I mean all good, patriotic Americans). The stuff on the WTC--though framed in terms of what bin Laden thought--make him sound like Churchill. I don't know what Fox news will be sampling, but some selective use of this seems more likely to be just as polarizing and do more to encourage more students to do stuff like this and fewer teachers to say anything critical for fear that the brownshirts in the class will turn them in to Big Brother. Also troubling is that, between this and Horowitz this could be reaching a tipping point where the critical educator becomes the equivalent of the abducted blonde girl or shark attack in the 24 hour news cycle--only this time, it is purely subjective whether the object exists.
-s