Required reading for 4th graders in Illinois....

[Ashock]

.... http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/22/obama-...e-racists/


Some parents in Dupo, Ill. are not happy that a biography of President Barack Obama is required reading for fourth-graders. They say the book contains a host of controversial elements, not least of which is that it casts white Americans who disagree with Obama’s politics as racist.

Fourth-grade students at Bluffview Elementary School were instructed that they would be tested and graded on the book’s contents, reports EAGnews.org.

The book, called simply “Barack Obama,” is published by Lerner Publications. The author, Jane Sutcliffe, appears to specialize in these kinds of biographies. She has written similar titles about Jesse Owens, Ronald Reagan, Sacagawea and Milton Hershey.

The kerfuffle about the book originally bubbled up through a Facebook page called Moms Against Duncan (MAD). The group actively opposes implementation of the Common Core curriculum.

EAGNews notes that the Obama book is part of Scholastic’s “Reading Counts” program and an acceptable title under the Common Core State Standards Initiative, which attempts to standardize various K-12 curricula around the country.

You can view a sample of the bio on Google Books.

The book continually identifies Obama on a first-name basis. It bizarrely blames the evils of television for learning ways “to be black” that are hilariously caricatured, stereotypical and negative.


When Barry looked in the mirror, he saw a young black man. But he didn’t know how to be black. And no one was there to teach him.

He decided to act like the black characters he saw on TV. He started acting tough. He cursed. Was that what it meant to be black?

As he got older, he started smoking and drinking. He tried drugs. Was that what it meant to be black?

It’s not clear if Sutcliffe purposefully conflates being a black American with “acting tough,” cussing, “smoking and drinking” and doing drugs.

Sutcliffe is white, according to her Amazon.com author page.

The Obama biography goes on to charge that white Americans did not want to vote for Obama because of his skin color. However, it neatly explains, America’s 44th president was able to bring everybody together in blissful unity.


But some people said Americans weren’t ready for that much change. Sure Barack was a nice fellow, they said. But white voters would never vote for a black president. Other angry voices were raised. Barack’s former pastor called the country a failure. God would damn the United States for mistreating its black citizens, he said.

The book then recounts Obama’s March 2008 speech about race.

“Barack decided it was time to speak to Americans about race,” the next paragraph pedantically explains. “Black people and white people were too often angry with one another. All people were going to have to work together to solve the country’s problems. Only in that way could Americans make a more perfect United States.”

It’s not clear if the book’s author believes the United States is now “more perfect” some six years into the Obama presidency.


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/22/obama-...z2lPvLFLjn
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interestingly enough, when I was in 4th grade, my required reading was the biographies of Lenin and Brezhnev.

Naturally, there is absolutely no connection between these requirements.

[Jester]

Interestingly enough, when I was in 4th grade, my required reading was the biographies of Lenin and Brezhnev.

Naturally, there is absolutely no connection between these requirements.

The problem here is that students are being made to read a biography of the President?

I agree it's not something I'd put on the curriculum, and my view of nationalism is roughly Tom Lehrer's. But presidential hagiography (including that of sitting presidents) has been standard fare more or less forever in US elementary education.

Is there something different about this, in particular?

-Jester

Afterthought: Her bio of Reagan is every bit as saccharine.

[Ashock]

The problem here is that students are being made to read a biography of the President?

I agree it's not something I'd put on the curriculum, and my view of nationalism is roughly Tom Lehrer's. But presidential hagiography (including that of sitting presidents) has been standard fare more or less forever in US elementary education.

Is there something different about this, in particular?

-Jester



Umm, excuse me. I have never before this, heard of any students be REQUIRED to read the biography of a sitting president. At least not in this country. Of course the press and the teacher unions have never been as far up a sitting president's ass either.

[FireIceTalon]

Our bourgeois education system making kids read the biography of a bourgeois politician? What is the big deal? Nothing new here as far as I can see. It's no worse than requiring kids to salute the flag and say the pledge of allegiance every day, and in fact, I would argue that it is less so.

I'm not an Obama fan by any stretch of the imagination but this is a right-wing troll thread, and nothing more. Neeext.

[DeeBye]

It's pretty awful that schools in America are requiring kids to read books about their democratically elected president. That's what the commie countries did in the 80's and it almost won them the Cold War.

[Jester]

Umm, excuse me. I have never before this, heard of any students be REQUIRED to read the biography of a sitting president. At least not in this country.

If you say so. I was under the opposite impression.

Is there a way we can check this? My google fu fails me here, and only brings up your cohort in the angry legions who are ever so outraged, and not any historical examples. (It is a pretty obscure thing to check.)

-Jester

[shoju]

The problem here is that students are being made to read a biography of the President?

I agree it's not something I'd put on the curriculum, and my view of nationalism is roughly Tom Lehrer's. But presidential hagiography (including that of sitting presidents) has been standard fare more or less forever in US elementary education.

Is there something different about this, in particular?

-Jester



Umm, excuse me. I have never before this, heard of any students be REQUIRED to read the biography of a sitting president. At least not in this country. Of course the press and the teacher unions have never been as far up a sitting president's ass either.

I had to read a biography of Reagan, while he was a sitting president during his second term.

I ad to DO a biography on both old bush, and clinton during school.

But hey, lets point out how "scary" it is that the black liberal president's biography is being taught in school, instead of rejoicing that they are actually trying to engage children in something related to our government, something that my oldest son had no teaching on, until his semester long government class.

[FireIceTalon]

It's pretty awful that schools in America are requiring kids to read books about their democratically elected president. That's what the commie countries did in the 80's and it almost won them the Cold War.

This doesn't really make any sense to me. First off, there is no such thing as a "communist country", and secondly, it seems grossly oversimplified to attribute EASTERN-BLOC/State Capitalist countries resolve in competition for global markets against the "west" to teaching their kids about their leaders. Any country teaching its kids about its leaders is not to win any war ("cold" or "hot"), but a type of social engineering to foster nationalism, to teach kids in the context of the 'Great Man' theory of history so they have a particular way of looking at the world that is favorable for the status quo (the skewing and misrepresentation of the historical narrative is necessary for this), and to instill a sort of respect for authority so they are more obedient workers when they enter the job market. Or in short, to keep false consciousness and ideological control of the populace intact. But to directly (or even indirectly) win a war? This seems unlikely.

Anyways, while I think having to read about any leader is in general dubious, there are things we should be much more worried about that are being taught in the classroom. I am much more alarmed that certain localities teach kids Creationism as a science, than I am them teaching them about the life and times of bourgeois politicians.

[Jester]

I had to read a biography of Reagan, while he was a sitting president during his second term.

I ad to DO a biography on both old bush, and clinton during school.

That pretty much settles that, then. It was my impression that this was fairly widespread practice. Glad to hear it confirmed.

Any other objections, Ashock?

-Jester

[Lissa]

I had to read a biography of Reagan, while he was a sitting president during his second term.

I ad to DO a biography on both old bush, and clinton during school.

That pretty much settles that, then. It was my impression that this was fairly widespread practice. Glad to hear it confirmed.

Any other objections, Ashock?

-Jester

I wouldn't jump to that conclusion. I know that it was never required reading for me on any bios on any presidents, sitting or not. I'm not sure how the school district was in Okanogan for the brothers, but in Omak, the school district nor the staff ever required something like this. We did, however, as Seniors have a Civics class that was all about dealing with the governement and how it works for the US and somewhat Washington state (at the Junior level, we had half a year of history just on Washington state with Sophomore year dealing with US history, and Freshman was world history).

[Alram]

UPDATE: Jaci DeClue, a school board member in Dupo, has emailed The Daily Caller claiming that no one in Dupo is required to read a biography of President Barack Obama.

“This book was a donated book in the presidential section of our library that a student checked out and took home,” DeClue told TheDC. “It is not any part of the curriculum or been taught in any of our classes.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/22/obama-...z2lUufZjtG

[LemmingofGlory]

A biography on Obama is not nearly as entertaining as a biography on Rob Ford. What are these teachers thinking?

[Hammerskjold]

-Sounds of something flying over someone's beret clad head-

This doesn't really make any sense to me. First off, there is no such thing as a "communist country", and secondly, it seems grossly oversimplified to attribute EASTERN-BLOC/State Capitalist countries resolve in competition for global markets against the "west" to teaching their kids about their leaders. Any country teaching its kids about its leaders is not to win any war ("cold" or "hot"), but a type of social engineering to foster nationalism, to teach kids in the context of the 'Great Man' theory of history so they have a particular way of looking at the world that is favorable for the status quo (the skewing and misrepresentation of the historical narrative is necessary for this), and to instill a sort of respect for authority so they are more obedient workers when they enter the job market. Or in short, to keep false consciousness and ideological control of the populace intact. But to directly (or even indirectly) win a war? This seems unlikely.

Re.....Play!1111

But to directly (or even indirectly) win a war? This seems unlikely.

So much...lulz.

Anyways, while I think having to read about any leader is in general dubious, there are things we should be much more worried about that are being taught in the classroom.

I agree. Try reading this instead. For yourself.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Ma...eralMinded

This one is good too.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Li...liaBedelia

Or here's the speed read version. For all the little revolutionaries who are extremely busy with the revolution-ing and tilting at right leaning windmills and all.



(It doesn't literally rain actual felines and canines.)

edited for dang image links.

[Jester]

I wouldn't jump to that conclusion.

I would. The Thomas Bayes on my shoulder estimates how likely it is that someone on this very forum would have had this experience, were it a thing that didn't happen at least occasionally.

It's a pretty small number. Certainly, this can't be unheard of, if other people have heard of it.

-Jester

[Hammerskjold]

A biography on Obama is not nearly as entertaining as a biography on Rob Ford. What are these teachers thinking?

Rob Ford's bio is still a work in progress. Though I heard there are Hollywood wheeling and dealing on the movie rights. Philip Seymour Hoffman is in the runnings for the main lead if it's a tragi-drama, Jack Black if it's a comedy.

Back to the original topic. Teachers are obviously commie-fascists. Or maybe fasci-commies. Or Super Famicoms.

But let's get some learn-ons.

Here's a pic. To foster out of the box creative thinking the 21st century needs. Instead of listing all the wrong things, list all the right things you can find in the following image.

[Kevin]

I had to read Reagan (he was sitting his first term) and Carter bios while in 3rd or 4th grade. Had to write a bio on Bush Sr while he was sitting too. Had to do other bios of past POTUS as well.

[vor_lord]

I'm not sure how the school district was in Okanogan for the brothers, but in Omak, the school district nor the staff ever required something like this.

I certainly don't remember doing anything like this (with a sitting president). But I'm also not sure an "education" from Okanogan would be at all representative of what was common practice.

[DeeBye]

UPDATE: Jaci DeClue, a school board member in Dupo, has emailed The Daily Caller claiming that no one in Dupo is required to read a biography of President Barack Obama.

“This book was a donated book in the presidential section of our library that a student checked out and took home,” DeClue told TheDC. “It is not any part of the curriculum or been taught in any of our classes.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/22/obama-...z2lUufZjtG

As soon as I saw the original article was from The Daily Caller, I knew an explanation like this would surface.

---

It's pretty awful that schools in America are requiring kids to read books about their democratically elected president. That's what the commie countries did in the 80's and it almost won them the Cold War.

This doesn't really make any sense to me. First off, there is no such thing as a "communist country", and secondly, it seems grossly oversimplified to attribute EASTERN-BLOC/State Capitalist countries resolve in competition for global markets against the "west" to teaching their kids about their leaders. Any country teaching its kids about its leaders is not to win any war ("cold" or "hot"), but a type of social engineering to foster nationalism, to teach kids in the context of the 'Great Man' theory of history so they have a particular way of looking at the world that is favorable for the status quo (the skewing and misrepresentation of the historical narrative is necessary for this), and to instill a sort of respect for authority so they are more obedient workers when they enter the job market. Or in short, to keep false consciousness and ideological control of the populace intact. But to directly (or even indirectly) win a war? This seems unlikely.

Anyways, while I think having to read about any leader is in general dubious, there are things we should be much more worried about that are being taught in the classroom. I am much more alarmed that certain localities teach kids Creationism as a science, than I am them teaching them about the life and times of bourgeois politicians.

It was a joke. I was joking.

[FireIceTalon]

Ok. Figured you might have been but wasn't sure.

[LemmingofGlory]

Ok. Figured you might have been but wasn't sure.

I did not know it was possible to read DeeBye minus comedy.