New York has banned these words for poor, defenseless children:

dinosaur (not everyone believes in evolution)
birthday (Jehovah's Witness doesn't celebrate)
pepperoni (junk food)
dancing (did you see Footloose?)
Halloween (pagan)
divorce (upsetting)
disease (upsetting)
home computers (not everyone has one)
terrorism (scary)
slavery (bad)

Wow. So glad we in Chicago are normal, even though we are the "second city."

It sounds like an April Fool's joke out of control.

Apparently it's real.

Popehat has a link to the actual document.

quote:

Apparently it's real.

Popehat has a link to the actual document.

Which shows it's even worse (worst? worser? wurst? wursterest?)

Political Correctness is to the left wing as Intelligent Design is to the right.

It is real. No April Fool's joke here.

It's an over-correction of political correctness. Not sure, Geoff, that over correctness of political correctness is a left wing thing. The right wingers have a stroke when you talk about red-necked, fundamentalists who love NASCARs. Nope, it just depends on who you are politically correcting. In this case, however, it probably is the left wingers doing the corrections.

Just confirms my doubts about standardized tests. Too many cooks stirring the pot.

quote:

Originally posted by bethree5:
Too many cooks stirring the pot.

And it's probably stone soup.

I missed you on the Bluffing Game, B35! I was hoping you'd proffer a daffynition even if you knew the term.

Some of these topics may be perfectly acceptable in other contexts, but do not belong in a city- or state-wide assessment. A basal reader may contain a story about a child dealing with death; but in such an instance, the teacher has a chance to prepare students before they read the selection, and students have the opportunity to talk through their reactions. No such opportunities are available in a testing situation, so we must be more circumspect in our topic selection. As a guide, the following topics are to be avoided:
Abuse
Alcohol (beer and liquor), tobacco, or drugs
Birthdays
Bodily functions
Cancer (and other diseases)
Catastrophes/disasters (tsunamis and hurricanes)
Children dealing with serious issues
Computers in the home (acceptable in a school or public library setting)
Creatures from outer space
Dancing (ballet is acceptable)
Death and disease
Dinosaurs and prehistoric times
Divorce
Geological history
Evolution
Expensive gifts, vacations, and prizes
Gambling
Halloween
Holidays
Homes with swimming pools
In-depth discussions of sports that
require prior knowledge
Junk food
Loss of employment
Movies
Nuclear weapons
Parapsychology
Politics
Pornography
Poverty
Rap music
Religion
Religious holidays
Rock-and-Roll music
Running away
Sex
Slavery
Terrorism
Vermin (rats and roaches)
Violence
War and bloodshed
Weapons (guns, knives, etc.)
Witchcraft, sorcery, etc

This seems fine to me. There is no value judgement being made, nor any express wish to avoid offence (which seems a cardinal sin at the moment in the UK), it is simply a list of topics that some students would understand more about than others. When setting exams, you don't want to put people at a disadvantage.

quote:

Originally posted by Geoff:
Political Correctness is to the left wing as Intelligent Design is to the right.

Both are wholly right-wing concepts in the UK

Both are right-wing? I'm surprised! But then I see the above list as "PC," since it strains to be non-offensive to the many cultures of a pluralistic society. While I enjoy having friends from different cultures, I do not enjoy "dumbing down" one culture at the expense of another.

Some of the topics you've listed above, Graham, would mean that nearly all traditional fairy tales are verboten. The proscriptivists could do worse than to read this: http://books.google.com/books/...html?id=qTbBAYVv_KkC
I suppose that's the danger in a "melting pot" society: We so homogenize that nothing recognizable is left. How much better would a salad culture be, with many flavors of ideas and traditions sharing the same plate!

BTW, very good to see you here again!

Geoff

quote:

it is simply a list of topics that some students would understand more about than others. When setting exams, you don't want to put people at a disadvantage.

I would argue that there are literally NO topics available that would be equally applicable to the experience of all students. Whatever topic you pick will be potentially outside the experience of some students.
Of course there are some topics that might be better avoided and some of them are in the list. I would never argue for the inclusion of Cancer or Sex in exams for children, for example but the truth is that lists like this are far too broad. In seeking to avoid offending anybody you run the risk of offending everybody.

Pick a topic that you think is wide enough to allow questions to be asked and narrow enough so that every single child would have equal experience of it.
I'll bet that whatever you pick I can give an example of children who wouldn't have equal experience of it.

quote:

Pick a topic that you think is wide enough to allow questions to be asked and narrow enough so that every single child would have equal experience of it.

Playing doctor

I don't recall ever playing doctor when I was a child so there's one counter example.
And would you use that topic anyway?

quote:

Originally posted by BobHale:
I don't recall ever playing doctor when I was a child

Then however did you learn about sex??? Oh, there we are back in taboo-land again. Seriously, now, when taboos become so prevalent that only one group can dictate what can or cannot be discussed or taught, have we not then re-entered the Dark Ages? Here I'll somewhat agree with Graham: What started out as left-wing goes full circle and becomes totally right-wing authoritarian. Freedom of speech - even freedom of thought - be damned!

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Geoff,

quote:

Originally posted by Geoff:

quote:

Originally posted by BobHale:
I don't recall ever playing doctor when I was a child

Then however did you learn about sex???

About what?

quote:

Originally posted by BobHale:

About what?

It's what's between quinque and septem.

quote:

This seems fine to me. There is no value judgement being made, nor any express wish to avoid offence (which seems a cardinal sin at the moment in the UK), it is simply a list of topics that some students would understand more about than others. When setting exams, you don't want to put people at a disadvantage.

I have to agree with Bob. This list is so broad that there would be nothing you could discuss.

I'm surprised that "parents" isn't on Graham's list. Many kids with one parent or no parents would be upset at such a topic. On the other hand, it is a very valid topic for class discussion, as a means of celebrating people's differences.

On the gripping hand*, some kids have parents no-one would want to know much about...

* 10 points for the reference.

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:

quote:

This seems fine to me. There is no value judgement being made, nor any express wish to avoid offence (which seems a cardinal sin at the moment in the UK), it is simply a list of topics that some students would understand more about than others. When setting exams, you don't want to put people at a disadvantage.

I have to agree with Bob. This list is so broad that there would be nothing you could discuss.

Am I misreading it?

I thought this was a list of things you can discuss, but shouldn't be used as the requisite knowledge for all kids answering city-wide exam questions.

hello again Graham!

Many of the listed items do seem wrong for an area-wide standardized test, but it seems in that context peculiar to include dinosaurs, geology, evolution.. Makes you wonder what IS being taught?

Since it's "only" a list of banned topics from standardized tests within the NYC schools, I can't get too upset about it. Now, if it were a list of topics banned from textbooks nationally, I would have quibbles with at least three quarters of the list. It does seem ridiculous to me that the list includes dinosaurs. It seems pathetic that the educational establishment would give in to such ignorance. This is the same educational establishment which once referred to those with physical limitations as "handicapped," and later as "disabled," and now, as "differently abled." These are their own insular little quirks of language.

Wordmatic

I'd really hate the job of trying to set a test that didn't touch on any of those topics.

I entered the phrase, "Cultural literacy in a diverse society" in a search engine and received many interesting hit, among which is this one: http://www.udel.edu/educ/whits...rsch/EHouseRevOt.pdf
While pluralism is relatively new to Europe, it's old news to the USA, yet the refusal to teach the classics is something new everywhere. Why NOT teach the classics of your country, then teach the classics of multiple societies? After all, we in the USA are enriched by Marquez, Neruda, Tolstoy, Balzac, Tan, Kundera, Coetzee, and a host of others from other cultures. It's silly to narrow our focus when a broadening is called for.

Interesting article, gets you thinking about nationalism vs pluralism as pertains to subjects of school teaching, putting it in a larger context, i.e., is cultural literacy taught or is it a moving target, an evolving creation.

I have been enjoying Niall Ferguson's PBS series on Western Civilization. He makes a pretty good case that the concepts of Western Civilization are at the heart of economic efficiency, capitalist prosperity-- & that they have been exported globally & are still changing many civilizations around the world. Which probably indicates the ancient Greek classics should still be on the curriculum (& of course they are, albeit in excerpted form).

Ferguson illustrates an interesting theme: societies with a nationalized religion, especially those whose religion (or imposed lack of religion in the case of communism) is closely tied to the government, are societies with inefficient economies. He even speculates that Europe's low ebb can be blamed in part on religious institutions which became monolithic.

Getting back to our subject, the problems illustrated by "the list" stems directly I believe from the dominance of standardized tests, which tends to push institutions into a search for monolithic standards. Just makes it all so much easier to administer doncha know.

Which is how we got in this pickle in the first place: bureaucratic bean-counters borrowing from short-sighted accounting systems, trying to tame cultural institutions in such a way that they can be definitively measured by short-term 'profit'. It seems to be an equal success.

Wise response, B35. Mine was too narrow, I think.

Wm

I caught Ferguson in an error on the program you referenced, B35: He called Edison "The king of alternating current." Dead wrong! Tesla, not Edison, was the A/C man, who sold his patents to Westinghouse. Ah, well, a side point, but it made me wonder what else he got wrong that I missed.

I found his mentioning the US's abandoning the "protestant work ethic" by consuming, not saving, to be very interesting. I guess this is the Western materialist theme song: http://www.queenwords.com/lyrics/songs/sng19_04.shtml

Edison WAS for alternating current but only if it was used in electric chairs.

quote:

Originally posted by Geoff:
I caught Ferguson in an error on the program you referenced, B35: He called Edison "The king of alternating current." Dead wrong! Tesla, not Edison, was the A/C man, who sold his patents to Westinghouse. Ah, well, a side point, but it made me wonder what else he got wrong that I missed.

I found his mentioning the US's abandoning the "protestant work ethic" by consuming, not saving, to be very interesting. I guess this is the Western materialist theme song: http://www.queenwords.com/lyrics/songs/sng19_04.shtml

I didn't see the programme - but I'll be sure that the old canard that Edison invented the first practical incandescent lightbulb was trotted out - along with that misinformation about AV versus DC. Although Edison was brilliant inventor, he was also a brilliant self-publicist with the result that the likes of Tesla and Swan are now only footnotes in the history books.

quote:

a list of things you can discuss, but shouldn't be used as the requisite knowledge for all kids answering city-wide exam questions.

I agree with the list. There is no reason to put a political hot topic on a test designed to measure a child's reading comprehension. If the test is meant to measure a child's critical thinking or debate skills, that would be a different matter. Within this context, I agree with the list.

I would venture to guess that the list changes often based on the changing topics of controversy in our society. I feel better knowing that our students can take tests with fewer hot-button issues. As others have already pointed out - they can and should talk about those issues in the classrooms, but there is no need to put them on the standardized tests.

Once again, can you tell me what you could put on the exam that wouldn't touch on one or another of the banned topics?

I suppose it must depend on the subject being tested. It would be easy enough to test students' arithmetical skills without transgressing the rules, but much trickier to test their essay-writing skills.

quote:

can you tell me what you could put on the exam that wouldn't touch on one or another of the banned topics?

Some innocuous story about flowers, perhaps?

No idea, really.

FLOWERS!!!!!! Don't you realize flowers are a plant's sex organs??? Flowers are out!

quote:

I'd really hate the job of trying to set a test that didn't touch on any of those topics.

I totally agree with you, Bob. For example, how could you test on American history without the mention of slavery? Would we avoid the Civil War? Or how could you test on biology without some recognition of sexuality?

I think some are taking these words too narrowly, while others are seeing them more broadly.