[quote=“windchime”] Doesn’t the Premier have one advisor who could have told her a Dr. Suess book is a touchy subject in School District 52?
Ms. Clark is out of touch with citizens and she has her own people to thank for that.[/quote]
It isn’t a touchy subject in SD 52. It is a childrens book for crying out loud. It was the very juvenile behavior of a few teachers that turned a childrens story into a political statement.[/quote]
Well it is a touchy subject in SD52. But it wasn’t the juvenile behaviour of a few teachers that turned a children’s story into a political statement. It was the SD that said the quote
I know, up on top you are seeing great sights,
But down here at the bottom we, too, should have rights.
was too political.
I will leave it to somebody else who remembers all the details to correct me but I believe the quotation was for a sign in a car in a school parking lot. Other quotations were considered acceptable.
But that is not the issue in this thread. And I hate to repeat myself and I don’t want to put words in the mouth of the original poster, but we are dealing with consistency of stated policy.
The school district stated that the Yertle quotation could be considered too political.
The school district stated that the wearing of a tshirt with the charter of rights listed on the back was too political.
In both cases the words were not editorialized in any way to specifically link them to the teachers’ complaints. (If they were, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.) They were words for anybody to read and interpret.
In any case, the school district believed that the children were somehow being used in political affairs. That students needed to be insulated.
Now you can argue all you want that the school district was correct. You can believe all you want that the wearing of a tshirt with the charter of rights listed on the back is somehow more political than the wearing of a black tshirt which was deemed acceptable. Both were worn for the same reason and both could interpreted in whatever way the observer wanted to think. You and I can agree to disagree on that past decision.
But surely you must see the irony in children not being protected from the campaigning of highly political politicians.
And let me be very clear again. I have no problem with Christy Clark or any other politician coming into the schools. In this case, Christy Clark is a total innocent. I don’t even care what book she read. If she purposely selected a Suess book to stick it to teachers, I doubt that she lost any votes, but I am guessing again, that the choice was totally innocent. Clark and the visit to the school is not the issue.
The issue is how consistently do we apply policy. If it is OK for a politician to use the school as a backdrop for political campaigning, that kids don’t need to be insulated from that, then why is it not OK for them to read simple quotations from Dr. Seuss or the Charter of Rights?