50 words you can't use on tests for NYC school kids ?
#1
Posted 26 March 2012 - 07:52 PM
The New York City Department of Education is waging a war on words of sorts, and is seeking to have words they deem upsetting removed from standardized tests.
Fearing that certain words and topics can make students feel unpleasant, officials are requesting 50 or so words be removed from city-issued tests, as first reported by the New York Post.
The word dinosaur made the hit list because dinosaurs suggest evolution which creationists might not like, WCBS 880′s Marla Diamond reported. Halloween is targeted because it suggests paganism; birthdays might not be happy to all because they aren’t celebrated by Jehovah’s Witnesses.
According to the Post, words that suggest wealth are excluded because they could make kids jealous. Poverty is also on the forbidden list.
In a throwback to “Footloose,” the word dancing is also taboo. However, there is good news for kids that like ballet: The city made an exception for this form of dancing.
Also banned are references to divorces and diseases, because kids taking the tests may have relatives who split from spouses or are ill, according to the Post.
Some students think banning these words from periodic assessment tests is ridiculous. ”If you don’t celebrate one thing you might have a friend that does it. So I don’t see why people would find it offensive,” Curtis High School Sophomore Jamella Lewis told Diamond.
Schools Chancellor Dennis Walcott said the DOE is simply giving guidance to the test developers. “So we’re not an outlier in being politically correct. This is just making sure that test makers are sensitive in the development of their tests,” Walcott said Monday.
There are banned words currently in school districts nationwide. Walcott said New York City’s list is longer because its student body is so diverse.
http://www.nypost.co...Oo33j0CQsccdZuL
can't mention a home with a swimming pool, or a home with a computer
#8
Posted 27 March 2012 - 12:48 PM
This place is derfinitely the nanny state. California is just run by economically inept dems with leads like M. Waters.
Anyway, before long they will be telling you what to eat n shet in thsi city.
#9
Posted 27 March 2012 - 01:06 PM
Trust me I didn't want to raise my kids in NYC either.
#15
Posted 28 March 2012 - 05:12 PM
#16
Posted 28 March 2012 - 05:52 PM
Glad I live in the country where people are often called assholes and mocked for raping sheep, yet nobody seems to be offended.
If I used the word dinosaur and someone told me they were offended by that word, I think I'd respond with, "well, fuck you. how's that grab ya?"
#27
Posted 28 March 2012 - 08:40 PM
i'm just glad that if i had a kd, they could not be tested on a hallowwen themed,dancing dino birthday party at a rich peorson's home with a pool and personal computer next to the divorced family, one with a disease, on public assistance.
#30
Posted 29 March 2012 - 12:43 PM
- Abuse (physical, sexual, emotional, or psychological)
- Alcohol (beer and liquor), tobacco, or drugs
- Birthday celebrations (and birthdays)
- Bodily functions
- Cancer (and other diseases)
- Catastrophes/disasters (tsunamis and hurricanes)
- Celebrities
- Children dealing with serious issues
- Cigarettes (and other smoking paraphernalia)
- Computers in the home (acceptable in a school or library setting)
- Crime
- Death and disease
- Divorce
- Evolution
- Expensive gifts, vacations, and prizes
- Gambling involving money
- Halloween
- Homelessness
- Homes with swimming pools
- Hunting
- Junk food
- In-depth discussions of sports that require prior knowledge
- Loss of employment
- Nuclear weapons
- Occult topics (i.e. fortune-telling)
- Parapsychology
- Politics
- Pornography
- Poverty
- Rap Music
- Religion
- Religious holidays and festivals (including but not limited to Christmas, Yom Kippur, and Ramadan)
- Rock-and-Roll music
- Running away
- Sex
- Slavery
- Terrorism
- Television and video games (excessive use)
- Traumatic material (including material that may be particularly upsetting such as animal shelters)
- Vermin (rats and roaches)
- Violence
- War and bloodshed
- Weapons (guns, knives, etc.)
- Witchcraft, sorcery, etc.
#31
Posted 29 March 2012 - 12:56 PM
Cali had the first smoking ban in bars...
I have to say that I fully support and appreciate that law - so nice to be able to go out for an evening and not come home smelling like someone's ashtray! Even when I was a smoker, I didn't like it when everyone was smoking in an enclosed space.
#32
Posted 29 March 2012 - 01:06 PM
Is there anything else you don't like so they can make a law for it?I have to say that I fully support and appreciate that law - so nice to be able to go out for an evening and not come home smelling like someone's ashtray! Even when I was a smoker, I didn't like it when everyone was smoking in an enclosed space.
From my understanding there were 2 high end non smoking bars in L.A. before the ban. They were do huge business providing a service (non smoking bar). Within a year after the ban *poof* they were gone. So wheres the free market?
If you don't like a business don't go. No one was ever forced to go to a bar that allowed smoking.
-sorry for the hijack-
#33
Posted 29 March 2012 - 01:10 PM
Even when I was a smoker, I was aware of how my choice could effect others - so I was pleased when it came into effect, I'm okay with taking it outside.
#34
Posted 29 March 2012 - 01:12 PM
Even when I was a smoker, I was aware of how my choice could effect others - so I was pleased when it came into effect, I'm okay with taking it outside.
Hopefully people realize how there choices affect themselves... and do not rely on others.
Done and done.Yep. I don't like murder, or thieving, or abuse, or littering, or child molesters, either! Think you can lobby those for me?
#35
Posted 29 March 2012 - 02:25 PM
you cannot expose a worker to high levals of lead, arsenic etc without prpoer protection.
you can not make exposure to toxins a part of a job, even if there is a 90% chance they are doing it to themselves after hours.
you can not say if you don't want to be exposed, don't take the job. OSHA'd
chances are they used this to push through the change and it had more to do with keeping the public from smoking, or an ex smoker imposing his will on his subjects , i mean constituants
#36
Posted 29 March 2012 - 03:18 PM
actually, i think the the laws (ny anyway) were set up to prevent workers from being exposed to toxic substances.
you cannot expose a worker to high levals of lead, arsenic etc without prpoer protection.
you can not make exposure to toxins a part of a job, even if there is a 90% chance they are doing it to themselves after hours.
you can not say if you don't want to be exposed, don't take the job. OSHA'd
Some jobs are not "safe". Like firefighting. But its a choice. In know... doesn't change anything.














