Jordan School District Advertises for Goodlad

I was sent the following job announcement for a school in Jordan School District. This identical ad actually appears for a few of the schools in the district showing a requirement to thoroughly know Goodlad’s Moral Dimensions in order to be hired.

Job Title BYU Partnership Facilitator-Eastlake Elem.
Job Openings 1
Date Posted April 30, 2010
Job Description • Facilitate in-service education, curriculum development, and research/inquiry as related to the partnership.
• Assist principal in the selection of cooperating teachers to participate in pre-service training.
• Coordinate placement of pre-service students in the classroom.
• Instruct cooperating teachers to mentor and evaluate pre-service students’ performance.
• Team with BYU and district personnel to provide initial and on-going workshops, seminars, and site visitations for pre-service students.
• Communicate partnership program goals and activities to school faculty.
• Document partnership activities toward school renewal and improvement of teacher preparation.
• Demonstrate leadership in promoting all facets of the BYU/JSD Partnership.
• Direct an action research project within the school.
• Accept and complete occasional administrative assignments.
• Attend all partnership meetings.
Qualifications This is a full time position with the major responsibility being the mentoring and evaluating of interns, student teachers, and cohort students. This position requires a successful and respected educator with a minimum of five (5) years of elementary education experience. This position also requires excellent organizational, interpersonal, and communication skills.Experience in the following is preferred: • Advanced knowledge of curricular and instructional strategies (K-6)
Knowledge and understanding of John Goodlad’s Moral Dimensions
• Experience in collaboration and differentiation

119 Responses to “Jordan School District Advertises for Goodlad”

  • lewisbarnavelt:

    Buffy, get over the change the subject thing. I'm simply responding to other posts and use a variety of examples or situations to make my point. If you want to go back and re-read your own posts, you will see that you have done the same thing. I'm simply trying to ferret out the political and religious beliefs of those who wish to supplant one ideology with their own. Believe me, I don't want our kids to be taught to be god-less socialists but I so don't want them to be taught to be religious oligarchs either.

  • lewisbarnavelt:

    The First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

    That is your separation of church and state and our Supreme Court, also created by the Constitution, has the duty to review all laws, and our Supreme Court has shown time and time again through precedent that there is a separation between church and state. Obviously, our laws are going to be filled with Christian values because most people are Christian, but to discriminate against groups of people or teach students values straight of a particular religious text is flirting with preferring one religion over another–something our framers did not want our government involved with. This is a republic, not a theocracy.

  • lewisbarnavelt:

    So you are saying that Stephenson has not financially benefited by one cent through having a “controlling” interest in the UTA? The UTA has never weighed in on the charter school debate, whose very creation has benefited Stephenson and his family personally? Stephenson may be within the bounds of the law, but those laws ought to be changed. A legislator should not be in the business of passing legislation that can personally benefit him/her down the road–something that seems to happen quite a lot in Utah. That, my friend, is unethical. Like Bennett, Stephenson has been in office too long and needs to be tossed out.

  • buffy:

    Lewis, are you changing the subject AGAIN? YOU said,

    “the world is full of gray areas and everything is not in absolutes or black and white.”

    Where exactly is the gray line between
    1. There is absolute truth that applies to everyone. And
    2. There's no such thing as absolute truth, so we can all define our own morality, according to our own “perceptions”?

    You won't answer it because there are no gray areas here. You either want absolute truth taught in our schools and protected by the laws, or you want amorality (the idea that there is no absolute truth) to be the ruling philosophy. You can't have it both ways.

    Check mate.

  • buffy:

    Is it really showing up in Greek? Mine is all English. How do I fix that?!

  • Tupelo:

    Oak, I am not wrong about Humanism or anything else I have written here. You just don't like anything that goes against your personal interpretations- so you call them wrong. Everything you have ever posted on here has proven that! You refuse to look outside yourself and see that you might be wrong on some things. Your arrogance is amazing.
    Your words make the claim that you know more than the Church leadership does. You claim that BYU's education Dept. is being misled by Goodlad and Dewey and only YOU know the truth. You want to stick to your interpretation of Benson's quotes as proof that BYU is now lost to the Dark side. You want to push your version of truth as truth even when people closer to God than you don't agree with you. If that doesn't qualify YOU as Korihor, I don't know what does. Your words do prove that you know what this world is supposed to be and BYU- which is run by the Church leadership ultimately, doesn't know the Lord's plan. Have you gone to the Church about this issue? I am betting they will have a very different interpretation than you do.

    As I once pointed out before, the Gospel is true no matter what form of government or economy people live under. Socialism is not the great evil you believe it to be. A Democracy (direct or not) is not the great evil you believe it to be. The 12th Article of Faith proves this. The great evil in this world is those who wish to lead others down a path of fear and anger. I have seen how you have accomplished this with your little group of petition signers.

    The only chord your website has struck in me, is that I saw an ignorant and self-righteous man misleading people for his own personal ego trip.

  • buffy:

    One other thing, on a personal note, …and then I will not be responding because I feel that I've said my peace. Though you like to insist that things are gray, the world is quickly polarizing into black and white and you won't always enjoy the leisure of being “in” the church but not “of” it.

    Just after Joseph Smith died, the Council of the Twelve said,

    “As this work progresses in its onward course, and becomes more and more an object of political and religious interest, . . . no king, ruler, or subject, no community or individual, will stand neutral. All will . . . be influenced by one spirit or the other; and will take sides either for or against the kingdom of God.”

    Which side will you be on, Lewis?

  • Do teachers who are in the legislature have a conflict of interest when education related issues come up? Do they excuse themselves from a vote? No way. They're voting for teachers. Everyone who is in the legislature is subject to things that may or may not benefit themselves.

    As for charter schools and Stephenson, I think you've got the wrong person. Howard has no involvement financially with charter schools.

  • Tupelo: “Socialism is not the great evil you believe it to be.”

    You've said it all right there Tupelo. You and I will have to agree to disagree.

  • Lewis, note who the first amendment is limiting. “Congress.” The U.S. Congress can make no law respecting an establishment of religion. That's the separation. The federal body has no right to dictate anything that has to do with religion. That's where Pelosi stepped over the line telling the Catholics to start talking about immigration reform. Where people get into trouble is when they say a church has no right to express political views. They have every right to free speech as an organization that a person does. Individuals can espouse anything they want to. If you didn't read my other reply to you when we were discussing Franklin and the other Founders and that they were not mostly deists, then you missed how Massachusetts and Connecticut actually HAD state religions when Jefferson wrote his famous and mis-interpreted letter to his minister friend in Danbury, CT.

    Another part of the constitution that talks about religion is article 6 that says there shall be no religious test for office. This comes from the horrid influence of the Church of England which you had to be a member of to hold political office in England. That essentially meant you had no freedom of conscience in order to hold office since you had to subscribe to their beliefs.

    Lastly Jefferson clearly understood that the 10th amendment was in play on this issue as well. Religion itself was not authorized in article 1 section 8 as one of the enumerated powers so the 10th amendment would specifically forbid the federal government from doing anything related to religions and Jefferson would have viewed it as a state right.

    I keep saying over and over that I am not advocating that we teach any particular theology in schools, but technically, it would be up to a state to do it if they wanted. Congress and the federal government are the bodies under limitation. Jefferson knew this because as state governor he signed a bill for a day of prayer and fasting but when he was president he wouldn't because he believed it would violate these points since it was a religious issue that would emanate from the federal body. As president he did nothing and said nothing against MA and CT that had state religious laws because that was acceptable to him. It was a state right.

    Today, nobody is going to advocate a state religion (OR again teaching a particular set of beliefs in schools), but it is quite misunderstood when people say a church can't say anything about government. People view the “wall” as 2 way but it's not. It prevents federal action on religion but prevents no one else from speaking out on any issue that may be related to politics (ie. the LDS church had every right to speak out on Proposition 8 and were under no limitation).

  • lewisbarnavelt:

    Buffy, get over the change the subject thing. I'm simply responding to other posts and use a variety of examples or situations to make my point. If you want to go back and re-read your own posts, you will see that you have done the same thing. I'm simply trying to ferret out the political and religious beliefs of those who wish to supplant one ideology with their own. Believe me, I don't want our kids to be taught to be god-less socialists but I so don't want them to be taught to be religious oligarchs either.

  • lewisbarnavelt:

    I'm not sure where to find your write-up, Oak.

    The First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

    That is your separation of church and state and our Supreme Court, also created by the Constitution, has the duty to review all laws, and our Supreme Court has shown time and time again through precedent that there is a separation between church and state. To pass laws based on one particular religions set of values could in effect be endorsing or establishing a religion in a de facto manner. This is a very touchy subject since there are so many different religious beliefs in America. Obviously, our laws are going to be filled with Christian values because most people are Christian, but to discriminate against groups of people or teach students values straight of a particular religious text is flirting with preferring one religion over another–something our framers did not want our government involved with. This is a republic, not a theocracy.

  • lewisbarnavelt:

    So you are saying that Stephenson has not financially benefited by one cent through having a “controlling” interest in the UTA? The UTA has never weighed in on the charter school debate, whose very creation has benefited Stephenson and his family personally? Stephenson may be within the bounds of the law, but those laws ought to be changed. A legislator should not be in the business of passing legislation that can personally benefit him/her down the road–something that seems to happen quite a lot in Utah. That, my friend, is unethical. Like Bennett, Stephenson has been in office too long and needs to be tossed out.

  • buffy:

    Lewis, are you changing the subject AGAIN? YOU said,

    “the world is full of gray areas and everything is not in absolutes or black and white.”

    Where exactly is the gray line between
    1. There is absolute truth that applies to everyone. And
    2. There's no such thing as absolute truth, so we can all define our own morality, according to our own “perceptions”?

    You won't answer it because there are no gray areas here. You either want absolute truth taught in our schools and protected by the laws, or you want amorality (the idea that there is no absolute truth) to be the ruling philosophy. You can't have it both ways.

    Check mate.

  • Tupelo:

    Oak, I am not wrong about Humanism or anything else I have written here. You just don't like anything that goes against your personal interpretations- so you call them wrong. Everything you have ever posted on here has proven that! You refuse to look outside yourself and see that you might be wrong on some things. Your arrogance is amazing.
    Your words make the claim that you know more than the Church leadership does. You claim that BYU's education Dept. is being misled by Goodlad and Dewey and only YOU know the truth. You want to stick to your interpretation of Benson's quotes as proof that BYU is now lost to the Dark side. You want to push your version of truth as truth even when people closer to God than you don't agree with you. If that doesn't qualify YOU as Korihor, I don't know what does. Your words do prove that you know what this world is supposed to be and BYU- which is run by the Church leadership ultimately, doesn't know the Lord's plan. Have you gone to the Church about this issue? I am betting they will have a very different interpretation than you do.

    As I once pointed out before, the Gospel is true no matter what form of government or economy people live under. Socialism is not the great evil you believe it to be. A Democracy (direct or not) is not the great evil you believe it to be. The 12th Article of Faith proves this. The great evil in this world is those who wish to lead others down a path of fear and anger. I have seen how you have accomplished this with your little group of petition signers.

    The only chord your website has struck in me, is that I saw an ignorant and self-righteous man misleading people for his own personal ego trip.

  • buffy:

    One other thing, on a personal note, …and then I will not be responding because I feel that I've said my peace. Though you like to insist that things are gray, the world is quickly polarizing into black and white and you won't always enjoy the leisure of being “in” the church but not “of” it.

    Just after Joseph Smith died, the Council of the Twelve said,

    “As this work progresses in its onward course, and becomes more and more an object of political and religious interest, . . . no king, ruler, or subject, no community or individual, will stand neutral. All will . . . be influenced by one spirit or the other; and will take sides either for or against the kingdom of God.”

    Which side will you be on, Lewis?

  • Do teachers who are in the legislature have a conflict of interest when education related issues come up? Do they excuse themselves from a vote? No way. They're voting for teachers. Everyone who is in the legislature is subject to things that may or may not benefit themselves.

    As for charter schools and Stephenson, I think you've got the wrong person. Howard has no involvement financially with charter schools.

  • Tupelo: “Socialism is not the great evil you believe it to be.”

    You've said it all right there Tupelo. You and I will have to agree to disagree.

  • Lewis, note who the first amendment is limiting. “Congress.” The U.S. Congress can make no law respecting an establishment of religion. That's the separation. The federal body has no right to dictate anything that has to do with religion. That's where Pelosi stepped over the line telling the Catholics to start talking about immigration reform. Where people get into trouble is when they say a church has no right to express political views. They have every right to free speech as an organization that a person does. Individuals can espouse anything they want to. If you didn't read my other reply to you when we were discussing Franklin and the other Founders and that they were not mostly deists, then you missed how Massachusetts and Connecticut actually HAD state religions when Jefferson wrote his famous and mis-interpreted letter to his minister friend in Danbury, CT.

    Another part of the constitution that talks about religion is article 6 that says there shall be no religious test for office. This comes from the horrid influence of the Church of England which you had to be a member of to hold political office in England. That essentially meant you had no freedom of conscience in order to hold office since you had to subscribe to their beliefs.

    Lastly Jefferson clearly understood that the 10th amendment was in play on this issue as well. Religion itself was not authorized in article 1 section 8 as one of the enumerated powers so the 10th amendment would specifically forbid the federal government from doing anything related to religions and Jefferson would have viewed it as a state right.

    I keep saying over and over that I am not advocating that we teach any particular theology in schools, but technically, it would be up to a state to do it if they wanted. Congress and the federal government are the bodies under limitation. Jefferson knew this because as state governor he signed a bill for a day of prayer and fasting but when he was president he wouldn't because he believed it would violate these points since it was a religious issue that would emanate from the federal body. As president he did nothing and said nothing against MA and CT that had state religious laws because that was acceptable to him. It was a state right.

    Today, nobody is going to advocate a state religion (OR again teaching a particular set of beliefs in schools), but it is quite misunderstood when people say a church can't say anything about government. People view the “wall” as 2 way but it's not. It prevents federal action on religion but prevents no one else from speaking out on any issue that may be related to politics (ie. the LDS church had every right to speak out on Proposition 8 and were under no limitation).