Mom in Va. who lived through Cultural Revolution addresses school board regarding Critical Race Theory

[Fritz]

The videos are of real people who are responding to the CRT being taught in their school system. They are not foxnews employees speaking about CRT. 

Loudoun County, Va. is  a wealthy county that leans left. According to Wikipedia: "Democrats carried the county again in the 2016 presidential election, when Loudoun swung heavily towards Hillary Clinton, giving her 55.1% to Trump's 38.2%. In 2020, Joe Biden won over 60 percent of the vote". 

I haven't been in public schools, or private for that matter, in many years. Given what CRT claims to be about as Plum has posted, I do not think there is any place for this in public school. The factual history of our country about slavery, Tulsa, segregation, Jim Crow, etc.. .yes absolutely should be taught. This was taught when I was in school. The public schools are not doing a stellar job of just getting students on grade level in the basic subjects. IMO, that needs to be their focus especially after being out of the classroom for over a year now in most cases. If parents want to teach CRT at home, great do that. I don't trust public schools to do an adequate job with just teaching the basics. I think anything beyond that is too much to expect. Expecting them to teach this without pushing the oppressor/oppressed is dangerous territory IMO. I think there is too much wiggle room for interpretation as well as to what exactly can/will be included in the curriculum under the umbrella of CRT and how it will be taught.

 

[Scarlett]

56 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

I'm not crying about CRT. It's a valid way of theorizing about race and power. 

I am not saying you are. 

[Fritz]

7 hours ago, WildflowerMom said:

I think it's important to discuss things like this.  

But I have to ask, what's your goal for being here, Fritz?  You seem to be trying your best to sew division and discord among the various members here who hold different beliefs.   Is that your end goal?    Do you do that in personal, irl relationships, as well?   

If you're looking for a group that only discusses politics and controversial topics, perhaps this board isn't for you.    

I think it is important hear all sides of an issue. I have no interest in "sewing discord or division". It does seem to me that many on this board want it to be an echo chamber. I prefer to read from several sources to get a better understanding of issues. 

[Melissa Louise]

18 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

I am not saying you are. 

My point is that a person can see value in CRT as an academic lens, AND feel concerned, say, when they hear about a biracial teen and his Black mom suing their school system* for clumsy, heavy-handed and harmful misapplication of CRT in the classroom.

* Nevada, from memory. 

 

[Scarlett]

4 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

My point is that a person can see value in CRT as an academic lens, AND feel concerned, say, when they hear about a biracial teen and his Black mom suing their school system* for clumsy, heavy-handed and harmful misapplication of CRT in the classroom.

* Nevada, from memory. 

 

I guess I am not hearing that side of the complaints.  What I am hearing is whit people complaining. 

Edited June 10, 2021 by Scarlett

[Melissa Louise]

18 minutes ago, Fritz said:

I think it is important hear all sides of an issue. I have no interest in "sewing discord or division". It does seem to me that many on this board want it to be an echo chamber. I prefer to read from several sources to get a better understanding of issues. 

As an outsider, it seems to me that US posters are heavily polarized in a partisan pattern. Issues on both sides are seen as 'good' or 'bad' depending on party alignment. There's not a lot of room for the heterodox on either side of the aisle. I wonder if WTM is more polarized than the general population? Not sure. 

[Scarlett]

Just now, Melissa Louise said:

As an outsider, it seems to me that US posters are heavily polarized in a partisan pattern. Issues on both sides are seen as 'good' or 'bad' depending on party alignment. There's not a lot of room for the heterodox on either side of the aisle. I wonder if WTM is more polarized than the general population? Not sure. 

No, it is not.  I don’t think. 

[MercyA]

Don't like Fox News, don't have a problem with CRT (as far as I understand it, which is not well), but, man, you guys are being really hard on Fritz. I know I've thrown things up with a link and an excerpt for discussion and no one jumped all over me. 

 

[Melissa Louise]

6 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

I guess I am not hearing that side of the complaints.  What I am hearing is whit people complaining. 

Well, I'm talking to you. I'm saying that educational programming which takes its cue from CRT is similar to all other programming. It should have clearly defined goals, respect the individual student as a person with dignity and a capable learner, and be evidence based. 

Plenty of parents seem to consider the CRT  programs in their children's schools not to meet this criteria. Some teachers too. 

For fans of CRT approaches in schools, it shouldn't be difficult to show that it does, in fact, meet this criteria. 

Edited June 10, 2021 by Melissa Louise

[Fritz]

57 minutes ago, MercyA said:

Don't like Fox News, don't have a problem with CRT (as far as I understand it, which is not well), but, man, you guys are being really hard on Fritz. I know I've thrown things up with a link and an excerpt for discussion and no one jumped all over me. 

 

No worries, I have to come to expect it here. If some don't like what is posted they choose to attack the source and/or me.  Happily I have discovered the ignore feature.

Edited June 11, 2021 by Fritz

[Scarlett]

6 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

Well, I'm talking to you. I'm saying that educational programming which takes its cue from CRT is similar to all other programming. It should have clearly defined goals, respect the individual student as a person with dignity and a capable learner, and be evidence based. 

Plenty of parents seem to consider the CRT  programs in their children's schools not to meet this criteria. Some teachers too. 

For fans of CRT approaches in schools, it shouldn't be difficult to show that it does, in fact, meet this criteria. 

I meant things I am reading elsewhere.  Like those links.  And comments from acquaintances. Of course I often hear intelligent and thoughtful comments here.  
 

I agree that the concept is sound but the execution in not likely to translate across the board.  

[Pawz4me]

17 minutes ago, MercyA said:

Don't like Fox News, don't have a problem with CRT (as far as I understand it, which is not well), but, man, you guys are being really hard on Fritz. I know I've thrown things up with a link and an excerpt for discussion and no one jumped all over me. 

 

You're a long time member. We all "know" you. And you post threads about various stuff, not just ones about contentious issues.

[Fritz]

From the link from the teacher:

New Jersey prep school teacher Dana Stangel-Plowe resigned this week over her school's curriculum, which she argued is causing White and male students to believe they are "oppressors."

"The school’s ideology requires students to see themselves not as individuals, but as representatives of a group, forcing them to adopt the status of privilege or victimhood," Stangel-Plowe wrote in her letter, adding that students arrive in her classroom believing that "people born with less melanin in their skin are oppressors, and people born with more melanin in their skin are oppressed."

That does not sound like a curriculum that belongs in public school.

[Danae]

9 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

I meant things I am reading elsewhere.  Like those links.  And comments from acquaintances. Of course I often hear intelligent and thoughtful comments here.  
 

I agree that the concept is sound but the execution in not likely to translate across the board.  

I would not expect to see actual Critical Race Theory taught in most K-12 settings for the same reason we don’t teach Bayesian analysis or quantum mechanics in k-12.  The kids don’t have the prerequisites.  Which means attempts are going to end up teaching the vocabulary of CRT which people will proceed to misuse.
 

I feel the same way about most critical thinking curriculum, including that popular with homeschoolers.  They teach the jargon of critical thinking without actually requiring anyone to think critically.

[stripe]

37 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

I guess I am not hearing that side of the complaints.  What I am hearing is whit people complaining. 

I read the court papers for the family I think this is about — a mixed ethnicity teen boy who is very light skinned and as they say passes for white, is being sued by his black/biracial mother, whose name is Gabrielle Clark. Almost all searches lead to conservative sources, but this seems to have links to the court documents. In his class, where all other students were black, he was supposed to basically apologize for being white, which he isn’t even anyway, and he ended up getting a D or F in this stupid class. (Apparently he’s since had the grade expunged and the requirement to take the class waived.) It sounds like an extremely clumsy attempt to discuss race. And his teacher was white.

I heard this interview recently with Kimberlee Crenshaw, who coined the term “interesctionality.” It’s really not meant to be anything like what some people say it is, or how some people are framing discussions.

Edited June 10, 2021 by stripe
forgot link URL

[HeartString]

Are any of these schools regular public schools? I’m seeing private schools, charter schools, no public schools.  I know chatter schools are technically public but they do all kinds of things that would never work in a regular public school. 

[pinball]

7 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

To make that assessment, I think we need to know more about the curriculum. 

Again, you're not engaging with anyone and you haven't posted any alternative links even though you claim that you read both sides. 

ETA that these links are also from Fox News which means *every* source you've cited on this thread is from Fox News. 

Are people not capable of watching the videos and judging the content of the video for themselves? The videos are not Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson talking...they videos are of parents and teachers addressing this topic.

And if anyone feels a certain way about a topic, and wants to talk about it,  why should they provide “both sides?” 

If I hate factory farming, I’m not going to post “both sides” of factory farming.

No one is having a problem coming up with the “other side” of what @Fritz is saying. 

[Frances]

4 hours ago, pinball said:

Are people not capable of watching the videos and judging the content of the video for themselves? The videos are not Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson talking...they videos are of parents and teachers addressing this topic.

And if anyone feels a certain way about a topic, and wants to talk about it,  why should they provide “both sides?” 

If I hate factory farming, I’m not going to post “both sides” of factory farming.

No one is having a problem coming up with the “other side” of what @Fritz is saying. 

I watched the videos and mainly they just left me wanting more information, to see the curriculum and some actual concrete examples of what is being taught. I didn’t find three videos of people being very upset and limited to one minute of speaking very informative. I’d love to see a thorough factual article about what exactly is being taught in the district. Are there any out there?

I do have to add that I find it amusing someone would not want to be criticized for the source of the article posted. I truly hope everyone on the WTM board can spot the glaring issues with the article. It would actually make a very good assignment for a high school or even middle school student to critique the article for bias, slant, loaded language, injecting opinions, editorializing, etc.

Edited June 11, 2021 by Frances

[MercyA]

3 hours ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

You don't get the reaction that Fritz does because you don't post things like the post I quote below. You always interact with people politely even when you disagree. 

Do you see any attempt from Fritz to actually interact with anyone on this thread? She hasn't even bothered to respond to questions about how she defines CRT. 

I asked her what other sources she read about CRT and she didn't respond. That's not how you interact with people when you want them to respect you. 

 

2 hours ago, Pawz4me said:

You're a long time member. We all "know" you. And you post threads about various stuff, not just ones about contentious issues.

I do get what you're both saying and appreciate your responses.

It does seem like sometimes posters are held to higher standards based on their positions (or when they are new, perhaps?). Maybe this is a misperception on my part. Correlation is not always causation, right? 😉 

I will say that being on this board and being called to task on sources and arguments has been good for me personally. It causes us to dig deeper, think harder, and sometimes--if necessary--change our position entirely. 

Edited June 11, 2021 by MercyA

[AngelaR]

9 hours ago, Tanaqui said:

If the source is bad, why should we waste time on it, Fritz? We all evaluate sources. That's a perfectly sensible and reasonable thing to do.

What she said. 

[MercyA]

15 minutes ago, pinball said:

Are people not capable of watching the videos and judging the content of the video for themselves? The videos are not Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson talking...they videos are of parents and teachers addressing this topic.

And if anyone feels a certain way about a topic, and wants to talk about it,  why should they provide “both sides?” 

If I hate factory farming, I’m not going to post “both sides” of factory farming.

No one is having a problem coming up with the “other side” of what @Fritz is saying. 

I agree with most of your post, but I don't usually have time to watch videos (exception for cute cat videos). I'm much more likely to click on articles I can quickly skim.

[Scarlett]

4 minutes ago, MercyA said:

 

I do get what you're both saying and appreciate your responses.

It does seem like sometimes posters are held to higher standards based on their positions (or when they are new, perhaps?). Maybe this is a misperception on my part. Correlation is not always causation, right? 😉 

I will say that being on this board and being called to task on sources and arguments has been good for me personally. It causes us to dig deeper, think harder, and sometimes--if necessary--change. 

Nah, look at me. Far from new. 😂

[Tanaqui]

Quote

"Students, you are on the front lines of these indoctrination camps. Challenge the staff when you are presented with a ludicrous statement, and do not allow anybody to tell you that you cannot accomplish anything because of your skin color, or to hate yourself because of your skin color," Vanetsyan intoned. "Students, it is up to you to be the next generation of victims, or victors."

 

Anybody who will, with an apparently straight face, assert that people have to "choose" between being "victims" or "victors" has utterly lost the plot.

[Fritz]

10 minutes ago, Plum said:

Is the 1619 Project considered CRT? That was being taught in 4500 schools according to one article from June 2020. 
I know my state just passed a bill requiring additional multicultural subjects to be taught K-12 that includes Black, AAPI (we’re the 9th island) and LGBTQ along with civics. If I put 2 and 2 together I’d say that equals CRT. 🤷🏻‍♀️

That is what I mean about too much wiggle room for what is included in the "CRT curriculum". This has no place in K-12 setting. They have enough material they aren't effectively teaching now.

[scholastica]

1 hour ago, Melissa Louise said:

As an outsider, it seems to me that US posters are heavily polarized in a partisan pattern. Issues on both sides are seen as 'good' or 'bad' depending on party alignment. There's not a lot of room for the heterodox on either side of the aisle. I wonder if WTM is more polarized than the general population? Not sure. 

Absolutely right. As soon as one party picks a side the other finds a way to be against it. Even on the flimsiest of arguments. It’s pathetic. We used to be better than this as a nation. The WTM is less polarized in general compared to people I know IRL. However, there are a few posters who are glaringly partisan. 

[HeartString]

19 minutes ago, Plum said:

Is the 1619 Project considered CRT? That was being taught in 4500 schools according to one article from June 2020. 
I know my state just passed a bill requiring additional multicultural subjects to be taught K-12 that includes Black, AAPI (we’re the 9th island) and LGBTQ along with civics. If I put 2 and 2 together I’d say that equals CRT. 🤷🏻‍♀️
 

ETA If it is Newsweek says all of the Chicago Public School system was teaching it. 

It probably is by the people who are upset about it.  I’m not sure if it should be, one way or the other.  

[Tanaqui]

8 minutes ago, Fritz said:

That is what I mean about too much wiggle room for what is included in the "CRT curriculum". This has no place in K-12 setting. They have enough material they aren't effectively teaching now.

Lots of rhetoric, but not much substance here. What "CRT curriculum" do you mean? This like talking about "the common core math" - there's no such thing. If you want to criticize a specific teaching methodology, or a specific curriculum, then you need to do that rather than being vague.

What material, specifically, are "they" not effectively teaching right now - and where is your data that you can't effectively teach this AND that at the same time?

[Condessa]

1 hour ago, Scarlett said:

I guess I am not hearing that side of the complaints.  What I am hearing is whit people complaining. 

Well, this thread is about a non-white mother complaining.

[TechWife]

I’ve circled back to this piece from the American Bar Association a few times. It’s been helpful to me as I attempt to wrap my brain around this idea that has become so controversial. I am certainly not an expert on race, the law, or sociology. However, it seems to me that this controversy has been largely manufactured by people who don’t want to lose control over the narrative because they a) fear change b) want to maintain power over others and c) want to pretend everything is fine and people are just stirring things up. People have fought over what students should be taught about our country’s history with racism since the days of Reconstruction.  This argument has also permeated some American churches and this same unnecessary (IMO) debate about CRT is currently underway in some US churches as well. 
 

My bottom line is that if we teach students how to think, then they can evaluate & synthesize information on their own. We have no idea what the prevailing controversy will be next year, in five years or in fifty years. An understanding of history, literature, science and math along with the ability to think and communicate prepares people to grapple with ideas they are presented with  the future, not concentrating solely on random facts dictated by whoever is in charge of curriculum decisions at any given time. IOW, classical education. 
 

Anyhow - enough of my opinion - here are some tidbits from the article that I find helpful. If you’re interested in the educational aspects, there is a section on that in the article. 
 

“CRT is not a diversity and inclusion “training” but a practice of interrogating the role of race and racism in society that emerged in the legal academy and spread to other fields of scholarship. Crenshaw—who coined the term “CRT”—notes that CRT is not a noun, but a verb. It cannot be confined to a static and narrow definition but is considered to be an evolving and malleable practice. It critiques how the social construction of race and institutionalized racism perpetuate a racial caste system that relegates people of color to the bottom tiers. CRT also recognizes that race intersects with other identities, including sexuality, gender identity, and others. CRT recognizes that racism is not a bygone relic of the past. Instead, it acknowledges that the legacy of slavery, segregation, and the imposition of second-class citizenship on Black Americans and other people of color continue to permeate the social fabric of this nation. 
 

While recognizing the evolving and malleable nature of CRT, scholar Khiara Bridges outlines a few key tenets of CRT, including:

• Recognition that race is not biologically real but is socially constructed and socially significant. It recognizes that science (as demonstrated in the Human Genome Project) refutes the idea of biological racial differences. According to scholars Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic, race is the product of social thought and is not connected to biological reality.
• Acknowledgement that racism is a normal feature of society and is embedded within systems and institutions, like the legal system, that replicate racial inequality. This dismisses the idea that racist incidents are aberrations but instead are manifestations of structural and systemic racism.
• Rejection of popular understandings about racism, such as arguments that confine racism to a few “bad apples.” CRT recognizes that racism is codified in law, embedded in structures, and woven into public policy. CRT rejects claims of meritocracy or “colorblindness.” CRT recognizes that it is the systemic nature of racism that bears primary responsibility for reproducing racial inequality.
• Recognition of the relevance of people’s everyday lives to scholarship. This includes embracing the lived experiences of people of color, including those preserved through storytelling, and rejecting deficit-informed research that excludes the epistemologies of people of color.

CRT does not define racism in the traditional manner as solely the consequence of discrete irrational bad acts perpetrated by individuals but is usually the unintended (but often foreseeable) consequence of choices. It exposes the ways that racism is often cloaked in terminology regarding “mainstream,” “normal,” or “traditional” values or “neutral” policies, principles, or practices. And, as scholar Tara Yosso asserts, CRT can be an approach used to theorize, examine, and challenge the ways which race and racism implicitly and explicitly impact social structures, practices, and discourses. CRT observes that scholarship that ignores race is not demonstrating “neutrality” but adherence to the existing racial hierarchy.”

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/civil-rights-reimagining-policing/a-lesson-on-critical-race-theory/

 

Edited June 11, 2021 by TechWife

[Condessa]

Here’s a link to the mother’s address to the school board, if anyone wants to engage in the discussion topic without the connection to Fox News:

 

“I’ve been very alarmed by what’s going on in our schools. You are now training our children to be social justice warriors and to loathe our country and our history. Growing up in Mao’s China, all of this seems very familiar. The Communist regime used the same critical theory to divide people; the only difference is they used class instead of race.”

“During the Cultural Revolution, I witnessed students and teachers turn against each other.  We changed school names to be politically correct. We were taught to denounce our heritage. The Red Guards destroyed anything that is not Communist: old statues, books, and anything else.”

 “We were also encouraged to report on each other, just like the Student Equity Ambassador program and the Bias Reporting System.”

 “This is, indeed, the American version of the Chinese Cultural Revolution. The Critical Race Theory has its roots in cultural Marxism. It should have no place in our schools.”

Edited June 11, 2021 by Condessa

[Carol in Cal.]

28 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

 

Polarization is to be expected when one side is opposed to racism and another side is opposed to removing any of its privileges. 

I’ve been on these boards for over 20 years, and have never ever seen anyone express or suspected anyone here of holding to the latter. 

Way to use a straw man to excuse/justify unkindness.

[TechWife]

51 minutes ago, MercyA said:

I agree with most of your post, but I don't usually have time to watch videos (exception for cute cat videos). I'm much more likely to click on articles I can quickly skim.

I’m the same. Videos take too long. I can read & comprehend info faster. 

[Frances]

15 minutes ago, Condessa said:

Here’s a link to the mother’s address to the school board, if anyone wants to engage in the discussion topic without the connection to Fox News:

 

 

I don’t think anyone was objecting to the fact that the videos were from Fox News. The article on the other hand…

 I’m not sure what can be discussed without more information. For example, towards the end of her speech she mentions two things by name that are like what happened in China, but doesn’t explain them (understandably so with a one minute time limit). But since I don’t have kids in the district and no one has posted actual information, I have no idea what they are, so how can I evaluate her comparisons? 

[LucyStoner]

When we were still homeschooling, my boys both got a very in-depth US history education.  We used a wide range of materials including Zinn’s People’s History of the United States, the Teaching Tolerance materials from SPL and a lot of stuff focused on the history of the Civil Rights movement, including Eyes on the Prize.  Hakim’s History of Us was the spine for my older son in middle school.  I’m absolutely not opposed an unvarnished look at American history or current events.  I do have some accuracy concerns with the 1619 project- I’m not for banning it in schools (there’s not a whole lot I am in favor of banning in school).  But if we were still homeschooling I don’t know that I with use the material without including writings from historians who reject some of its claims or perhaps side by side as a lesson in how interpretation affects our historical understanding.  

I also know that over the last couple of years, I’ve heard some really off-base takeaways about history coming from my kids and nieces and nephew, who all attend 3 different regular public school districts in and around Seattle.  It’s hard to condense to a short post and I don’t want to turn this into a long essay but I have come to see how some kids have some pretty simplistic takeaways from school about these topics right now.  This is nothing new (it’s not like US schools have tended to do a bang up job in history education, lol). I also think that young students and students who tend to be quite literal thinkers may walk away from some materials about race and identity with a feeling that they are wrong/bad or that they are doomed to fail.  My 12 year old son (white) and my 15 year old nephew (black and Latino) have both articulated some things that have convinced me that badly implemented content can give students a sense that white = bad and brown = helpless/pitiable.  Also, male = bad and female = helpless.  That is troubling.  

Living in Seattle, Diversity, Equity and Inclusion trainings implemented or deployed by nearly clueless (and mostly white) people to mediocre or shitty results is nothing new.  The lingo has changed but trainings and course material around race and identity were part of my high school work back in the 1990s here.  And it’s not uncommon for a sound or solid academic concept for older students/adults to be implemented and deployed in a less than stellar manner that confuses the flip out of younger students.  Heck, we see this in math education all the time - solid expert designed curriculum that the district spends eleventy jillion dollars on, shitty implementation that leads to less than great results.  

Thanks to Zoom school I have had the opportunity to overhear much of my son’s US history this year and I am very underwhelmed by the quality of the lessons + straining everything through an unnuanced and very modern viewpoint.  Nothing I found particularly objectionable but it was lackluster and I felt he could have taught the class at times.  Actually, he often chimed in with more details or nuance in class.  

I do think it is possible for people to be ambivalent or concerned about how history, race and identity topics are covered in school without being opposed to accurate, in-depth and at times hard topics.  I dislike how this has become a politically polarized topic or even an ideological purity test.  
 

Edited June 11, 2021 by LucyStoner

[HeartString]

19 minutes ago, Condessa said:

Here’s a link to the mother’s address to the school board, if anyone wants to engage in the discussion topic without the connection to Fox News:

 

 

I think the issue is that a parent complaining about something like this is not really evidence, wether the video comes from FoxNews or not.  I would like pictures from the curriculum, video or something from the classroom, some objective thing to look at besides a parents opinion, or even a teachers opinion.  I’d like to see the troublesome requirements in writing some how.  All this video tells me is parents are unhappy.  Parents are unhappy about lots of things, some I agree with, some I don’t.  That a parent is unhappy is not evidence by itself of something being wrong 

[Condessa]

1 minute ago, Frances said:

I don’t think anyone was objecting to the fact that the videos were from Fox News. The article on the other hand…

 I’m not sure what can be discussed without more information. For example, towards the end of her speech she mentions two things by name that are like what happened in China, but doesn’t explain them (understandably so with a one minute time limit). But since I don’t have kids in the district and no one has posted actual information, I have no idea what they are, so how can I evaluate her comparisons? 

Relating to this statement from the statement of the mother that inspired this thread: 

“We were also encouraged to report on each other, just like the Student Equity Ambassador program and the Bias Reporting System.”

The Loudoun school district is currently under a law suit from parents over these two programs.

https://wtop.com/loudoun-county/2021/06/equity-programs-in-loudoun-co-schools-lead-to-lawsuit-from-parents/
 

It apparently involves having students report on each other.

[Pawz4me]

I also prefer articles to videos, but I did watch the one of the mother speaking. I don’t think I have a very good grasp of what CRT is, but I certainly didn’t find anything she said to be newsworthy. 

[Condessa]

From the above linked local news article on the law suit:

“Under the ambassador program, schools select a handful of students who meet with principals and other school leaders to discuss [incidents of racist behavior in their school communities], while the reporting system urges students to anonymously report observations using a form online.”

Edited June 11, 2021 by Condessa

[Frances]

2 minutes ago, Condessa said:

Relating to this statement from the statement of the mother that inspired this thread: 

“We were also encouraged to report on each other, just like the Student Equity Ambassador program and the Bias Reporting System.”

The Loudoun school district is currently under a law suit from parents over these two programs.

https://wtop.com/loudoun-county/2021/06/equity-programs-in-loudoun-co-schools-lead-to-lawsuit-from-parents/
 

It apparently involves having students report on each other.

Thank you for posting. This contains far more information (including links to other sources) than is in the videos and unlike the Fox News article/editorial, at least presents information from both the school district and those critical of the policies and programs.

[Laurie]

I was just listening to a local talk radio show while getting dinner organized.  A mom of an 8th grade middle school student (public school) used her cell phone to make a video of a lesson presented in her child's science class (remote learning).   She contacted both the principal and the teacher, and apparently these types of lessons are presented in a variety of subject areas at school.      

The video is just over 7 minutes long.

https://mynorthwest.com/2937573/rantz-teacher-uses-science-class-to-call-white-middle-schoolers-privileged-oppressors/

 

[Fritz]

23 minutes ago, Laurie said:

I was just listening to a local talk radio show while getting dinner organized.  A mom of an 8th grade middle school student (public school) used her cell phone to make a video of a lesson presented in her child's science class (remote learning).   She contacted both the principal and the teacher, and apparently these types of lessons are presented in a variety of subject areas at school.      

The video is just over 7 minutes long.

https://mynorthwest.com/2937573/rantz-teacher-uses-science-class-to-call-white-middle-schoolers-privileged-oppressors/

 

From the link:

Barrett ended the email with a reasonable request: “I would like to know HOW this fits into your science curriculum and when and how many other lessons like this you plan to teach this school year.”

 

The school responded to the mom

The school’s principal, Myra Arnone, set up a phone call to discuss Barrett’s concerns.

“She explained that this kind of teaching is now being incorporated into all subjects at the teacher’s ‘professional discretion,'” Barrett explained to the Jason Rantz Show on KTTH. “If the teacher feels that there is something along the racial, social justice, LGBTQIA+, equity/diversity, et cetera – they can incorporate that however they want into their lesson plans.”

So it's whatever the teacher wants it to be, taught however the teacher wants to teach it, no matter what the actual subject is? As I said before too much wiggle room. There is no place for this in K-12 setting. They need to stick to academics.

[HeartString]

So people are mad about this odd race stuff and are calling it critical race theory so it sounds fancy, with no regard to what critical race theory actually is or whether or not this racial teaching fits in with it? 
 

ETA:this makes conversation almost impossible because we’re meaning several different things at the same time and everyone is talking past each other. 

Edited June 11, 2021 by HeartString

[HeartString]

4 minutes ago, Plum said:

That's the same problem these schools seem to be having with teaching it. It's all over the map but I'm seeing the same themes. You are either privileged or an oppressor based on where you land on the wheel of power. 

What are kids supposed to get out of this?

 

It kind of seems like the dark side of having college kids take classes from different departments to be “well rounded”. A bunch of teachers took the sociology class for a humanities requirement and now they think they can teach complex theories.  I have a major in sociology and barely feel qualified to talk on a message board about it.  It really is one of those subjects where the more you learn the more you realize how much more there is to learn.  A lesson it seems like these teachers might have missed in the intro class.  

[LucyStoner]

30 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

I watched the video. 

First, oppression was not even mentioned other than as a title on one of the Powerpoints. The exercise was about privileges. No one was labeled an oppressor. 

One of the questions the students had to answer was whether they experienced oppression. But again, no one was labeled an oppressor. No privilege was connected with oppression. 

It sounded like the parent who was taping the video was offended from the beginning. She made a few comments during the video. 

This is a little clunky and looks a little silly to me but it does not demonize any student or group. 

I also watched the video as I know the station is going to write the headline for clicks.  I agree with you that the teacher didn’t label any specific student an oppressor which the headline implied but I disagree that nothing in the video is problematic.  The teacher’s vagueness left it to students to make some conclusions of their own.  Without guidance I can seen students drawing some clunky conclusions from a clunky lesson.  Also, the word oppression is very much part of the assignment questions- it’s question number 2 on the worksheet shown at the end.  

I note that this mother has an 8th grade autistic daughter.  As it happens, I have 2 autistic kids in that very school district.  I can see how younger students and those who are prone very literal thinking might see privilege and power equalling oppressor.  What does “dismantle” mean the the student?  

I have a mix of kids who I help with school and I’ve seen a mix of reactions from students about how these topics are being addressed in local schools.  Two of the children whose education I have been actively involved in are my niece and nephew, who are brown and poor.  I’ve seen my nephew especially struggle with some of the meh ways intersectionality and identity issues are addressed at his school (different district but  more content in this direction).  Feeling like you have to share this information in a group setting can also be very hard, even hurtful especially when you are a kid living on the margins.  Being asked to address your trauma in the context of a classroom or training when you have been seriously traumatized is a really shitty experience (and I speak from personal experience on that).  

There are high quality ways to address inequality in schools and teach students about a wide range of challenging topics.  I’m not sure that this is one of them. I’m not going to tell the school that my kid can’t be a part of these lessons but I also won’t let the simplistic presentation go unaddressed when my younger son sees materials like this.  

Edited June 11, 2021 by LucyStoner

[LucyStoner]

24 minutes ago, HeartString said:

So people are mad about this odd race stuff and are calling it critical race theory so it sounds fancy, with no regard to what critical race theory actually is or whether or not this racial teaching fits in with it? 
 

ETA:this makes conversation almost impossible because we’re meaning several different things at the same time and everyone is talking past each other. 

No, CRT is a theoretical framework.  The name CRT comes from the people who have advanced it in academic and activist circles, not from people who are mad about it.  Some things probably get folded into that umbrella but it’s not a fancy name applied only by its detractors.  

Edited June 11, 2021 by LucyStoner

[HeartString]

2 minutes ago, LucyStoner said:

 Feeling like you have to share this information in a group setting can also be very hard, even hurtful especially when you are a kid living on the margins.  Being asked to address your trauma in the context of a classroom or training when you have been seriously traumatized is a really shitty experience (and I speak from personal experience on that).  

I feel like English classes used to be bad about that, maybe still are.  School should not be therapy and history/English class are not group therapy sessions.  Is this a weird thing they’re learning in teacher college? 

[HeartString]

3 minutes ago, LucyStoner said:

No, CRT is an theoretical framework.  The name CRT comes from the people who have advanced it in academic and activist circles, not from people who are mad about it.  Somethings probably get folded into that umbrella but it’s not a fancy name applied only by its detractors.  

Is this poor teaching actually an example of CRT though?  Would an academic teaching in the sociology department of a university recognize this as under that umbrella?  

Edited June 11, 2021 by HeartString

[LucyStoner]

1 minute ago, HeartString said:

I feel like English classes used to be bad about that, maybe still are.  School should not be therapy and history/English class are not group therapy sessions.  Is this a weird thing they’re learning in teacher college? 

It’s being pushed heavily in this district.  The teachers are going to professional trainings and then tasked with interpreting and integrating it into the classes here.  My family happens to be in this district (not this school tho!)

[LucyStoner]

24 minutes ago, HeartString said:

Is this poor teaching actually an example of CRT though?  Would an academic teaching in the sociology department of a university recognize this as under that umbrella?  

I have encountered similar wheels in CRT training materials.  

This is an interesting podcast episode about DEI training based on CRT: 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.listennotes.com/podcasts/blocked-and-reported/bonus-episode-what-a-stupid--YD5jer1Zx7/amp/

Having worked in this Seattle non-profit sector for the better part of 20 years (they don’t name the theater in the episode but I guessed which company it was pretty quickly- Seattle is a small town in a lot of ways), I’ve seen a wide range of these types of trainings.       Some bad, some good.  Most mediocre.  Some super invasive and hurtful...to the very populations that the trainings are supposed to empower. One of the silver linings of self employment is I can read whatever books I want and go to whatever lectures, readings or seminars I like on social issues on my own time and I am never going to have to give away workdays to workshops of dubious quality and value ever again.  

 

Edited June 11, 2021 by LucyStoner

[LucyStoner]

53 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

I agree that it's clunky and I see what you mean about the risk of a student misunderstanding. It looks like a mediocre curriculum. 

But one of the reasons that we can't have nice things is that there is such resistance to attempts to discuss this. 

For example, I've read some valid criticisms of the 1619 project but those are lost in the over the top culture war response to it. 

 

Honestly, speaking very much from and of the American left, I see the culture war over the top responses coming from both sides.  One side calls you a Marxist baby eater if you aren’t in lockstep agreement with them.  The other side shouts that you a white supremacist Nazi if you aren’t lockstep with them.  It’s exhausting and totally unproductive.  A lot of it on both sides is performative and more about signaling to the world that they are in the right group than it is about actually helping realize their values and positively impact the world.  I can no longer pass the purity test on the left but it’s not like I was ever gonna pass the right’s purity test so I’m just SOL.  I’m not even close to politically moderate either so I’m just kinda politically homeless in a way. I just don’t agree wholesale with what either side seems to be shilling these days.  I live in Seattle so it’s possible that the left is just dialing it up to 1000 here but it’s intense.  

On this board we used to discuss statements of faith that some homeschooling groups would want people to agree to in order to participate.  Lately in left spaces, I have felt it was clear that you are not welcome if you won’t basically agree 100% to their ideological beliefs.  It feels like a restrictive statement of faith in many ways.  When it feels that way at school or work, it affects people’s ability to exercise their right to a public education or to meet their family’s needs.  

Edited June 11, 2021 by LucyStoner