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

[Sneezyone]

1 minute ago, Plum said:

Ok now you are just spinning my wheels. 

Maybe a little devil’s advocate. As I said before, I am philosophically opposed to using outliers to justify wholesale policy. I think it makes for bad policy. This kid is an outlier for many of the reasons dmmetler said. This is a charter school with a known focus that the parents SEEK OUT. Abandoning the focus because the student felt uncomfortable would also betray the other students who are there to be uncomfy and challenged.

[Sneezyone]

Just now, Carol in Cal. said:

So, would you agree that that kind of compelled speech would be inappropriate in that setting?  

If it were compelled, yes. I would have given anything to have an alternative assigned book and to be excused from the discussions.

[Sneezyone]

2 minutes ago, Condessa said:

Excuse me.  Either a liar or otherwise misreporting what occurred--even though no one involved, anywhere, has made any claims to this effect.  

No, memories and recollections are fallible. People often believe untruths/half-truths with genuine fervor.

[Carol in Cal.]

9 minutes ago, Frances said:

While I agree with you that if not handled correctly it could be indoctrination, that also seems to be the intent of the R legislator in one of the earlier linked articles. He couldn’t even come up with one concrete example of problematic curriculum he wanted banned, but he did want all students to learn that the US is the greatest country on earth.

Not defending him, nor have I.  So this is kind of a straw man.

  Just talking about what things should be like as opposed to what this particular example showed.

[Faith-manor]

4 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

Maybe a little devil’s advocate. As I said before, I am philosophically opposed to using outliers to justify wholesale policy. I think it makes for bad policy. This kid is an outlier for many of the reasons dmmetler said. This is a charter school with a known focus that the parents SEEK OUT. Abandoning the focus because the student felt uncomfortable would also betray the other students who are there to be uncomfy and challenged.

Agreed. I am tired of policy being legislated by the outliers thus tying everyone's hands to do good. And the thing is so don't know if this student's allegations are spot on or not. The point is no one knows because it was not adjudicated, there isn't any forth coming information from which I can form a conclusion at this time. Therefore it should not be test case/evidence of bad policy across the bad board, bad class, etc nor an indictment against CRT. 

 

[Carol in Cal.]

Well, people have been asking for actual examples, in this thread, and they have asked what to do instead, and then when they give actual documentation it’s dismissed as an outlier without any evidence for that, and when they say what to do instead it is completely ignored.

 

[Sneezyone]

10 minutes ago, Plum said:

As a Christian kid, sitting in that class....

Family - Reinforce racist/homophobic prejudices

Religion - Homophobic prejudices - Right vs. Wrong Judgements

 

[The lawyer] O’Brien says last summer he encountered “a lot of parents with cases (like the Clarks) but no lawyer. … This was an issue people were talking about but not doing anything about. I offered to help parents and that’s how the Clarks got in touch with me. There weren’t any lawyers willing to put their neck out on this issue.” Nevada Current

The Nevada current is a right wing rag, no different than the blue dog Arkansas Times. If you’re not finding serious treatment of the issue elsewhere, if the district/school itself isn’t caving, you need to ask yourself why. They may have lost this one on compelled speech grounds but the content of the class still stands. All in all, if students are still allowed to attend the school and engage with this convent as they wish, how is that not a win? The class is better. Student/family choice is preserved. Or is your desire to see this option for families eliminated altogether? Do you think parents should be denied the option to send their kids to that school?

Edited June 15, 2021 by Sneezyone

[Sneezyone]

5 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:

Well, people have been asking for actual examples, in this thread, and they have asked what to do instead, and then when they give actual documentation it’s dismissed as an outlier without any evidence for that, and when they say what to do instead it is completely ignored.

 

Outliers aren’t SOLUTIONS. Outliers don’t represent fixes. They represent problems. I haven’t seen a single complainant offer solutions. Even in that NV case, the parent wanted a ban on the class (ridiculous) and none of the other parents co-signed. Odd, no?

Edited June 15, 2021 by Sneezyone

[Carol in Cal.]

2 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

Outliers aren’t SOLUTIONS. Outliers don’t represent fixes. They represent problems. I haven’t seen a single complainant offer solutions. Even in that NV case, the parent wanted a ban on the class (ridiculous) and none of the other parents co-signed. Odd, no?

Read back.  Several offered solutions.  

[Sneezyone]

1 minute ago, Carol in Cal. said:

Read back.  Several offered solutions.  

I have read. All of it. None of it includes doing away with bans and much of it includes not discussing anything disconcerting. We have an active situation with bans in the US and the focus is on specific incidents. It’s like fighting a wildfire with a 5gal. bucket and a prayer.

Edited June 15, 2021 by Sneezyone

[Carol in Cal.]

3 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

I have read. All of it. None of it includes doing away with bans and much of it includes not discussing anything disconcerting. We have an active situation with bans in the US and the focus is on specific incidents. It’s like fighting a wildfire with a 5gal. bucket and a prayer.

You are completely wrong.

The question was, how do we teach this instead?  The accusation was, All people want to do is stop teaching about this, which several have indicated is not true.  And there were several substantive answers to that question of how to teach it well.

 

[Frances]

13 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:

You are completely wrong.

The question was, how do we teach this instead?  The accusation was, All people want to do is stop teaching about this, which several have indicated is not true.  And there were several substantive answers to that question of how to teach it well.

 

Do you mean people on this thread or legislators instituting the bans? While it seems that many on this thread would be fine if it were done the right away, is that even possible in states with the bans? And given comments in some of the linked articles, it does seem that many in power do just want it to all go away.

Edited June 15, 2021 by Frances

[Melissa Louise]

Alternative approach.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/617875/

[Sneezyone]

16 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:

You are completely wrong.

The question was, how do we teach this instead?  The accusation was, All people want to do is stop teaching about this, which several have indicated is not true.  And there were several substantive answers to that question of how to teach it well.

 

There has been no identification of what the ‘instead’ is. ‘Straight history’ isn’t a thing without race/racism. We are not in a place anymore where district by district or school by school solutions have meaning because 15 states have enacted statewide or regional bans on culturally responsive teaching. That’s the landscape. Blanket bans. The text and comments surrounding these bans, the public records in support, make clear that, yes, people really do not want these subjects discussed, not even in a high school senior capstone course. That issue hasn’t been addressed at all. Neither have the secondary effects on public knowledge and future policy making.

Edited June 15, 2021 by Sneezyone

[Frances]

6 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

Alternative approach.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/617875/

What I’m trying to understand is whether or not such things would even be allowed in states with the bans?

[Sneezyone]

13 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

Alternative approach.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/617875/

That’s nice, thanks. I think I saw her interviewed once. Very ‘woo-woo’ but definitely something the tender hearted might appreciate.
 

I heard another woman interviewed a few months ago. I think she developed courses based on ‘calling-in’ vs. ‘’caling-out’. Unless I’m misremembering. Lemme search. This. https://www.kqed.org/mindshift/55779/when-to-call-someone-out-or-call-them-in-over-racist-behavior
 

This isn’t permitted speech either but it is an alternative.

Edited June 15, 2021 by Sneezyone

[Melissa Louise]

5 minutes ago, Frances said:

What I’m trying to understand is whether or not such things would even be allowed in states with the bans?

Probably not. 

It is, however, a humanist alternative. 

The complaint was no alternatives had been offered. 

https://inbound.thoughtandindustry.com/examined-life

 

 

 

 

[Faith-manor]

5 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

There has been no identification of what the ‘instead’ is. ‘Straight history’ isn’t a thing without race/racism. We are not in a place anymore where district by district or school by school solutions have meaning because 15 states have enacted statewide or regional bans on culturally responsive teaching. That’s the landscape. Blanket bans. The text and comments surrounding these bands, the public records make clear that, yes, people really do not want these subjects discussed, not even in a high school senior capstone course. That issue hasn’t been addressed at all. Neither have the secondary effects on public knowledge and future policy making.

This. I am all for different approaches, multi faceted approaches, age appropriate approaches, so let us get down to business and figure out how to teach and discuss these topics so we can make a difference for this generation of young people and work towards racial equality. But, when the actual topics are out right banned, then how the heck can anything be done to make this better?

 

[LucyStoner]

1 hour ago, Melissa Louise said:

Alternative approach.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/617875/

I love Chloe Valdary’s work.  She’s great and her approach is more holistic that what is most popular in my area right now.  

[SKL]

It occurs to me that being able to discuss privilege without undue harm is itself a privilege.

I hope you can see the difference between one person glibly listing off all her privileges (as many here have done), and another person being forced to focus on and discuss his lack of such privileges.

Maybe it's a useful exercise for people with tons of privilege.  Maybe not so much for everyone else.  It just so happens that most of the posters here are in the "tons of privilege" category.

Would anyone do this with educational aptitude?  "I have the advantages of a 140 IQ, great executive function skills, a high quality education, and high expectations."  vs. "I have a 95 IQ according to a test I took, struggle to read, never had a teacher who could explain math to me, and I'll be lucky to keep a low-wage job all my life."  Who or what is that really going to help?

[Melissa Louise]

21 minutes ago, LucyStoner said:

I love Chloe Valdary’s work.  She’s great and her approach is more holistic that what is most popular in my area right now.  

I'd like to take her class some time. 

ETA for anyone reading along, there's financial aid for her classes for teens.

Edited June 15, 2021 by Melissa Louise

[LucyStoner]

4 hours ago, Sneezyone said:

That’s nice, thanks. I think I saw her interviewed once. Very ‘woo-woo’ but definitely something the tender hearted might appreciate.
 

I heard another woman interviewed a few months ago. I think she developed courses based on ‘calling-in’ vs. ‘’caling-out’. Unless I’m misremembering. Lemme search. This. https://www.kqed.org/mindshift/55779/when-to-call-someone-out-or-call-them-in-over-racist-behavior
 

This isn’t permitted speech either but it is an alternative.

I think that the bans should get challenged on free speech grounds.  Since they are likely to only pass in conservative states, I’m not sure who would bring suit standing wise.  

I’m not very woo but I still think Chloe Valdary’s work is good.  It’s hard and I think more compelling to find a way to speak to people’s hearts.  Perhaps it appeals to me because I am pretty shitty at speaking to people’s hearts- my default is more of a slap people upside the heads style which I have to keep a check on because it’s just not effective.   Her approach is also more ideologically consistent with the principles of restorative justice.  

Tangentially, Professor Loretta Ross has interesting things to say on the topic of calling in:  

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/11/19/style/loretta-ross-smith-college-cancel-culture.amp.html

Edited June 15, 2021 by LucyStoner

[Frances]

35 minutes ago, LucyStoner said:

I think that the bans should get challenged on free speech grounds.  Since they are likely to only pass in conservative states, I’m not sure who would bring suit standing wise.  

I’m not very woo but I still think Chloe Valdary’s work is good.  It’s hard and I think more compelling to find a way to speak to people’s hearts.  Perhaps it appeals to me because I am pretty shitty at speaking to people’s hearts- my default is more of a slap people upside the heads style which is have to keep a check on because it’s just not effective.   Her approach is also more ideologically consistent with the principles of restorative justice.  

Tangentially, Professor Loretta Ross has interesting things to say on the topic of calling in:  

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/11/19/style/loretta-ross-smith-college-cancel-culture.amp.html

I read the article when it first came out and it really resonated with me.

[SKL]

4 hours ago, Joker2 said:

I don’t have a whole lot to add but I really don’t understand why the US can’t come up with a way to introduce these things even to elementary aged students. My first year homeschooling was 2008, so Obama’s first election. My kids were 1st and 3rd grade and we talked about how there had never been a Black President before. My oldest was absolutely shocked and we spent a lot of time discussing why that was and how that probably made all different kinds of people feel. I didn’t even vote for Obama that first time but I kept my kids up to see him win and hear his speech and we cried because it was amazing to witness and sad that it took so long. I think most of these kids will be able to understand that something is wrong that it took so long and be able to understand how white men holding so much power for so long could negatively affect those who are not white. As my dc grew we were able to discuss how other laws/power/issues negatively affected minorities, but many of the kids we have met along the way don’t have parents who do this (and many who won’t even acknowledge it). I do think it’s important for schools to teach an accurate account of history and that’s not going to be comfortable for many-it should still be done though.

As a parent of children of color, I have witnessed young kids misunderstanding the message in school, because little kids don't think the way writers and teachers think.  I posted about this when my kids' KG class studied MLK day.  When hearing "most people thought black children did not deserve to be educated like/with white kids" and "the laws allowed blacks to be relegated to the back of the bus" etc., young children, who are wired to think "most adults" and "lawmakers" and "the powers that be" are normally right, will register "dark skin => low intelligence, low value, etc.  These well-intended lessons are not appropriate for young children.  They don't promote equality or self-esteem in young children.  Parents have to step in and clean up the mess, and not all parents are going to do that.

It could be handled better.  Young kids in school should first be taught about positive aspects of multicultural history.  The impressive achievements of people of all colors, and not just in February.  So, for kids not already immersed in racial diversity at home, the foundation is laid of people of all races being of equal value, deserving equal respect and equal rights.  Upon this well-laid foundation, racial inequities can later be discussed in an age-appropriate way.

And let's be honest - schools teach practically no history in the primary grades anyway.

[SKL]

3 hours ago, Condessa said:

One party says A happened.  The other party does not dispute that A happened, but does dispute whether what they did was wrong.  I don't see how it is logical to assume that B is actually what happened, when no party involved is claiming that B happened.

 

ETA: None of the other students have said that A didn't happen.  They haven't come forward in public support of the student's fight with the school, but neither the other students, the teacher, or the administration has claimed that it didn't happen.

Not really to you, but a general comment applicable to much of this thread:

Usually the people who complain or file suit are the tip of the iceberg.  Most people, myself included, would not get up and speak in a taped public meeting, or file a lawsuit, or write a public letter, etc., even if all of the above allegations were true.  That most people are being quiet about it doesn't prove anything one way or another.

[SKL]

3 hours ago, Sneezyone said:

 This is a charter school with a known focus that the parents SEEK OUT. Abandoning the focus because the student felt uncomfortable would also betray the other students who are there to be uncomfy and challenged.

On the other hand, the experience of having the lesson challenged on the basis of improperly compelled speech should be an interesting learning opportunity in itself.

[SKL]

3 hours ago, Faith-manor said:

Agreed. I am tired of policy being legislated by the outliers thus tying everyone's hands to do good.

Every civil rights advance occurred because of outliers. 

Change, positive or negative, makes people tired.  Sometimes it's worth it.

[SKL]

3 hours ago, Sneezyone said:

There has been no identification of what the ‘instead’ is. ‘Straight history’ isn’t a thing without race/racism. We are not in a place anymore where district by district or school by school solutions have meaning because 15 states have enacted statewide or regional bans on culturally responsive teaching. That’s the landscape. Blanket bans. The text and comments surrounding these bans, the public records in support, make clear that, yes, people really do not want these subjects discussed, not even in a high school senior capstone course. That issue hasn’t been addressed at all. Neither have the secondary effects on public knowledge and future policy making.

OK so what exactly is banned?  I think it's hyperbole to suggest that all discussions about race are banned in any school district.  Please articulate what exactly is banned (and what isn't) if you want people to address the bans.

[Sneezyone]

6 hours ago, SKL said:

OK so what exactly is banned?  I think it's hyperbole to suggest that all discussions about race are banned in any school district.  Please articulate what exactly is banned (and what isn't) if you want people to address the bans.

 

Oklahoma’s new law, http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pdf/2021-22 ENR/hB/HB1775 ENR.PDF says: 

"No enrolled student of an institution of higher education within The Oklahoma State System of Higher Education shall be required to engage in any form of mandatory gender or sexual diversity training or counseling; provided, voluntary counseling shall not be prohibited. Any orientation or requirement that presents any form of race or sex stereotyping or a bias on the basis of race or sex shall be prohibited"

It also says WRT K-12 that no teachers should be required to have professional development training, or teach any class where:

"any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex, or"

• Does this permit the university to require a course in culturally responsive teaching as part of its teacher licensing programs? I think the answer to that is no.
• "Presents" You cannot even discuss the topic because then it's presented in class.
• Does this mean that university disciplinary boards cannot require any form of inclusion workshop as part of its recommendations when student codes of conduct are violated like, say, nooses are hung in dorm rooms? Probably. Is the unintended consequence that more students will simply be suspended or expelled if 'rehabilitation' isn't an option? Maybe.
• Further, how does one prevent all students from having these feelings? I provided my own example with Mr. Twain so out he goes. The previous example in art class is also a good one. Seeing the art and hearing other students' commentary may also engender feelings of distress and anguish. Out it goes too.
• Teachers aren't going to wait to be challenged or sued, risk their jobs and/or license over this. They're going to expunge anything even remotely challenging from their courses. Private schools are going to ignore the whole thing and keep doing what they do, teaching all of the things, leaving public students even more in the dark.

I could go on with the other states...maybe someone else can pick one or two. I have a few more classes to teach this morning. These laws are written to prohibit feelings, not just statements or content, but explicitly prohibit feelings from emerging. Tell me how that's compatible with education?

 

Edited June 15, 2021 by Sneezyone

[Carrie12345]

6 hours ago, SKL said:

It occurs to me that being able to discuss privilege without undue harm is itself a privilege.

I hope you can see the difference between one person glibly listing off all her privileges (as many here have done), and another person being forced to focus on and discuss his lack of such privileges.

Maybe it's a useful exercise for people with tons of privilege.  Maybe not so much for everyone else.  It just so happens that most of the posters here are in the "tons of privilege" category.

Would anyone do this with educational aptitude?  "I have the advantages of a 140 IQ, great executive function skills, a high quality education, and high expectations."  vs. "I have a 95 IQ according to a test I took, struggle to read, never had a teacher who could explain math to me, and I'll be lucky to keep a low-wage job all my life."  Who or what is that really going to help?

I think many of our adult conversations here surrounding the concept of CRT would be inappropriate in K-12ish classrooms. Most of the basic thoughts, sure, toward the upper end of the age range at least, but certainly not as written.

I write my posts from a place of having next to ZERO knowledge of racial issues until I was confronted by the real world at 18 and had to learn with no guidance and lots of confusion.  And I’m still finding my blind spots.  

It’s my belief that, if kids grow up understanding the realities of the world, they’re not going to frame it in the awkward ways I do, and will have less of a need to outline their “argument” with fewer peers who struggle to see outside their own bubble.

I don’t see some of the arguments presented here as real possibilities (like the idea of incorporating someone’s IQ or individual family income,) but my brain has been trailing off enough to recognize more likely pitfalls.  As an example, with “implemented CRT” or not, I could absolutely picture a classroom discussing Native American History with one indigenous student present, and the weight of all that new cognition swirling heavy in the room, and one student knowing that every classmate is thinking about them.  Not even because of specific verbiage, just because of how we connect history.

So, yeah, I’m going to think more cautiously than I had been. Even if I find some examples to be far fetched. 😉 

 

[Clemsondana]

As some of y'all know, I don't participate in contentious discussion online (here or anywhere), although I often read so I know different thoughts about issues.  While reading elsewhere, I saw this...excerpt or description....from the TX bill that I thought might be useful for those of you who like to discuss these sorts of things.  I like sharing (and reading from other people who share) information, but online I tend to limit my opinions to nonpolitical educational issues.

'We will develop each student ’s civic knowledge, including an understanding of the history of white supremacy, the institution of slavery, the eugenics movement, and the Ku Klux Klan, and the ways in which it is morally wrong"

[HeartString]

6 hours ago, SKL said:

As a parent of children of color, I have witnessed young kids misunderstanding the message in school, because little kids don't think the way writers and teachers think.  I posted about this when my kids' KG class studied MLK day.  When hearing "most people thought black children did not deserve to be educated like/with white kids" and "the laws allowed blacks to be relegated to the back of the bus" etc., young children, who are wired to think "most adults" and "lawmakers" and "the powers that be" are normally right, will register "dark skin => low intelligence, low value, etc.  These well-intended lessons are not appropriate for young children.  They don't promote equality or self-esteem in young children.  Parents have to step in and clean up the mess, and not all parents are going to do that.

It could be handled better.  Young kids in school should first be taught about positive aspects of multicultural history.  The impressive achievements of people of all colors, and not just in February.  So, for kids not already immersed in racial diversity at home, the foundation is laid of people of all races being of equal value, deserving equal respect and equal rights.  Upon this well-laid foundation, racial inequities can later be discussed in an age-appropriate way.

And let's be honest - schools teach practically no history in the primary grades anyway.

Hm.  I remember being upset about that myself, with a white kid in a mostly white school district.  I wasn’t really ready to explain why Abe Lincoln was killed, or Martin Luther King or why “the Jews killed Jesus”(that one came from the after school program) He was 7 and had no context, especially because of the way things were taught with history topics that jumped around and no coherent structure that I could figure out.  A lesson on a great African kingdom or a biography of a POC who contributed to science or math would have been better Black History month fodder for that age.  Or just plain interwoven.  I’d love for school to teach more than just slavery, Booker T. and MLK, like those are the only 2 black individuals worth noting and slavery the only event worth noting. 
 

Which is why I think that CRT or diversity or inclusiveness or whatever is best use as a frame *for teachers* in the early years, not explicitly and poorly taught.  
 

I actually think if the schools got rid of the whole “America’s the best country ever” schtick things would be better and easier.  It’s too jarring to teach that we’re the best and that we need to improve.  It’s possible to teach that we’re a darn good country that has made mistakes, just like England or France, or any other country.  Trying to pretend that we’re the “Best! Ever!” Isn’t helping any of this.    
Maybe someone should tell them about 4 year history cycles? Get some world history in there for context. 

Edited June 15, 2021 by HeartString

[Sneezyone]

Texas's proposed legislation is especially egregious. It goes beyond inept attempts to bar potentially distressing content related to race and gender, it bans civics assignments by prohibiting students from receiving academic or course credit for engaging in civic activities like lobbying legislators. Make that make sense.

It goes so far as to prevent the donation and use of private funds to develop resources too and then has the audacity to end with this gem. So if a kid calls my kid a racist epithet in the context of a discussion there would be zero recourse or punishment available. Unbelievable.

A school district or open-enrollment charter school
	may not implement, interpret, or enforce any rules or student code
	of conduct in a manner that would result in the punishment of a
	student for discussing, or have a chilling effect on student
	discussion of, the concepts described by Subsection.

The relevant text says:

(3)  a school district, open-enrollment charter
	school, or teacher may not require, make part of a course, or award
	a grade or course credit, including extra credit, for a student's:
	(A)  political activism, lobbying, or efforts to
	persuade members of the legislative or executive branch at the
	federal, state, or local level to take specific actions by direct
	communication; or
	(B)  participation in any internship, practicum,
	or similar activity involving social or public policy advocacy; and

https://legiscan.com/TX/text/HB3979/2021

https://www.texastribune.org/2021/05/22/texas-critical-race-theory-legislature/

 

It goes on to say...

(4)  a teacher, administrator, or other employee of a
	state agency, school district, or open-enrollment charter school
	may not:
	(A)  be required to engage in training,
	orientation, or therapy that presents any form of race or sex
	stereotyping or blame on the basis of race or sex;
	(B)  require or make part of a course the concept that
	Insert copyand pasted list from other states here...   (ix)  the advent of slavery in the territory    that is now the United States constituted the true founding of the    United States; or                            (x)  with respect to their relationship to    American values, slavery and racism are anything other than    deviations from, betrayals of, or failures to live up to, the    authentic founding principles of the United States, which include    liberty and equality; and                      (C)  require an understanding of The 1619 Project.          (h-4)  A state agency, school district, or open-enrollment    charter school may not accept private funding for the purpose of    developing a curriculum, purchasing or selecting curriculum    materials, or providing teacher training or professional    development for a course described by Subsection (h-3)(3).          (h-5)  A school district or open-enrollment charter school    may not implement, interpret, or enforce any rules or student code    of conduct in a manner that would result in the punishment of a    student for discussing, or have a chilling effect on student    discussion of, the concepts described by Subsection (h-3)(4).

Edited June 15, 2021 by Sneezyone

[Faith-manor]

15 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

Question about the bolded for the non-Americans - I dated a Canadian guy abut 15 years ago and he told me that only Americans were taught that our country was the best. Before he said that to me, I'd never considered before that I'd been taught that. I remember pushing back. Surely every kid in the world learns that their country is the best and their system of government is ideal, right? According to him - no. 

Why do our kids start their day with the Pledge of Allegiance? Is that still a thing everywhere in the USA? 

I think you're right - the way we do civics and history in the USA is weird. On one hand, "we're the best!" and then the next day, more history about terrible things done in the USA. Obviously we're not the best. We're not better at democracy than everyone else. Why do we feel like we need to teach our kids that our system of government is the best?

Do most American adults actually believe that the USA is better than other countries? IDK. I find that hard to believe but it's not something that I would discuss with most people. 

When adults complain about something related to children, it often means that they're uncomfortable with some social change and it's not actually about the specific thing they're complaining about. 

Propaganda. People used to worry so much during the cold war about Russian propaganda produced by their government while not paying attention to what was happening at home. We have had a massive propaganda machine here for a very very long time. I think it is precisely so that the atrocities of our past do not have to be addressed. American History textbooks rival anything Russia or China has ever produced for brainwashing their citizens.

[Faith-manor]

19 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

 

Do most American adults actually believe that the USA is better than other countries? IDK. I find that hard to believe but it's not something that I would discuss with most people. 

 

I can't say, "Yes, most." I have not seen any reliable statistics on this. However what I can say about my local region, local county is yes. We have county commissioners who actually had a little ceremony with one of their little resolutions honoring a student for wining an essay contest they sponsored on the topic, "Why America is the greatest country on earth." And there was big applause from the 25 or so other adults at the commissioner meeting. Many letters to the editor of the local newspaper are always "America best, America first, no one else in the world matters." It is a strong mindset here, and their knowledge of world history or actual, real American history instead of propaganda is woefully limited. So I can't speak for all the other areas of the USA, but in my little corner of its for dang sure they thing America's poo doesn't stink.

[Sneezyone]

1 minute ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

I was born in the 1970s and was always taught that the Civil War was about slavery. I grew up in a conservative school district. We skipped the evolution chapter in high school Biology. My parents say they were taught the same thing in their segregated Texas schools. 

But when DD was in the 1st grade, she comes home from school and tells me that the Civil War wasn't about slavery. Huh? I constantly see that claim today. 

I think things are actually worse today than when I was in school. We skipped the evolution chapter in 9th grade biology. Does the current textbook have an evolution chapter? IDK. 

It’s definitely worse in some places and about to get even more so.

[HeartString]

31 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

Question about the bolded for the non-Americans - I dated a Canadian guy abut 15 years ago and he told me that only Americans were taught that our country was the best. Before he said that to me, I'd never considered before that I'd been taught that. I remember pushing back. Surely every kid in the world learns that their country is the best and their system of government is ideal, right? According to him - no. 

Why do our kids start their day with the Pledge of Allegiance? Is that still a thing everywhere in the USA? 

I think you're right - the way we do civics and history in the USA is weird. On one hand, "we're the best!" and then the next day, more history about terrible things done in the USA. Obviously we're not the best. We're not better at democracy than everyone else. Why do we feel like we need to teach our kids that our system of government is the best?

Do most American adults actually believe that the USA is better than other countries? IDK. I find that hard to believe but it's not something that I would discuss with most people. 

When adults complain about something related to children, it often means that they're uncomfortable with some social change and it's not actually about the specific thing they're complaining about. 

In my experience yes, there are definitely adults who think the USA is unquestionably the BEST we have the BEST everything, we do thing the BEST and anyone who disagrees is a damn commie.  Recent conversations, with family. If you mention our abysmal educational outcomes, worse health outcome for more money, high infant mortality they just sputter something about Elon Musk or Zuckerburg.  

[Faith-manor]

Just now, Ordinary Shoes said:

I was born in the 1970s and was always taught that the Civil War was about slavery. I grew up in a conservative school district. We skipped the evolution chapter in high school Biology. My parents say they were taught the same thing in their segregated Texas schools. 

But when DD was in the 1st grade, she comes home from school and tells me that the Civil War wasn't about slavery. Huh? I constantly see that claim today. 

I think things are actually worse today than when I was in school. We skipped the evolution chapter in 9th grade biology. Does the current textbook have an evolution chapter? IDK. 

In terms of biology, our local district's biology text both regular and AP are very evolutionary based and not just a chapter, but permeating which makes the YE folks in the area very angry. LOL, but despite the anger the two YE religious schools have been facing declining enrollment every year for the last decade.

[Faith-manor]

Just now, HeartString said:

In my experience yes, there are definitely adults who think the USA is unquestionably the BEST we have the BEST everything, we do thing the BEST and anyone who disagrees is a damn commie.  Recent conversations, with family. If you mention our abysmal educational outcomes, worse health outcome for more money, high infant mortality they just sputter something about Elon Musk or Zuckerburg.  

Here, they actually sputter that they don't care who dies from lack of healthcare access or affordability, and education is for communists. They simply see no value in kids learning much more than basic reading and numeracy, and think just everything the high school attempts to do is a waste of their hard earned tax dollars. It is so damn pathetic when the local business owners go to higher young people and then complain that they don't know anything, yet cannot seem to themselves connect the dots between fighting against quality education to employees not being employable! The cognitive dissonance is profound. 

Mostly it is about change. How dare anything change. How dare anyone have a question. How dare anyone try to improve anything. 

[Pam in CT]

re what EXACTLY is being canceled, here...

7 hours ago, SKL said:

OK so what exactly is banned?  I think it's hyperbole to suggest that all discussions about race are banned in any school district.  Please articulate what exactly is banned (and what isn't) if you want people to address the bans.

I haven't looked at the text of all of the statutes/regulations/guidance that are suddenly & completely spontaneously sweeping the nation based singularly on bottoms-up grass roots authentic concerns raised by parents. 

Some of them appear to being trying to prohibit classroom content that might result in possibly triggered effects (like the OK statute @Sneezyone linked above):

Quote

ENR. H. B. NO. 1775Page 3g.  [No] individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex,

while others, such as Florida's Board of Ed regulation, seem to be taking a somewhat different tack, directing schools to focus on the positive side of our national history:

Quote

(b) Instruction on the required topics must be factual and objective, and may not suppress or distort significant historical events, such as the Holocaust, and may not define American history as something other than the creation of a new nation based largely on universal principles stated in the Declaration of Independence.

Neither approach attempts to detail a comprehensive negative list of each and every episode in our nation's history that is hereby "banned" from the classroom.  That would be a long list, wouldn't it.

It is difficult, however, to envision how, for example, the Oklahoma prohibition on content that might cause "distress" leaves space for coverage of historical events like, say, the Trail of Tears or the Tulse Race Massacre.  Such episodes are distressing.  *Many* thoughtful kids, of all races, experience a degree of discomfort/unease when learning about such episodes, however developmentally appropriate the delivery.

That is literally what empathy IS.

 

Similarly, running with Florida's Focus on the Sunny Side approach, it is difficult to reconcile the soaring Enlightenment-originating universalist ideals outlined in the Declaration of Independence

Quote

...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...

with the clause in the Constitution laboriously negotiated just 13 years later to effect and sustain an institution predicated on a quite different view of the equality of men * :

Quote

Representatives ... shall be apportioned among the several States...according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, ... three fifths of all other Persons.

There is an inherent tension between these two texts.  They are both part of our founding history. There is no way to present the facts underlying the second, while insisting that the ideals of the first are the "base" of that founding.

The story of US lies in the still-ongoing pursuit of a More Perfect Union,  as we chase the ideals of that first text.  Florida's regulation calls for classroom instruction to declare we started at a happy place we still have not yet arrived at.

 

 

*  and we won't focus on any rights of women, for another 180 years

 

re 1776!!! vs 1619

1 hour ago, HeartString said:

....I actually think if the schools got rid of the whole “America’s the best country ever” schtick things would be better and easier.  It’s too jarring to teach that we’re the best and that we need to improve.  It’s possible to teach that we’re a darn good country that has made mistakes, just like England or France, or any other country.  Trying to pretend that we’re the “Best! Ever!” Isn’t helping any of this.    

Maybe someone should tell them about 4 year history cycles? Get some world history in there for context. 

This.

I mean, it's literally right there in the preamble to our (compromise-riddled) Constitution.

Quote

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity

It's RIGHT THERE.  We are and have always been a WORK IN PROGRESS. 

From the beginning, there was a framework based on amendment; that we were OTOH imperfect but OTO capable of improvement; that those ideals pointed forward into a future where our posterity could enjoy blessings even greater than our own still-work-in-progress selves.

[Sneezyone]

57 minutes ago, Pam in CT said:

re what EXACTLY is being canceled, here...

I haven't looked at the text of all of the statutes/regulations/guidance that are suddenly & completely spontaneously sweeping the nation based singularly on bottoms-up grass roots authentic concerns raised by parents. 

Some of them appear to being trying to prohibit classroom content that might result in possibly triggered effects (like the OK statute @Sneezyone linked above):

while others, such as Florida's Board of Ed regulation, seem to be taking a somewhat different tack, directing schools to focus on the positive side of our national history:

Neither approach attempts to detail a comprehensive negative list of each and every episode in our nation's history that is hereby "banned" from the classroom.  That would be a long list, wouldn't it.

It is difficult, however, to envision how, for example, the Oklahoma prohibition on content that might cause "distress" leaves space for coverage of historical events like, say, the Trail of Tears or the Tulse Race Massacre.  Such episodes are distressing.  *Many* thoughtful kids, of all races, experience a degree of discomfort/unease when learning about such episodes, however developmentally appropriate the delivery.

That is literally what empathy IS.

 

Similarly, running with Florida's Focus on the Sunny Side approach, it is difficult to reconcile the soaring Enlightenment-originating universalist ideals outlined in the Declaration of Independence

with the clause in the Constitution laboriously negotiated just 13 years later to effect and sustain an institution predicated on a quite different view of the equality of men * :

There is an inherent tension between these two texts.  They are both part of our founding history. There is no way to present the facts underlying the second, while insisting that the ideals of the first are the "base" of that founding.

The story of US lies in the still-ongoing pursuit of a More Perfect Union,  as we chase the ideals of that first text.  Florida's regulation calls for classroom instruction to declare we started at a happy place we still have not yet arrived at.

 

 

*  and we won't focus on any rights of women, for another 180 years

 

re 1776!!! vs 1619

This.

I mean, it's literally right there in the preamble to our (compromise-riddled) Constitution.

It's RIGHT THERE.  We are and have always been a WORK IN PROGRESS. 

From the beginning, there was a framework based on amendment; that we were OTOH imperfect but OTO capable of improvement; that those ideals pointed forward into a future where our posterity could enjoy blessings even greater than our own still-work-in-progress selves.

Beyond that tho, the FL regulations explicitly say:

”Instruction on the required topics must be factual and objective, and may not suppress or distort significant historical events, such as the Holocaust, slavery, the Civil War and Reconstruction, the Civil Rights movement and the contributions of women, African American and Hispanic people to our country as already provided in section 1003.42 of Florida Statutes. Examples of theories that distort historical events and are inconsistent with State Board approved standards include the denial or minimization of the Holocaust and the teaching of “critical race theory,” meaning the theory that racism is not merely a product of prejudice but that racism is embedded in American society and its legal systems in order to uphold the supremacy of white persons. Instruction may not utilize material from the 1619 Project and may not define American history as something other than the creation of a new nation based largely on universal principles stated in the Declaration of Independence. Instruction must include the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments.”

It explicitly bans any consideration of structural racism as illegitimate content. That’s neither factual nor objective.

ETA: my husband has occasionally (no, a lot) given me a hard time about my relocation lines in the sand but EVERYTHING happening now (that he remains largely blind to) is why I’ve imposed those restrictions. These folks have as their intent the government-enforced suppression of truth. When these ill-informed freshmen show up to colleges in two years, they’re gonna be read for filth. My junior is taking US history next year. My 8th grader is taking US history, 1865 to the present. Moving to FL with DH was absolutely out of the question.

Edited June 15, 2021 by Sneezyone

[Happy2BaMom]

32 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

ETA: my husband has occasionally (no, a lot) given me a hard time about my relocation lines in the sand but EVERYTHING happening now (that he remains largely blind to) is why I’ve imposed those restrictions. These folks have, as their intent, the government-enforced suppression of truth.

Side note: re: gov't suppression of truth......You might be interested in reading one of my favorite books, Dark Ages America, written by one of my favorite authors, Morris Berman. I don't care for the title, as I think it really does not summarize the book well - but editors often choose titles, not authors - so look past that. It was published in 2005, but I just finished reading it, for the 2nd time, last week and it feels as relevant as ever, especially his prescient conclusions.

I find it helpful because he provides a very-well-researched historical and cultural context for....well, where we find ourselves today, which is just a larger & worse version of where we were in 2005. He is unflinching in his look at the US (my favorite chapters concern the history of US involvement in the Middle East & the war with Iraq, because there was so much info in there I had never learned, even though I consider myself in general to be better educated on these topics than many), but his analysis is also complex and multi-faceted and he acknowledges the attributes that made the US great (those are not the focus of the book, tho, so today's conservatives would probably hate the book). I actually love most of his books. Very illuminating author and his works help keep me from beating my head against too many walls.

And I'm right there with you re: those relocation lines in the sand. It used to be the same between dh and me, but he's now seeing what I've been seeing for awhile, which helps.

Edited June 15, 2021 by Happy2BaMom

[Sneezyone]

23 minutes ago, Happy2BaMom said:

You might be interested in reading one of my favorite books, Dark Ages America, written by one of my favorite authors, Morris Berman. I don't care for the title, as I think it really does not summarize the book well - but editors often choose titles, not authors - so look past that. It was published in 2005, but I just finished reading it, for the 2nd time, last week and it feels as relevant as ever, especially his prescient conclusions.

I find it helpful because he provides a very-well-researched historical and cultural context for....well, where we find ourselves today, which is just a larger & worse version of where we were in 2005. He is unflinching in his look at the US (my favorite chapters concern the history of US involvement in the Middle East & the war with Iraq, because there was so much info in there I had never learned, even though I consider myself in general to be better educated on these topics than many), but his analysis is also complex and multi-faceted and he acknowledges the attributes that made the US great (those are not the focus of the book, tho, so today's conservatives would probably hate the book). I actually love most of his books. Very illuminating author.

Foreign policy is one of those areas where I feel so helpless because it’s given such short shrift in school. When I traveled overseas, people mentioned key events in which the US played a role, that affected their nations in significant ways, that I’d never heard of. Even as someone interested in these things, it made me feel like an idiot. We’re about to do that to huge swaths of kids.

Edited June 15, 2021 by Sneezyone

[Pam in CT]

re consistency of principles

10 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

...The Florida bill literally prevents the discussion of certain topics. How is that not "cancel culture?" How is this bill consistent with local control of public schools? 

Of course it isn't consistent with their proclaimed ideas of "small government" and of course concerns about "cancel culture" were largely dishonest. I know we're not supposed to admit that part out loud. Both sides and all...

I don't think that anyone has ever seriously believed that advocacy for "small government" or "local control," or opposition to "cancel culture" today, have ever been consistently applied as principles.  Talking points or rallying cries *perhaps.* 

But the application has ALWAYS been selectively specific to the issue at hand. Don't Tread on Me, but also... we need federal legislation prohibiting gay marriage / gay cake / contraceptive coverage / state level pollution controls / state level gun safety laws; and state laws that preclude private cruise ships from implementing COVID policies the governor objects to and etc.

 

(And perhaps that's how rhetorical principles always are, for everyone. Consistency is mighty hard.)

 

[Dmmetler]

I consider one of the best things we did in homeschooling to be that, during middle school years, I sourced high school textbooks, in English, from every country that I could find, and we read world history from that viewpoint. And yes, US texts were unusual because there was far less criticism and outright censure of beliefs and ideas. Even US high school texts that talked about events that have not held up to the test of time, like, say. The Trail of Tears mostly avoided censuring the actual people involved. In comparison, UK, Australian, Canadian, India, Singapore, South Africa, etc texts absolutely did point out that there were people who just plain were wrong and did bad things, and that some of them were leaders and officials. British history books, especially, were full of “well, this king was bad for this reason”. In a lot of ways, it was refreshing, because, after all, these countries that admit to having been under the leadership of less than ideal people who made decisions that are pretty appalling at times are still hanging in there and did pretty well. 

 

Much of what the 1619 project wanted included in US history was already there in texts from other countries. Both Canada and Australia, in particular, included a lot of detail on mistreatment of indigenous populations. South Africa had a LOT of discussion of Apartheid and the difficulties faced and problems made (and that one was significant in that, while most of the other texts I was able to source were designed for public schools and often published by government agencies or at least matched Government created syllabi and exams, the SA one I was able to get was explicitly for Christian schools). 
 

And, honestly, seeing what got covered of US history in other country’s World history textbooks was eye opening as well. Because it is really easy to get the impression, in US schools, that the whole world revolves around us, and that other countries are just sitting back waiting for us to do stuff. Nope. The entire US colonization and revolution rated about half a page in a UK history textbook, along with various other colonizations and revolutions. India was a lot more historically significant. Australian texts did a much better job of covering WWII, IMO, than the US ones. 
 

It was rather embarrassing to realize how little I knew. 

 

And, one thing I noted when we visited a municipal library in a suburb of Sydney that was pretty obviously designed for school reports and pleasure reading -it had a MUCH more detailed and in depth history section than I’m used to. In particular, the US history collection far outweighed what a good US university library would have on Australian history. 
 

It absolutely terrifies me that the answer in the US is that “kids are uncomfortable, so don’t talk about it at all”. Because going just by textbooks, a kid who is using a book published by Pearson or Holt is already getting a much more limited and glossed over view than one using one published by Cambridge or by the education office in Singapore or India. 
 

 

[Sneezyone]

7 minutes ago, Dmmetler said:

I consider one of the best things we did in homeschooling to be that, during middle school years, I sourced high school textbooks, in English, from every country that I could find, and we read world history from that viewpoint. And yes, US texts were unusual because there was far less criticism and outright censure of beliefs and ideas. Even US high school texts that talked about events that have not held up to the test of time, like, say. The Trail of Tears mostly avoided censuring the actual people involved. In comparison, UK, Australian, Canadian, India, Singapore, South Africa, etc texts absolutely did point out that there were people who just plain were wrong and did bad things, and that some of them were leaders and officials. British history books, especially, were full of “well, this king was bad for this reason”. In a lot of ways, it was refreshing, because, after all, these countries that admit to having been under the leadership of less than ideal people who made decisions that are pretty appalling at times are still hanging in there and did pretty well. 

 

Much of what the 1619 project wanted included in US history was already there in texts from other countries. Both Canada and Australia, in particular, included a lot of detail on mistreatment of indigenous populations. South Africa had a LOT of discussion of Apartheid and the difficulties faced and problems made (and that one was significant in that, while most of the other texts I was able to source were designed for public schools and often published by government agencies or at least matched Government created syllabi and exams, the SA one I was able to get was explicitly for Christian schools). 
 

And, honestly, seeing what got covered of US history in other country’s World history textbooks was eye opening as well. Because it is really easy to get the impression, in US schools, that the whole world revolves around us, and that other countries are just sitting back waiting for us to do stuff. Nope. The entire US colonization and revolution rated about half a page in a UK history textbook, along with various other colonizations and revolutions. India was a lot more historically significant. Australian texts did a much better job of covering WWII, IMO, than the US ones. 
 

It was rather embarrassing to realize how little I knew. 

 

And, one thing I noted when we visited a municipal library in a suburb of Sydney that was pretty obviously designed for school reports and pleasure reading -it had a MUCH more detailed and in depth history section than I’m used to. In particular, the US history collection far outweighed what a good US university library would have on Australian history. 
 

It absolutely terrifies me that the answer in the US is that “kids are uncomfortable, so don’t talk about it at all”. Because going just by textbooks, a kid who is using a book published by Pearson or Holt is already getting a much more limited and glossed over view than one using one published by Cambridge or by the education office in Singapore or India. 
 

 

That is a brilliant idea. I will see what I can find for my reader.

[Wheres Toto]

I wonder if some of these attempts to restrict what is taught are in response to the Millennials and later generations being so different from earlier ones.  They definitely aren't "rah rah USA", are much more liberal, much more likely to support BLM, etc.   I feel like all these attempts to tightly control what's taught in schools is an attempt to "raise them right" so they can get back to "the good old days".    I don't think that's going to (or should) happen, but it definitely seems like it's going to further divide the country since so many of these things seem to be happening down political lines.

We had a Fox News "Cancel Culture" moment here when people got all up in arms over a local school district removing holiday names from their calendar.  Evidently due to discord over Columbus Day versus Indigenous Person's Day (we have a lot of Italian Americans around here).   Schools are still closed the same days, they still talk about the holidays in school, kids are still allowed to tell their friends what they did on their days off (this seems to be people's objections, that the kids will be more insulated from people different than them if the holiday names don't appear on the calendar.  The calendar that 99% of the kids probably never see.).  It all seems ridiculous to me.

[Sneezyone]

27 minutes ago, Wheres Toto said:

I wonder if some of these attempts to restrict what is taught are in response to the Millennials and later generations being so different from earlier ones.  They definitely aren't "rah rah USA", are much more liberal, much more likely to support BLM, etc.   I feel like all these attempts to tightly control what's taught in schools is an attempt to "raise them right" so they can get back to "the good old days".    I don't think that's going to (or should) happen, but it definitely seems like it's going to further divide the country since so many of these things seem to be happening down political lines.

We had a Fox News "Cancel Culture" moment here when people got all up in arms over a local school district removing holiday names from their calendar.  Evidently due to discord over Columbus Day versus Indigenous Person's Day (we have a lot of Italian Americans around here).   Schools are still closed the same days, they still talk about the holidays in school, kids are still allowed to tell their friends what they did on their days off (this seems to be people's objections, that the kids will be more insulated from people different than them if the holiday names don't appear on the calendar.  The calendar that 99% of the kids probably never see.).  It all seems ridiculous to me.

This part. I don’t think it’s going to end well. My kids and their friends are much more grounded in a new, different America than me/ my parents. Their cohort is also bigger and growing. The tip off is Texas’s effort to discourage their participation in civic life, to prevent them from getting extra credit for registering to vote, learning the hows/whys of participation, engaging in making change. The thing is, that’s extremely short-sighted b/c we’re all gonna die!! The legislature is trying to leave them a state without an operations manual. 🤦🏽‍♀️

Edited June 15, 2021 by Sneezyone

[Sneezyone]

5 hours ago, Clemsondana said:

As some of y'all know, I don't participate in contentious discussion online (here or anywhere), although I often read so I know different thoughts about issues.  While reading elsewhere, I saw this...excerpt or description....from the TX bill that I thought might be useful for those of you who like to discuss these sorts of things.  I like sharing (and reading from other people who share) information, but online I tend to limit my opinions to nonpolitical educational issues.

'We will develop each student ’s civic knowledge, including an understanding of the history of white supremacy, the institution of slavery, the eugenics movement, and the Ku Klux Klan, and the ways in which it is morally wrong"

Do you have any context for this quote? A link? The law, currently on the Gov’s desk, doesn’t support this statement. How do you teach ‘morality’ to middle and high school students without discussion of the ways people have been sorted and marginalized? It’s ironic that this quote includes ‘civic knowledge’ too when the proposed law specifically discourages hands-on civic engagement.

Edited June 15, 2021 by Sneezyone

[Clemsondana]

23 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

Do you have any context for this quote? A link? The law, currently on the Gov’s desk, doesn’t support this statement. How do you teach ‘morality’ to middle and high school students without discussion of the ways people have been sorted and marginalized? It’s ironic that this quote includes ‘civic knowledge’ too when the proposed law specifically discourages hands-on civic engagement.

I read the quote in a discussion elsewhere, but when I searched it I came up with this...  https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/87R/billtext/html/HB03979E.htm