Jump to content

Menu

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


Fritz
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Sneezyone said:

what Rev. Sharpton calls latte liberals. I don’t agree with those people either. I’m definitely to their right. I just don’t think Seattle is representative of where most of America is or what’s happening in most of America (having lived there and many other places) and I don’t think it’s right or fair for extremes to define the terms of debate/discussion. By that measure, I could conjure up any number of really offensive racist activities, incidents, and assignments in schools, not just from the last five years, that demonstrate an absolute need for intervention. I find most training outfits kinda fly by night and a waste of professional development dollars, separate and apart from this issue. We’re not gonna get from a place where the blind are leasing the blind without removing the blinders tho.

Looping back to this to say that I heavily associate clunky CRT *with the latte liberals*.  

Latte liberals love to “do the work” and they love to lecture working class people of all racial backgrounds using language from academic and activist contexts that most people don’t understand.  They make it about individual actions rather than fixing systemic problems.  It’s the same approach to fighting racism that they use “to fight” climate change.  Drive their $50k electric vehicle to Whole Foods and use $10 reusable bags and $40 water bottles they keep losing so they have to rebuy them.  

A group of Seattle latte liberals who either didn’t want to pay private school tuition or didn’t have students getting accepted to Lakeside or whatever and didn’t want their kids bussed anywhere got themselves together and pushed the school district to open them a pretty small high school in a part of town that didn’t really need a new high school.  The high school they opened is ALL IN on critical theory.  My friend lived nearby sent her son who is on the spectrum there.  It was appealing because besides being close to their apartment, it was small and after being homeschooled K-8, a small high school seemed better than a big one.  At an assembly he inadvertently got himself labelled a racist by all of his peers because, in a loud assembly people were asked to stand if they agreed with this that or the other statements and he sat in the back, he didn’t hear well and wasn’t comfortable standing even if he had understood when to sit and when to stand.  The school itself is a product of systemic racism- the same parents who got it founded also got racial tiebreakers for school placement eliminated which drastically worsened segregation in Seattle schools.  But let’s have a series of assemblies with a pricey trainer to talk about power and oppression (completely ignoring that some of the content may not be accessible for all students) rather than allocate the full resources in this school district equitably.  My friend had to transfer her son elsewhere.  

It’s all about analyzing if Rosa Parks is the right kind of civil rights leader to name a school after (that is not hyperbolic though I seriously wish it were) rather than getting shit done to fix the real problems.  

We can say Seattle and SF and wherever are outliers but bullshit ideas I heard several or more years ago in Seattle do seem to have gained momentum and spread.  And why not?  Latte liberalism is a fantastic way for people to reassure themselves that they can be anti-racist all while not changing anything about their lives except ordering the right books and hammering the right signs into the lawns of their totally unaffordable neighborhoods.  People like easy.  So easy ideas do gain momentum.  

Edited by LucyStoner
  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Plum said:

The Jewish community is concerned about CA's AB-101 ethnic studies curriculum and requirements legislation I posted up thread. It's an example of how an entire group is against this curriculum and for valid reasons. The public school system and states may have good intentions but their follow-through is always a trainwreck and this isn't something that should be screwed up. 

 

 

SANTA CRUZ, California (Press Release) – More than a thousand Californians, including nearly 70 rabbis, today petitioned the California Legislative Jewish Caucus to oppose AB 101, a bill to make ethnic studies courses a high school graduation requirement. The California Assembly is likely to debate AB 101 next week.

Although AB 101 recommends that school districts use the Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum (ESMC) recently approved by the California State Board of Education, it allows for the use of any curriculum approved by local school boards, including the rejected antisemitic and anti-Zionist first-draft of ESMC. The first draft was opposed by 20,000 Californians, the vast majority of Jewish organizations, and the Jewish Caucus, which stated clearly that it would “marginalize Jewish students and fuel hatred and discrimination against the Jewish community.” Governor Gavin Newsom promised the original curriculum “would never see the light of day.”

Dear Members of the California Legislative Jewish Caucus,

Although there is still considerable disagreement in the Jewish community about the Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum (ESMC) recently approved by the State Board of Education, both in terms of its specific content and its Critical Ethnic Studies framework, that is not our primary concern now. Rather, we are profoundly alarmed that while AB 101 recommends school districts use the SBE-approved ESMC in developing courses that would fulfill the graduation requirement, it also allows the use of any curriculum “approved by the governing board of the school district,” even the inflammatory and overtly antisemitic first draft of the ESMC. For reasons that will be explained below, we believe that if AB 101 becomes law, many if not most school districts in the state will choose to adopt the discredited first ESMC draft — or an even more extreme version of it — in implementing the law, thereby forcing all public and charter high school students to take a course that will incite tremendous ethnic and racial division, bigotry and harm, especially for Jewish students.

If AB 101 becomes law, hundreds of districts will have to quickly decide which ethnic studies curriculum to adopt as the basis for the new requirement, and although the bill encourages adoption of the SBE-approved ESMC, we believe that many, if not most, districts will prefer the highly problematic “liberated” curriculum because of the overwhelming endorsement of the antisemitic first draft of the ESMC by teachers unions and the higher education community, as well as the successful efforts of those promoting the “liberated” curriculum to create pathways for teacher training and professional development using a Critical Ethnic Studies framework.

Despite claims that AB 101 contains safeguards to prevent ethnic studies courses from promoting “bias, bigotry and discrimination,” such language is simply a restatement of a statute in the CA Education Code that has been on the books for decades. And as we have seen from highly politicized ethnic studies classes taught at the college level, these so-called guardrails will do nothing to prevent a curriculum based in Critical Ethnic Studies — whether approved by the SBE or promoted by the Liberated group — from portraying Jews and Israel in anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist ways, and inciting animus and harm towards Jewish students.

Given that the Jewish community does not have the bandwidth to oppose the adoption of the antisemitic “liberated” curriculum in each of the hundreds of school districts where it is likely to be considered if AB 101 becomes law, we urge you to take the lead once again in opposing this dangerous bill. The safety and well-being of our children and our community depends on it.

 

AMCHA Director Tammi Rossman-Benjamin recently testified before the California Assembly Education Committee in opposition to AB 101, and AMCHA submitted a formal and comprehensive position letter to the committee. The letter details how and why any curriculum rooted in Critical Ethnic Studies can easily become a vehicle for inciting division and hate, including antisemitism, since the discipline portrays Jewish Americans as racially privileged oppressors and Israel as a white supremacist apartheid state. AMCHA also points out that the rejected curriculum and the state-approved model curriculum stand in stark contrast to what legislators intended when they approved the bill mandating the development of the curriculum, which calls for a non-political, multicultural approach to ethnic studies that would prepare students in one of the most ethnically diverse states in the nation “to be global citizens with an appreciation for the contributions of multiple cultures.”

https://www.sdjewishworld.com/2021/05/20/advocates-petition-against-california-ethnic-studies-bill/

I realize that they claimed to represent the "Jewish community" but there is no monolithic group that constitutes the "Jewish community." There are many interesting discussions that can be had about the "white-ness" of Jews in America. Plenty of scholars are looking into this and having these discussions. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Plum said:

Yes. With thousands of comments, serious debates, multiple rewrites and loads of controversy, it passed. Unfortunately, everything the Jewish community addressed seems to be coming true. 

"A half dozen members of the advisory group behind the first draft have joined others to create their own organization, the Liberated Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum Coalition, to promote what they consider the purer version of ethnic studies to school districts in California." 

And this was removed from the final draft:

“Engaging topics on race, class, gender, oppression, etc., may evoke feelings of vulnerability, uneasiness, sadness, guilt, helplessness, or discomfort, for students not previously exposed to explicit conversations about these topics.” 

 

 

I'm not Jewish but please just stop with the "Jewish community" thing. It actually lends  credence to @Sneezyone's responses to you. It says so much about where you're coming from. I don't mean that sound offensive even though I know it does. 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, HeartString said:

Wow.  This is horrendous.  We need an investigation, both on the individual level of these appraisers and lenders involved here and on a large scale check on the industry.  The link indicates an HUD investigation into the complaint, but that seems insufficient.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Danae said:

And why is it that black families are less likely to have a biological father in the home?  Might historical patterns of racial disparities in policing and sentencing have a lot to do with it?  You can’t say it’s not racism because it correlates with this other thing without asking how the other thing is affected by racism.

Some sociologists attribute it to the way 1970s welfare policy was structured to disallow payments and services to families with men in the home.  

When my parents were struggling and applied for food stamps in the early 80s, my mom was told, to her face by the social worker, to kick my dad out the front door and let him in the back door. 

Welfare policy is a valid part of a multi-factor examination of why this has come to pass but it’s one that is generally taboo on the left to discuss.  Poor families of all races tend to be more likely to be headed by single parents.  The book “Promises I Can Keep” explores why women living in poverty choose to have babies when they aren’t married or in stable long term partnerships.  It’s written from a progressive perspective and is very well done.  Another factor is the shifting of our economy so that there are fewer jobs that can support a family which do not require a college degree.  Criminal justice issues are also important to consider.  

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Condessa said:

Wow.  This is horrendous.  We need an investigation, both on the individual level of these appraisers and lenders involved here and on a large scale check on the industry.  The link indicates an HUD investigation into the complaint, but that seems insufficient.

I’m 99% sure that absolutely nothing will happen. This is one of a half dozen or more stories exactly like that appraisal story that I’ve heard in the last 3 months or so.  Excuses will be made, “but we aren’t racist” magic words will be said and the story will fade.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Plum said:

Yes. With thousands of comments, serious debates, multiple rewrites and loads of controversy, it passed. Unfortunately, everything the Jewish community addressed seems to be coming true. 

"A half dozen members of the advisory group behind the first draft have joined others to create their own organization, the Liberated Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum Coalition, to promote what they consider the purer version of ethnic studies to school districts in California." 

And this was removed from the final draft:

“Engaging topics on race, class, gender, oppression, etc., may evoke feelings of vulnerability, uneasiness, sadness, guilt, helplessness, or discomfort, for students not previously exposed to explicit conversations about these topics.”  - and this is for grades 9-12

 

 

Isn’t that how policy SHOULD be made? Again, what part of that democratic process is offensive to you and how would you like it to change?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Plum said:

Holy crap! The California Legislative Jewish Caucus isn't enough? 70 Rabbis? And I'm not even going to address how racist questioning the "white-ness" of Jews in America sounds. 🤮

Alright let's do this. 

There is no monolithic Jewish community where all Jewish people agree on everything. There just isn't. It doesn't matter how many rabbis signed it. There are rabbis who disagree. It's anti-semitic to suggest that all Jewish people agree about everything. What's the next step here? Who's Jewish enough? I know how that goes. The group that agrees with us is the right kind of Jewish. 

Here's a tweet from another Jewish rabbi. 

 

What "Jewish community?" 

Why do you immediately assume it's racist to suggest that Jewish people (and this is a very diverse group, BTW) aren't white? 

How Jews Became White Folks and What That Says about Race in America

There are all kinds of discussions that can be had about race in America and how ethnic groups were incorporated into "white-ness." 

How the Irish Became White

You are reacting to something without actually understanding the complex history of race in this country. You're googling and finding sources online that agree with you. I'm sure the "Jewish community" link felt like a win. The way that you're going about this actually proves that you don't understand. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Plum said:

Guess what. I didn't say they ALL agree on anything. They wrote that letter. They got together and signed it. I'm just reporting what they said. I barely made my own commentary. I also don't think all Christians or Catholics or X agree on everything. 

 

You used the term "Jewish community" twice and represented it as a concern of all Jewish people. 

Finding gotcha links online doesn't indicate that you're actually listening to people. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, HeartString said:

(Edit)Gun permits are acceptable ID but not tribal cards.  Make that make sense. 

Okay, I was confused because I was off searching for anything referencing NRA IDs with voting, but I see you edited this.

So in this article concerning North Dakota, government IDs for voting purposes have to include residence address or be accompanied by supplemental documentation of residence or documentation obtained from their county 911 coordinator to show residence for homeless and others who don’t have other documentation for whatever reason.  Tribal ID was accepted, but residents who hadn’t yet obtained the newer tribal IDs which had addresses on them had to bring the additional paperwork.  I don’t really see why a government ID that meets the requirements shouldn’t be acceptable, whether or not it is related to gun ownership.  https://www.npr.org/2018/10/13/657125819/many-native-ids-wont-be-accepted-at-north-dakota-polling-places 

Showing residence in the state where one is voting doesn’t seem like an extremely far-out measure in a bill intended to reinforce voter confidence in the system to prevent voting fraud.  But it really seems like the state government should have done more to help with rushing the new ID turnover once everyone knew the bill wasn’t going to be overturned.  Even if everyone knew about the bill for years beforehand, the fact that it only went through weeks before the general election seems to put a greater burden on the state government to assist tribal governments with the strain on their systems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, stripe said:

I don’t know about NRA cards, but gun permits are allowed in Texas but not state university student IDs.

Here is an article explaining why IDs can be hard for some people to obtain. It sites over 600,000 registered voters in Texas alone who don’t have the required ID. It also says 11% of Americans have no photo ID.

As a Texas voter I find this a bit ridiculous about photo ID.  You do not need a photo ID to vote, since you get a non-photo ID card that is color coded to the election cycle in the mail that is perfectly acceptable voting id.  I’ve used it myself, several times.  You just need to keep your address updated (which isn’t overburdensome since your address is what is used to determine eligibility to vote in certain elections) and most people do it when they change address at the post office.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Plum said:

I used Jewish community in the context of a link from a Jewish website about a letter they wrote where they were concerned about anti-Semitism being a result of CA's ethnic studies legislation which includes CRT. That is absolutely relevant. 

I was only pointing out the phrase isn't taboo as you implied. You were assuming a lot. 

When people show you who they are, believe them. And before you are offended, I'm not that different from you. We're both the product of American society that privileged us because of our race. It doesn't even make us bad people. But what's us better people is listening to African Americans. And not just those African Americans who validate what we already believe. 

Did you read the article from the Root? 

Race is uncomfortable to discuss. It should be uncomfortable for us. If it's not uncomfortable, then we're not discussing it honestly. 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, HeartString said:

Why do black people need to bring water to vote in the first place?  Fewer polling places. 
https://www.npr.org/2020/10/17/924527679/why-do-nonwhite-georgia-voters-have-to-wait-in-line-for-hours-too-few-polling-pl

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/mar/02/texas-polling-sites-closures-voting

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/1774221002
Counties with larger minority populations – most of them the urban centers of large metropolitan areas – were left with fewer polling sites and poll workers per active voter,

Okay, but is that because of racist policies, or is that because states plan where to position polling stations based on distances voters have to travel as well as on polling stations per capita?  And like you said, urban centers with higher population numbers tend to have larger minority populations.  That right there might be related to the generational wealth gap that is a long-term effect of racist policies of the past.  And perhaps we need to take a long, hard look at what should be done to try to correct those long-term effects trickling down through the generations.  
 

But does it follow that it is racist to position polling stations considering distances required to travel vs. solely on population numbers?  I mean, if someone wanted to, they could write an article showing that statistically, counties with larger Republican populations — most of them rural areas — required voters to travel significantly larger distances on average to be able to exercise their voting rights.  It would be mathematically accurate and could be painted as discriminatory against certain voters, but we would all recognize it as hogwash.  Because placing polling stations solely based on travel times would be just as unreasonable as placing them solely based on population numbers.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Plum said:

I thought you were questioning who else besides a few moms in Cupertino is opposed to these studies? The democratic process isn't offensive to me. I'm saying they had legit fears and were ignored. 

Umm, no, I’m questioning why we should let outliers be the driving force for policy. Listening to complaints isn’t an issue to me, neither is addressing them. I just totally disagree that we should have outliers centered in the discussion.

Edited by Sneezyone
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Condessa said:

Okay, but is that because of racist policies, or is that because states plan where to position polling stations based on distances voters have to travel as well as on polling stations per capita?  And like you said, urban centers with higher population numbers tend to have larger minority populations.  That right there might be related to the generational wealth gap that is a long-term effect of racist policies of the past.  And perhaps we need to take a long, hard look at what should be done to try to correct those long-term effects trickling down through the generations.  
 

But does it follow that it is racist to position polling stations considering distances required to travel vs. solely on population numbers?  I mean, if someone wanted to, they could write an article showing that statistically, counties with larger Republican populations — most of them rural areas — required voters to travel significantly larger distances on average to be able to exercise their voting rights.  It would be mathematically accurate and could be painted as discriminatory against certain voters, but we would all recognize it as hogwash.  Because placing polling stations solely based on travel times would be just as unreasonable as placing them solely based on population numbers.

Oh I’m sure it has nothing to do with which who lives in those locations, or how they are likely to vote.  I’m sure it’s just a coincidence.  There’s bound to be a perfectly logical explanation for why they could have polling places in certain locations during one voting cycle but not the next. Nothing to see here folks.  Just toss it up there on the stack of perfectly reasonable coincidences.  Yep…waaay up there.  Golly, it’s a big stack.  But I’m sure there’s a perfectly logical explanation for that too…

 

 

If only 1 party hadn’t admitted that when more people vote they lose, admitting they were trying to make it harder for people to vote. 

Edited by HeartString
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, HeartString said:

Minority school get $23 BILLION less in funding yearly.  
 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/1774221002
The researchers at EdBuild calculated that racially concentrated non-white districts receive, on average, only $11,682 of funding per student, in comparison to $13,908 for racially concentrated, white districts. Collectively, this means that, as EdBuild notes, "nonwhite school districts receive $23 billion less than white districts, despite serving the same number of students."

Because significant portions of school funding come from local taxation, and again, there’s the generational wealth gap that is a large contributing factor to having disproportionate numbers of minority students in lower income school districts.  Also, rates of single motherhood are very strongly correlated with poverty rates.  But rather than call the schools racist, why don’t we address the root causes of this disparity?

This could be done by trying to address minority poverty directly, or by changing the school funding system to no longer be linked to local taxes.  There would be major uproar, but it could be done.  However, this wouldn’t bring about equity of school funding totally, because parents still donate to their children’s schools. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Plum said:

Yes. I've read all sides as I've said before. Have you followed my journey at all? I know you want to assign motives to me. I'm only trying to get to the truth. One way to do that is to see how and where it's being legislated, who is fighting against it and why. 

I don't have Twitter so I didn't read the thread. 

I get race is uncomfortable to discuss. This isn't just about race. CRT has been intertwined with identity programs. It's not just 9-12, it's K-12. There are college programs that struggle with this. 

No, I don't think I've followed your journey. I haven't read everything that you've written on this forum. I'm sorry if it seems like I'm trying to assign motives to you. 

You can click on the Twitter link even if you do not have Twitter. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Condessa said:

Okay, but is that because of racist policies, or is that because states plan where to position polling stations based on distances voters have to travel as well as on polling stations per capita?  And like you said, urban centers with higher population numbers tend to have larger minority populations.  That right there might be related to the generational wealth gap that is a long-term effect of racist policies of the past.  And perhaps we need to take a long, hard look at what should be done to try to correct those long-term effects trickling down through the generations.  
 

But does it follow that it is racist to position polling stations considering distances required to travel vs. solely on population numbers?  I mean, if someone wanted to, they could write an article showing that statistically, counties with larger Republican populations — most of them rural areas — required voters to travel significantly larger distances on average to be able to exercise their voting rights.  It would be mathematically accurate and could be painted as discriminatory against certain voters, but we would all recognize it as hogwash.  Because placing polling stations solely based on travel times would be just as unreasonable as placing them solely based on population numbers.

Are there rural places where every small town doesn’t have a polling place? I grew up in the rural Midwest and my mom was a poll worker for many, many years. Every small town in our rural county had a polling station. So people would come to town to vote just like they came to town for everything else (church, groceries, banking, etc). 
 

I think the focus is on whether or not policies and laws have a disparate racial outcome. They may not have been designed to be racist (although it’s pretty clear in some cases they are), but that doesn’t mean they don’t disproportionally disenfranchise certain groups. All of the evidence pretty overwhelming shows that voter disenfranchisement is a much larger issue than voter fraud. Of course it’s understandable why some people want to ignore the research and claim otherwise given who is generally being disenfranchised and which direction they generally tend to vote.

It is puzzling to me though why some want to straight up lie and claim massive fraud where it does not exist and undermine one of the bedrocks of our democracy, all the while claiming to be the true patriots who love our country.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Condessa said:

Because significant portions of school funding come from local taxation, and again, there’s the generational wealth gap that is a large contributing factor to having disproportionate numbers of minority students in lower income school districts.  Also, rates of single motherhood are very strongly correlated with poverty rates.  But rather than call the schools racist, why don’t we address the root causes of this disparity?

This could be done by trying to address minority poverty directly, or by changing the school funding system to no longer be linked to local taxes.  There would be major uproar, but it could be done.  However, this wouldn’t bring about equity of school funding totally, because parents still donate to their children’s schools. 

You’ve picked apart every link I provided.  You’ve definitely proven that there are no systems in this country that are even inadvertently racist.  Boy am I relieved. 

Edited by HeartString
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Condessa said:

Because significant portions of school funding come from local taxation, and again, there’s the generational wealth gap that is a large contributing factor to having disproportionate numbers of minority students in lower income school districts.  Also, rates of single motherhood are very strongly correlated with poverty rates.  But rather than call the schools racist, why don’t we address the root causes of this disparity?

This could be done by trying to address minority poverty directly, or by changing the school funding system to no longer be linked to local taxes.  There would be major uproar, but it could be done.  However, this wouldn’t bring about equity of school funding totally, because parents still donate to their children’s schools. 

I don’t think people are necessarily calling the schools racist. Rather, they are saying that certain policies or laws have disparate results based on race (or poverty) and/or are discriminatory. I think when people jump to claiming they are being called racist they are the ones generally trying to deflect from the real issues and concerns.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am all for voting rights.  The biggest reason that states can pull the crap they are pulling right now is that the SCOTUS overturned the enforcement provisions of the Voting Rights Act.  That said, the idea that high turnout means Democrats will absolutely win (an idea that I have help close to my heart as an active Democrat) was not borne out this last fall.  The Democrats had very middling results in the house and senate even in states that very much went for Biden.  We can talk districting and voter suppression.  We can also talk, and need to talk, about why it was that so many people weren't moved to support down ballot Democrats.  Most of the election postmortems that I saw weren't very honest about the deficits in Democratic strategy.  I honestly don't think that in the absence of the pandemic, Biden would have won.  I don't like that (not one little bit) but I think it's true.  

ETA: In my state, two congressional races I think could be made competitive if the Democrats focused on issues once again re-elected Republicans.  Right wing gerrymandering or voter suppression is certainly NOT an issue here (we have motor voter and all mail in voting here) so the issue is that Democrats are losing on the message, even with astoundingly high voter turnout.  

 

Edited by LucyStoner
  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Plum said:

The Jewish community is concerned about CA's AB-101 ethnic studies curriculum and requirements legislation I posted up thread. It's an example of how an entire group is against this curriculum and for valid reasons. The public school system and states may have good intentions but their follow-through is always a trainwreck and this isn't something that should be screwed up. 

 

Honestly, this is true about just about any curriculum change in public schools. We've seen it with math instruction, reading instruction, and all kinds of things. For some reason I can't figure out, schools seem to be terrible at being able to recognize what curriculum actually have good research base to support them, and they are forever adopting awful programs. One of the reasons I didn't feel like our public schools were even an option for us was Everyday Math and sight reading curriculum. So, it certainly doesn't surprise me that schools are not doing a good job with this. I don't think throwing the baby out with the bathwater by just deciding we won't address race issues in schools is a solution. As I've said, that viewpoint takes a "white" view as the default.

8 minutes ago, Plum said:

I don't have Twitter so I didn't read the thread.

I don't have a Twitter account either, but all that means is I can't follow accounts or comment. You can still read whatever you want on Twitter (unless someone has a private account, but I almost never run into that). When a Twitter link is posted on TWTM, for some reason I find I usually have to ctrl-click on the date and open in a new tab in order to view it. Maybe that's just me.

6 minutes ago, Condessa said:

Because significant portions of school funding come from local taxation, and again, there’s the generational wealth gap that is a large contributing factor to having disproportionate numbers of minority students in lower income school districts.  Also, rates of single motherhood are very strongly correlated with poverty rates.  But rather than call the schools racist, why don’t we address the root causes of this disparity?

The funny thing is, I've been finding the majority of all your examples you've been posting are actually very good examples of structural racism, and the kind of things that should be taught in schools. Pointing out structural racism isn't the same thing as calling schools or individuals racist. Not recognizing it makes it almost impossible to fix. I agree with whoever said in this thread or another that it would be better to call what we're talking about structural racism than CRT. CRT has become a trigger word applied to a lot of things that aren't even about CRT (by design to get a reaction) to the point it seems unhelpful at this time. It's been co-opted.

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, stripe said:

North Dakota did not allow tribal IDs in 2018. Supreme Court refused to hear the case.

https://www.npr.org/2018/10/13/657125819/many-native-ids-wont-be-accepted-at-north-dakota-polling-places

Yes they did, according to your own link.  
They had to either have the newer Tribal IDs or use their Tribal ID plus additional documentation to show residency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, LucyStoner said:

I am all for voting rights.  The biggest reason that states can pull the crap they are pulling right now is that the SCOTUS overturned the enforcement provisions of the Voting Rights Act.  That said, the idea that high turnout means Democrats will absolutely win (an idea that I have help close to my heart as an active Democrat) was not borne out this last fall.  The Democrats had very middling results in the house and senate even in states that very much went for Biden.  We can talk districting and voter suppression.  We can also talk, and need to talk, about why it was that so many people weren't moved to support down ballot Democrats.  Most of the election postmortems that I saw weren't very honest about the deficits in Democratic strategy.  I honestly don't think that in the absence of the pandemic, Biden would have won.  I don't like that (not one little bit) but I think it's true.  

 

I agree.  I do think voting access and gerrymandering and such have a bigger impact on the outcome in the states than on the federal level.  Is it WI where Dens got 54% of the vote for state legislature but got 48% of the seats?  Here’s a good article about it.  https://www.google.com/amp/s/madison.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/2020-election-again-shows-lopsided-republican-legislative-maps/article_d0c11425-df16-5d0b-a3e8-4954e7897652.amp.html

But even if Dems lose, voting access is important because it’s right.  

Edited by HeartString
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, stripe said:

Here’s one — two black girls were declared valedictorian and salutatorian of their high school. They had high GPAs due to AP and Honors courses. Parents, including from the main family in town, who are white, insisted the handbook did not include the extra points in calculating valedictorian/salutatorian, and pressured the school to install two other (white) kids as well., who had the same UNweighted GPA but a lower weighted GPA. This is in Mississippi, where other young black women have sued, alleging their schools are calculating erroneously and this excluding them as valedictorians.

I wish I could read this article, but it’s behind a paywall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Frances said:

I’m sure you understand that a policy or law does not have to be straight up racist in order for it to result in disparate outcomes based on race? Here are just two articles with links to others articles and studies. There is much, much more out there on this topic if you are interested.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/07/poll-prri-voter-suppression/565355/

https://www.businessinsider.com/why-black-americans-still-face-obstacles-to-voting-at-every-step-2020-6

Most definitely.  And when a policy or law results in disparate outcomes, we need to look into why that is, and what can be done about it.  I think that searching out root causes and addressing those is far more useful, and more truthful, than making vague generalized claims such as “The construct of White is legally favored by law, health care policy, education practices, policing and voting, commercial banking, real estate and lending, non-profit organization, environmental policies, and every other social scaffold” and using this to justify teaching school kids to divide themselves into oppressor/oppressed classes.

Edited by Condessa
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Plum said:

Tried that. I keep getting a log in screen. I think I had it at one point so I could read something. 🤷‍♀️ I'm on Chrome on my pc. Ahh worked on my phone. 

 

If I just go to Twitter.com, I am on a login screen that I can’t do anything with. I always get there via a link. Either a link to something someone has shared, or a link I have bookmarked to a curated list I like to follow. From there, I can use the search function or whatever else.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sdel said:

As a Texas voter I find this a bit ridiculous about photo ID.  You do not need a photo ID to vote, since you get a non-photo ID card that is color coded to the election cycle in the mail that is perfectly acceptable voting id.  I’ve used it myself, several times.  You just need to keep your address updated (which isn’t overburdensome since your address is what is used to determine eligibility to vote in certain elections) and most people do it when they change address at the post office.

I am always asked for photo ID when I vote. In Texas. While Black. Yes, I also have my unexpired Voter ID card, but I am still asked for it. 

  • Like 3
  • Sad 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Plum said:

What Nevada’s growing Jewish community loves about living Jewishly in the desert

https://www.timesofisrael.com/what-nevadas-growing-jewish-community-loves-about-living-jewishly-in-the-desert/

This rabbi wants Jewish community involved in battles for social justice

https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/this-rabbi-wants-jewish-community-involved-in-battles-for-social-justice-670738

Shall I go on? 

This seriously reminds me of my relative lecturing me for using the word Hispanic and that the correct term was Latinx.  Some members of the left have ideas about group terminology that doesn’t actually consult members of the group.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Condessa said:

Most definitely.  And when a policy or law results in disparate outcomes, we need to look into why that is, and what can be done about it.  I think that searching out root causes and addressing those is far more useful, and more truthful, than making vague generalized claims such as “The construct of White is legally favored by law, health care policy, education practices, policing and voting, commercial banking, real estate and lending, non-profit organization, environmental policies, and every other social scaffold” and using this to justify teaching school kids to divide themselves into oppressor/oppressed classes.

In order for people to both be willing to look at disparate outcomes and work towards solutions, people have to want to follow the facts and research and acknowledge problems and be open to working towards solutions. I’m not entirely sure of the best way to do that, but I do think the local control aspect of our education system can result in students graduating woefully unaware of both such historical  and current issues. While I generally agree with your last statement, I think one must also admit that there is a not insignificant number of people out there who want to deny there are any disparate policies or laws and are even actively working to make more of them. It’s not at all surprising given our country is becoming more diverse in multiple ways and some in the long dominant groups are feeling threatened and uncomfortable with the changes. Change is hard.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Condessa said:

This seriously reminds me of my relative lecturing me for using the word Hispanic and that the correct term was Latinx.  Some members of the left have ideas about group terminology that doesn’t actually consult members of the group.

In general I think there is too much diversity within these groups for anyone to claim to speak for the entire group. When I asked two people very close to me the  term they preferred, they said they had never thought about it and did not care at all. I’m pretty sure I could have asked two other people and got exactly the opposite answer, that they cared very much and this is the correct term. I do think people on both sides can error though. For instance, refusing to use a preferred term in a particular case because they disagree or don’t think it is important.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's something about the conversation that's so puzzling to me, and that's the rhetorical leap from 'concerns about CRT training in schools' to 'people are denying racism exists and just trying to hold on to power with their white/Jewish/Asian hands.'

It really is possible to hold two thoughts in one's head: that racism and racists exist, including in systemic ways, and that it's OK to listen to critiques of how CRT inspired ideas are manifesting in schools. 

As a feminist, I had to get my head around the idea that critiquing manifestations of  patriarchy really has very little to do with individuals in front of me.

Are there men with immense power? Sure. Are most men and boys around me drenched in patriarchal power?

Well, not so much, and when you see the disadvantage some of them deal with by virtue of class, family dysfunction, disability, homelessness - yes, in a highly theoretical way they possess 'power', but in material terms, what does it mean?

Again, it's possible to believe two things. Racism exists. It damages. AND in a school setting, students must be seen as individuals, not as representatives of their identity class (es).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 9
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Danae said:

And why is it that black families are less likely to have a biological father in the home?  Might historical patterns of racial disparities in policing and sentencing have a lot to do with it?  You can’t say it’s not racism because it correlates with this other thing without asking how the other thing is affected by racism.

 

3 hours ago, LucyStoner said:

Some sociologists attribute it to the way 1970s welfare policy was structured to disallow payments and services to families with men in the home.  

When my parents were struggling and applied for food stamps in the early 80s, my mom was told, to her face by the social worker, to kick my dad out the front door and let him in the back door. 

Welfare policy is a valid part of a multi-factor examination of why this has come to pass but it’s one that is generally taboo on the left to discuss.  Poor families of all races tend to be more likely to be headed by single parents.  The book “Promises I Can Keep” explores why women living in poverty choose to have babies when they aren’t married or in stable long term partnerships.  It’s written from a progressive perspective and is very well done.  Another factor is the shifting of our economy so that there are fewer jobs that can support a family which do not require a college degree.  Criminal justice issues are also important to consider.  

image.gif.09958a40c1581d3f703601c9664046fd.gif
Data from Centers for Disease Control, National Center for Health Statistics
https://www.heritage.org/poverty-and-inequality/report/marriage-americas-greatest-weapon-against-child-poverty-0#_ftnref13

 

It seems likely that a factor in the disparity goes back to slavery and its destruction of Black marriages and families.  How many newly-freed Black Americans at the time of abolition had had their families broken, or never had a nuclear family because of the rape of slaveowners?  We know that children growing up without intact families are statistically less likely to have an intact family structure as an adult.

This doesn’t tell the whole story, though.  75.5% of Black babies were born to married parents in 1964, which dropped to 40.7% in 1976.  (The War on Poverty welfare reform was in the 60s).  It has continued to fall and was at 27.6% in 2008.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ‘rhetorical leap’ is there because many, not all, of the people expressing ‘concerns’ do not want race or structural racism or any consideration of privilege to be part of public education. Full stop. They disingenuously use ‘concerns’ about specific incidents to advance that cause—not the cause of reform, or modification, or improvement, but blissful ignorance. Those concerns are selected by provocateurs and broadly disseminated through a web of like-minded media outlets, bloggers and drone social media accounts. It is a very effective way to disguise both the intent of the amplifiers and the scope/breadth of any problem.

Edited by Sneezyone
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

There's something about the conversation that's so puzzling to me, and that's the rhetorical leap from 'concerns about CRT training in schools' to 'people are denying racism exists and just trying to hold on to power with their white/Jewish/Asian hands.'

It really is possible to hold two thoughts in one's head: that racism and racists exist, including in systemic ways, and that it's OK to listen to critiques of how CRT inspired ideas are manifesting in schools. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is it also possible to hold a third thought at the same time? That some people  actively deny that structural racism exists and/or want to purposely steer the conversation to one extreme for political purposes and to fan the flames of the cultural wars? I’m not saying anyone on this thread is doing so, but certainly there are many leaders and media sources who do so to their benefit.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Frances said:

Is it also possible to hold a third thought at the same time? That some people  actively deny that structural racism exists and/or want to purposely steer the conversation to one extreme for political purposes and to fan the flames of the cultural wars? I’m not saying anyone on this thread is doing so, but certainly there are many leaders and media sources who do so to their benefit.

Sure. It's how the media landscape works, for one thing. Outrage = clicks. 

But here's a fourth thought - my ideological opponent may weaponise an issue. That doesn't mean the issue is illusory. 

Look, I'm largely sympathetic to CRT. The home education I gave my kids was roughly in alignment with CRT principles. 

But in school? I'm sorry, but I cannot effectively teach small children while considering them as 'holding power'. I can consider what it means to be teacher literally holding all power in a room where children are not all like me, and that's appropriate as part of professional development. 

I'm thinking through  my own objections, and ironically, it has something to do with power and who holds it. I feel as if focusing on student identities is a magician's trick - look over here at the functionally powerless while the functionally powerful (admin and above) do....nothing that threatens their pay/position/status. 

 

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

Sure. It's how the media landscape works, for one thing. Outrage = clicks. 

But here's a fourth thought - my ideological opponent may weaponise an issue. That doesn't mean the issue is illusory. 

Look, I'm largely sympathetic to CRT. The home education I gave my kids was roughly in alignment with CRT principles. 

But in school? I'm sorry, but I cannot effectively teach small children while considering them as 'holding power'. I can consider what it means to be teacher literally holding all power in a room where children are not all like me, and that's appropriate as part of professional development. 

I'm thinking through  my own objections, and ironically, it has something to do with power and who holds it. I feel as if focusing on student identities is a magician's trick - look over here at the functionally powerless while the functionally powerful (admin and above) do....nothing that threatens their pay/position/status. 

 

I actually agree with this. Sadly, the criticisms don’t address this issue at all. Privilege=power in my mind, a position of authority. The opportunity to consider that, whether in the classroom or in a professional development setting, is foreclosed by legislative bans on something that is still, at least as applied in schools, ill-defined.

Edited by Sneezyone
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

When people show you who they are, believe them. And before you are offended, I'm not that different from you. We're both the product of American society that privileged us because of our race. It doesn't even make us bad people. But what's us better people is listening to African Americans. And not just those African Americans who validate what we already believe. 

Did you read the article from the Root? 

Race is uncomfortable to discuss. It should be uncomfortable for us. If it's not uncomfortable, then we're not discussing it honestly. 

 

It's honestly not difficult to discuss racism (historical or current) at all. 

This is another rhetorical claim I see, but really, is it? 

 

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sneezyone said:

I actually agree with this. Sadly, the criticisms don’t address this issue at all. Privilege=power in my mind, a position of authority. The opportunity to consider that, whether in the classroom or in a professional development setting, is foreclosed by legislative bans on something that is still, at least as applied in schools, ill-defined.

Oh, I'm not in favor of the bans. 

I'm not sure that authority neatly maps on privilege. When I have six students sitting in front of me, yes, I have authority, but for me I frame that as a responsibility, rather than a privilege. 

And WOC executive staff in our school hold authority, but to what extent are they privileged by it?

Idk. Schools are messy and challenging places, complicated by their compulsory nature. Things I did at home don't necessarily translate to that context. 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Melissa Louise said:

Oh, I'm not in favor of the bans. 

I'm not sure that authority neatly maps on privilege. When I have six students sitting in front of me, yes, I have authority, but for me I frame that as a responsibility, rather than a privilege. 

And WOC executive staff in our school hold authority, but to what extent are they privileged by it?

Idk. Schools are messy and challenging places, complicated by their compulsory nature. Things I did at home don't necessarily translate to that context. 

 

 

 

 

 

I don’t think it’s a perfect overlap but it’s a consideration that, for me, has merit, especially when talking about the youngest kids. For me, it may have other meaning but it might ensure teachers consider the power they have to recommend (or not) some students over others for advanced learning programs, and withhold support from ‘troublesome’ students for behavioral/attitude vs. performance/capacity reasons. My experience tells me that power and privilege intersect but aren’t perfectly correlated.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

I don’t think it’s a perfect overlap but it’s a consideration that, for me, has merit, especially when talking about the youngest kids. For me, it may have other meaning but it might ensure teachers consider the power they have to recommend (or not) some students over others for advanced learning programs, and withhold support from ‘troublesome’ students for behavioral/attitude vs. performance/capacity reasons. My experience tells me that power and privilege intersect but aren’t perfectly correlated.

Ok. So this is interesting. Because to me the above is part of ongoing professional reflection, and I guess I'm assuming that most educators do it. But maybe they don't. 

By reflection I mean in the moment noting one's own preferences/choices in regard to students, and then later, critiquing those choices. 

So for example, I noted a bias towards girls in my interactions, and have worked on establishing the same kind of personal relationships with the boys.  I also noticed at the beginning of the year I had less trouble remembering white names, so I focused on learning the names of my Asian students. I tend to have a positive bias towards the mixed race kids, because they remind me of my own kids. I have to monitor that in myself and make sure my interactions are consistent across white/mixed cohorts. 

I can 100% see a role for training at staff level in how to do reflection ( I learned it in an Effective Education class that wasn't part of an undergrad teaching degree). 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

Ok. So this is interesting. Because to me the above is part of ongoing professional reflection, and I guess I'm assuming that most educators do it. But maybe they don't. 

By reflection I mean in the moment noting one's own preferences/choices in regard to students, and then later, critiquing those choices. 

So for example, I noted a bias towards girls in my interactions, and have worked on establishing the same kind of personal relationships with the boys.  I also noticed at the beginning of the year I had less trouble remembering white names, so I focused on learning the names of my Asian students. I tend to have a positive bias towards the mixed race kids, because they remind me of my own kids. I have to monitor that in myself and make sure my interactions are consistent across white/mixed cohorts. 

I can 100% see a role for training at staff level in how to do reflection ( I learned it in an Effective Education class that wasn't part of an undergrad teaching degree). 

 

 

 

 

I appreciate you’re doing that, seriously. That hasn’t been my experience with most teachers at all, most recently with DD this semester.
 

There are teachers who deliberately make up their own Americanized names for students vs. learning their true name when it’s offered and pronounced, not because they’re asked to come up with a diminutive/alternative (sometimes the student or parent will ask for one) but because it’s easier for the teacher. Teachers who see a kid struggling and presume there’s some family issue/no parental involvement vs. a specific learning challenge. We have lawsuits from teachers who don’t want to be forced to call students by their preferred names, teachers who are so upset by the prospect of thinking through the very things you described who are rallying to the anti-CRT cause. It’s all become of a piece, part of a larger campaign to lead the unexamined life. Teaching is hard. We ask a lot, often too much, administratively but this kind of stuff is to my mind the MOST important part. A lot of academic disparities are driven not just by wealth and language acquisition but by the unexamined ‘little’ things that happen everyday.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Frances said:

Are there rural places where every small town doesn’t have a polling place? I grew up in the rural Midwest and my mom was a poll worker for many, many years. Every small town in our rural county had a polling station. So people would come to town to vote just like they came to town for everything else (church, groceries, banking, etc). 
 

I think the focus is on whether or not policies and laws have a disparate racial outcome. They may not have been designed to be racist (although it’s pretty clear in some cases they are), but that doesn’t mean they don’t disproportionally disenfranchise certain groups. All of the evidence pretty overwhelming shows that voter disenfranchisement is a much larger issue than voter fraud. Of course it’s understandable why some people want to ignore the research and claim otherwise given who is generally being disenfranchised and which direction they generally tend to vote.

It is puzzling to me though why some want to straight up lie and claim massive fraud where it does not exist and undermine one of the bedrocks of our democracy, all the while claiming to be the true patriots who love our country.

We have many small towns with no polling places. Every township is supposed to have one, but that doesn't mean local authorities give a crap and actually provide a place and staff it. I know place in the UP where it can be an hour one way to your polling place because of ice and snow which is why mail in ballot is so popular, but certain entities want that option eliminated.

As for "true patriots", they aren't. These are folks who want a fascist style government with the appearance of democracy to make it look shiny. The constitution means nothing to them when it gets in the way of their goals.

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

I appreciate you’re doing that, seriously. That hasn’t been my experience with most teachers at all, most recently with DD this semester.
 

There are teachers who deliberately make up their own Americanized names for students vs. learning their true name when it’s offered and pronounced, not because they’re asked to come up with a diminutive/alternative (sometimes the student or parent will ask for one) but because it’s easier for the teacher. Teachers who see a kid struggling and presume there’s some family issue/no parental involvement vs. a specific learning challenge. We have lawsuits from teachers who don’t want to be forced to call students by their preferred names, teachers who are so upset by the prospect of thinking through the very things you described who are rallying to the anti-CRT cause. It’s all become of a piece, part of a larger campaign to lead the unexamined life. Teaching is hard. We ask a lot, often too much, administratively but this kind of stuff is to my mind the MOST important part. A lot of academic disparities are driven not just by wealth and language acquisition but by the unexamined ‘little’ things that happen everyday.

How do you see the best way to tackle this? 

For me, I'd mandate reflection skills as part of the undergrad teaching degree. It feels like a training problem. I'd also probably want to incorporate some cross-cultural counselling modules, to help teachers interpret culturally diverse ways of being in the classroom. 

It's pretty hard though. I bet you a million bucks I'm missing some of my own biases. I KNOW teachers are missing their biases wrt learning challenges, particularly ADHD.  I KNOW they are missing class and race biases wrt the cleaning staff, because I talk to the cleaning staff and they tell me how ignored they feel. And yes, the cleaning staff are all WOC. 

The other part of the problem, to me, is that there is no time set aside for formal  reflection time, and no mentoring of staff to undertake it. 

 

  • Like 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Melissa Louise said:

It's honestly not difficult to discuss racism (historical or current) at all. 

This is another rhetorical claim I see, but really, is it? 

 

 

I didn't write difficult. I wrote uncomfortable. They are not the same thing. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

How do you see the best way to tackle this? 

For me, I'd mandate reflection skills as part of the undergrad teaching degree. It feels like a training problem. I'd also probably want to incorporate some cross-cultural counselling modules, to help teachers interpret culturally diverse ways of being in the classroom. 

It's pretty hard though. I bet you a million bucks I'm missing some of my own biases. I KNOW teachers are missing their biases wrt learning challenges, particularly ADHD.  I KNOW they are missing class and race biases wrt the cleaning staff, because I talk to the cleaning staff and they tell me how ignored they feel. And yes, the cleaning staff are all WOC. 

The other part of the problem, to me, is that there is no time set aside for formal  reflection time, and no mentoring of staff to undertake it. 

 

A few things...

- increase the entrance and/or exit requirements for prospective teachers. Elementary teacher education programs have some of the lowest barriers to entry.

- increase the content knowledge demands of teacher education programs. A lot of them focus on banners and poster projects and  infantilize their students in the process (in an effort to help them ‘be’ the students they will be teaching). 

- improve teacher education and professional development with more collaborative consideration/discussion of case studies—less lecturing, more puzzling and in-class demonstrations/critiques.

- ensuring teachers spend time in a variety of learning environments before receiving full tenure so they can work with and get to know lots of different types of kids/families.

- encourage more team teaching. I think teams of teachers can better assess students and themselves. DD hasn’t connected with a single teacher in high school. None of them ‘know’ her.

- commensurate with these increased intellectual and professional development demands, increase the pay.

 

A lot of the critiques I see come down to people isolated in their classrooms with the best of intentions (maybe) and the worst judgment b/c their content knowledge is so weak. DHs cousin became a charter teacher after basically flunking out of the Navy as an enlisted RP. For those who don’t know, it’s a ‘religious person’, about the least demanding field you can find. As far as I know, he’s still a pathetic jerk and still teaching elementary kids.

Edited by Sneezyone
  • Like 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

A few things...

- increase the entrance and/or exit requirements for prospective teachers. Elementary teacher education programs have some of the lowest barriers to entry.

- increase the content knowledge demands of teacher education programs. A lot of them focus on banners and poster projects and  infantilize their students in the process (in an effort to help them ‘be’ the students they will be teaching). 

- improve teacher education and professional development with more collaborative consideration/discussion of case studies—less lecturing, more puzzling and in-class demonstrations/critiques.

- ensuring teachers spend time in a variety of learning environments before receiving full tenure so they can work with and get to know lots of different types of kids/families.

- encourage more team teaching. I think teams of teachers can better assess students and themselves. DD hasn’t connected with a single teacher in high school. None of them ‘know’ her.

- commensurate with these increased intellectual and professional development demands, increase the pay.

 

A lot of the critiques I see come down to people isolated in their classrooms with the best of intentions (maybe) and the worst judgment b/c their content knowledge is so weak. DHs cousin became a charter teacher after basically flunking out of the Navy as an enlisted RP. For those who don’t know, it’s a ‘religious person’, about the least demanding field you can find. As far as I know, he’s still a pathetic jerk and still teaching elementary kids.

1000%

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...