CRT (now rebranded as Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion DEI) and DOJ involvement in school board meetings

[Fritz]

2 hours ago, KSera said:

I’m confused. What’s the bad thing here?
 

And fwiw, this is actually a completely different thing then CRT. I don’t know where you’re reading that they are equated, but just because both include the concept of race, doesn’t make them related.  I guess you could consider them related in that diversity, equity, and inclusion could be values an institution adopts in order to address structural problems as described in critical race theory. It’s not like either is a curriculum or something though. One is a theoretical framework that describes something and the other is set of principles that might guide how a place operates. 

From the post above: 

"I haven’t seen anything inappropriate at our school thus far, but I do see leftist propaganda being pushed constantly. My son’s health class taught him he needs to fight for social justice to improve his emotional health. In his English class assignment they had to read an article about the lack of empathy among wealthy and outline all the ways rich people lack empathy. Even my left wing son rolled his eyes when he was reading."

So you think this is acceptable to be taught in an English class or a Health class? Just like in the previous thread about CRT we will now be told over and over again that this is not DEI. It's just not being implemented correctly etc...even though there was countless evidence that it was indeed how CRT was being presented in the public schools. And just like we saw with CRT teacher's are being encouraged to interject this crap into every subject. 

Both CRT and DEI are at their core about equity being equal outcomes. So how can this "unempathetic rich person" have the same outcome as the less fortunate person? 

These same people pushing "equity" will NOT allow for school choice. Why is that?

Edited October 10, 2021 by Fritz

[Matryoshka]

3 minutes ago, Fritz said:

From the post above: 

"I haven’t seen anything inappropriate at our school thus far, but I do see leftist propaganda being pushed constantly. My son’s health class taught him he needs to fight for social justice to improve his emotional health. In his English class assignment they had to read an article about the lack of empathy among wealthy and outline all the ways rich people lack empathy. Even my left wing son rolled his eyes when he was reading."

So you think this is acceptable to be taught in an English class or a Health class? Just like in the previous thread about CRT we will now be told over and over again that this is not DEI. It's just not being implemented correctly etc...even though there was countless evidence that it was indeed how CRT was being presented in the public schools. And just like we saw with CRT teacher's are being encouraged to interject this crap into every subject. 

These same people pushing "equity" will NOT allow for school choice. Why is that?

To the bolded, Yes.  A thousand times YES.  I went to a private Catholic high school, and we had a whole semester that was just Native American and African American literature.  It was eye-opening.  Yeah, and all the other 3.5 years was basically dead white men.  So... you're saying that we should just focus on that.  No inclusion of any other voices (and ... are women okay, or is that also too much 'diversity' and 'equity' for you)?  And if we do include their voices, they're going to talk about their lived lives.  Which apparently is 'crap'.  Why would we NOT want those voices included in our curriculum?  When I got to college, I specifically sought out history and literature classes on India and China, because THAT part of world history had been totally overlooked.  You know, that's between them about a third of the humans on Earth.  I wouldn't want to know about that WHY?

Just own it.  You are touting a White Supremacist agenda, and quite openly.  

As far as health class, it would be good to talk about public health there (obviously this country is woefully in need of it), and I think it would be useful to think about why places like Flint get lead in their water (and it's still not resolved!) and why does that happen?  It didn't happen by accident.  Someone intentionally made the decision to switch from a safe water supply to an unsafe one.  Explain again why that would be 'crap' and WHY you're worried about kids thinking/learning about thing like this.  What are you so scared of?

[Roadrunner]

5 hours ago, Fritz said:

From the post above: 

"I haven’t seen anything inappropriate at our school thus far, but I do see leftist propaganda being pushed constantly. My son’s health class taught him he needs to fight for social justice to improve his emotional health. In his English class assignment they had to read an article about the lack of empathy among wealthy and outline all the ways rich people lack empathy. Even my left wing son rolled his eyes when he was reading."

So you think this is acceptable to be taught in an English class or a Health class? Just like in the previous thread about CRT we will now be told over and over again that this is not DEI. It's just not being implemented correctly etc...even though there was countless evidence that it was indeed how CRT was being presented in the public schools. And just like we saw with CRT teacher's are being encouraged to interject this crap into every subject. 

Both CRT and DEI are at their core about equity being equal outcomes. So how can this "unempathetic rich person" have the same outcome as the less fortunate person? 

These same people pushing "equity" will NOT allow for school choice. Why is that?

No, I don’t think it’s appropriate, not in a way it was taught. 
However, I welcome everything in schools from Marx to Rand as a way to engage students to debate ideas and learn how to form arguments. That isn’t  our experience so far.

The same way I welcome all books written by old white men or young black women. Now as a homeschooler on the WTM board, I have totally bought into Great Books approach as outlined by SWB. That doesn’t mean we don’t read outside of dead white men, but we do believe Homer has something to teach us as well. 

Edited October 11, 2021 by Roadrunner

[Lady Florida.]

On 10/8/2021 at 1:44 PM, WildflowerMom said:

.    Going to a school board member's home and yelling 'come out, I see you in there'.   Yeah, the FBI or DOJ needs to be involved.  
 

This happened in my county. Although three board members (out of five) have been voting for mask mandates despite our governor's ban on mandates, it was one who really pushed the idea from the start. People have been protesting outside her home since late last school year. The sheriff's department can't do anything because they say no actual laws have been broken and the protestors are on public sidewalks, but it's harassment and intimidation and her children have been taunted and mocked both in school and at their home. Her five year old is taunted. 

At the August meeting the anti-maskers got so out of hand that sheriff's deputies stopped the meeting and had to escort the board members out of the meeting and to a safe room.

At the last meeting a few weeks ago two anti-maskers were arrested for disturbing the peace and refusing to leave government property when told to do so. Both have a history of violence. One is a volunteer for our state representative, who is on board with all this harassment and intimidation.

Many of the same anti-maskers sign up to speak at the meeting regarding masks but when they get to the podium they start ranting against CRT, which our school board isn't even considering.

 

On 10/8/2021 at 4:59 PM, Tanaqui said:

It'd be a relief if this was covid-related, but honestly, a lot of this sort of radicalization and conspiracy-thinking has been going on for quite a while. Remember the "Birthers"?

This isn't new.

To the bolded, this is absolutely true. It's been building and these people have been getting louder and louder. It didn't help that our former guy never said a word as the rhetoric became increasingly more favorable to violence.

On 10/8/2021 at 8:53 PM, prairiewindmomma said:

I think there are absolutely some events in which outside groups coordinate protests—like this, when Patriot Prayer and Proud Boys tried to break into school buildings during an anti-mask protest… 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.opb.org/article/2021/09/03/vancouver-schools-lockdown-anti-mask-protesters-entry/%3foutputType=amp

Several of the people who regularly protest at our local school board meetings are from a county next to ours, which ironically also has a mask mandate for schools.

5 hours ago, Fritz said:

Welcome to DEI. This is the new CRT just more widely focused than just race.

https://diversity.umich.edu/about/defining-dei/

Diversity: We commit to increasing diversity, which is expressed in myriad forms, including race and ethnicity, gender and gender identity, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, language, culture, national origin, religious commitments, age, (dis)ability status and political perspective.

Equity: We commit to working actively to challenge and respond to bias, harassment, and discrimination. We are committed to a policy of equal opportunity for all persons and do not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, marital status, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, disability, religion, height, weight, or veteran status.

Inclusion: We commit to pursuing deliberate efforts to ensure that our campus is a place where differences are welcomed, different perspectives are respectfully heard and where every individual feels a sense of belonging and inclusion. We know that by building a critical mass of diverse groups on campus and creating a vibrant climate of inclusiveness, we can more effectively leverage the resources of diversity to advance our collective capabilities.

What on earth is wrong with any of the above? Yes, even in English or Health class these are issues that can be brought up in context of the class. Seriously, only a white supremacist can find something wrong with these statements. 

Edited October 10, 2021 by Lady Florida.

[Fritz]

49 minutes ago, Roadrunner said:

No, I don’t think it’s appropriate, not in a way it was taught. 
However, I welcome everything in schools from Marx to Rand as a way to engage students to debate ideas and learn how to form arguments. That isn’t  our experience so far.

The same way I welcome all books written by old white man or young black woman. Now as a homeschoolers on the WTM board, I have totally bought into Great Books approach as outlined by SWB. That doesn’t mean we don’t read outside of dead white men, but we do believe Homer has something to teach us. 

Agreed 100%.

[Fritz]

40 minutes ago, Lady Florida. said:

This happened in my county. Although three board members (out of five) have been voting for mask mandates despite our governor's ban on mandates, it was one who really pushed the idea from the start. People have been protesting outside her home since late last school year. The sheriff's department can't do anything because they say no actual laws have been broken and the protestors are on public sidewalks, but it's harassment and intimidation and her children have been taunted and mocked both in school and at their home. Her five year old is taunted. 

At the August meeting the anti-maskers got so out of hand that sheriff's deputies stopped the meeting and had to escort the board members out of the meeting and to a safe room.

At the last meeting a few weeks ago two anti-maskers were arrested for disturbing the peace and refusing to leave government property when told to do so. Both have a history of violence. One is a volunteer for our state representative, who is on board with all this harassment and intimidation.

Many of the same anti-maskers sign up to speak at the meeting regarding masks but when they get to the podium they start ranting against CRT, which our school board isn't even considering.

 

To the bolded, this is absolutely true. It's been building and these people have been getting louder and louder. It didn't help that our former guy never said a word as the rhetoric became increasingly more favorable to violence.

Several of the people who regularly protest at our local school board meetings are from a county next to ours, which ironically also has a mask mandate for schools.

What on earth is wrong with any of the above? Yes, even in English or Health class these are issues that can be brought up in context of the class. Seriously, only a white supremacist can find something wrong with these statements. 

By @Roadrunners comments they were not brought up in the context of the class. I do love how when anyone disagrees with the lefts tactics they are labeled as a white supremacist! So typical and tedious!

Edited October 10, 2021 by Fritz

[Lady Florida.]

5 hours ago, Fritz said:

Welcome to DEI. This is the new CRT just more widely focused than just race.

https://diversity.umich.edu/about/defining-dei/

Diversity: We commit to increasing diversity, which is expressed in myriad forms, including race and ethnicity, gender and gender identity, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, language, culture, national origin, religious commitments, age, (dis)ability status and political perspective.

Equity: We commit to working actively to challenge and respond to bias, harassment, and discrimination. We are committed to a policy of equal opportunity for all persons and do not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, marital status, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, disability, religion, height, weight, or veteran status.

Inclusion: We commit to pursuing deliberate efforts to ensure that our campus is a place where differences are welcomed, different perspectives are respectfully heard and where every individual feels a sense of belonging and inclusion. We know that by building a critical mass of diverse groups on campus and creating a vibrant climate of inclusiveness, we can more effectively leverage the resources of diversity to advance our collective capabilities.

You didn't answer what's wrong with the above. I fail to understand how being against these is NOT racist. 

[Fritz]

1 minute ago, Lady Florida. said:

You didn't answer what's wrong with the above. I fail to understand how being against these is NOT racist. 

Nothing on the face of them. It's how they are implemented as I already stated. Just like CRT they claim it's one thing but in the classroom is is not presented that way just as @Roadrunner  has already posted. Schools need to be focused on academics not social justice. If you and others would prefer your schools to focus on social justice then allowing for school choice would be a good way to ensure parents can choose the education they would like for their children to have. What's wrong with school choice? You haven't answered that yet.

[Pam in CT]

@Fritz , this is the third thread that I can recall your having initiated about "CRT." And "it" is indisputably a topic in national news, state legislatures, and local school boards, although -- language -- there are different understandings about what "it" is. This is a board that often delves into educational topics, This is one, or maybe several, educational topics.  It is worth our time, if we take it seriously.

You are clearly troubled by multiple facets of what you understand "it" to be.  Your uneasiness comes through clearly.  What is less clear to me at least is what, precisely, you are troubled about. I am, genuinely, trying to sift through the competing-language issues, and also the ricochet between specific mirco-level examples & incidents, vs sweeping macro-level characterizations and legislative responses [that national news / state legislation passed to date / local school board kerfuffles / those of us on this board have all made]; and also, I expect, significant differences in worldview on a number of different, but related, dimensions like why public education exists in the first place, what are appropriate roles/standing for individual teachers v local school boards v states v federal government, what justifies federal investigation, how should public policies be evaluated, what do the words "equity" or "outcome" or "school choice" mean.

Engaging ~~seriously~~ across that much complexity and potential difference is ~~hard~~.

Not everyone is up for it. 

Some of those who are up for it some of the time, still can't manage it all of the time.  Because it's hard, and often frustrating, and other times irritating, and -- I am sorry to report -- more often than not fruitless.

So if -- for any reason -- you don't feel like answering any of the following, that is fine. I get it.

 

From the OP:

On 10/8/2021 at 11:31 AM, Fritz said:

https://unherd.com/2021/10/critical-race-theorys-new-disguise/

For white students, the blame of slavery and Jim Crow laws are laid at their feet. Bari Weiss recently revealed a number of shocking cases of how this manifests itself in schools, but one in particular caught my eye: “A Fieldston student says that students are often told ‘if you are white and male, you are second in line to speak.’ This is considered a normal and necessary redistribution of power.” But it is far from “normal” or “necessary”. Putting the atrocious sins of America’s past on the shoulders of children and teenagers is a form of child abuse.

For black children, the situation is no better. Students are being taught that it is the system, not their own effort and abilities, that will determine their future in life. This discourages hard work, motivation, ambition and aspiration. It also breeds distrust and hostility towards white teachers, further truncating their abilities to learn and progress in school. As Ian Rowe points out, “the narrative that white people ‘hold the power’ conveys a wrongheaded notion of white superiority and creates an illusion of black dependency on white largesse”.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2021/10/07/school-boards-dont-call-fbi/6035611001/

On Monday, Attorney General Merrick Garland released a memorandum describing how the Federal Bureau of Investigation will coordinate with law enforcement agencies across the country to address threats to school administrators and school board members.  

The memo states that there has been a “disturbing spike” in the harassment of school staff and a “rise in criminal conduct directed toward school personnel.” Alas, there is no evidence of a rise in the memorandum or references to where one could find evidence of it.

No actual proof of increased violence

One can find evidence in a Sept. 29 letter from the National School Board Association to Biden documenting “heinous actions” that “could be the equivalent to a form of domestic terrorism and hate crimes.”

If one reads the letter, one finds people clearly raising their voices, which is normal when people are discussing things that matter to them. When parents or community members cross the line into threats, local law enforcement has handled the situation. There is no quantitative data in the letter; instead, there are a bunch of disparate stories strung together to make it look like there is a pattern. 

For example, the letter reports that in two school board meetings, “an individual yelled a Nazi salute in protest to masking requirements” and another person “prompted the board to call a recess because of opposition to critical race theory.” These acts are disruptive and inappropriate, but democracy is not a graduate school seminar, and parents are allowed to express themselves to elected school board members. Schools should want parents invested in the well-being of their children.

What is the attorney general’s plan to address this phantom threat? He has directed the FBI to coordinate with law enforcement agencies and 14,000 public school districts to formulate “strategies for addressing threats” and opening “dedicated lines of communication for threat reporting.”

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10072659/Florida-mom-calls-mass-exodus-public-school-row-CRT-masks.html

1.  You titled the thread "CRT now rebranded as [DEI]..."  Who, in your view, is responsible for that "rebranding"?  What do you understand to be the purpose behind this effort to "rebrand"?

2.  This opening post ricochets between a. specific incidents (ie the Fieldston kid reporting that white males are "often" expected to speak second rather than first); b. fairly sweeping characterizations of judgment (ie ""[Black]students are being taught that it is the system, not their own effort and abilities, that will determine their future in life. This discourages hard work, motivation, ambition and aspiration"); and c. DOJ's announcement  of the actions it intends to address violence against school officials and teachers.  I can't discern from your post -- most of which is comprised of quotations, which is fine -- which of these is particularly troubling to you; or which of these is, in your judgment, what "CRT" or "DEI" is about.

 

On 10/8/2021 at 11:31 AM, Fritz said:

'It is extremely pervasive. I don't think parents realize just how pervasive it is,' King said. 'In Duval County, I found CRT workshops and events as far back as 2011.' 

'Understanding that they are not kidding, this is not going away, the enemy has no chill and is advancing forward as fast - we can see it - we're at home trying to make peanut butter and jelly sandwiches for your kids and the FBI could be knocking at your door because you said the wrong thing at a school board meeting.'

'These people are serious,' she continued. 'They want to silence us and shut us down. I really think at this point, the only thing to do is have a mass exodus from the school system. That's it.'

I have to say I agree with this Florida mother. I do have some concern what this mass exodus will mean for homeschooling. If they are willing to use the DOJ to intimidate parents speaking out at school board meetings against CRT I can't imagine they will take being denied access to America's children as a captive audience for indoctrination well. 

And here is what Nikole Hannah-Jones thinks about school choice. School choice seems like a great idea to me. 

https://www.foxnews.com/media/hannah-jones-chided-for-saying-parents-have-two-choices-homeschool-or-pay-tuition

In a message intended to belittle the school choice movement, New York Times Magazine reporter Nicole Hannah-Jones said parents “already” have choice, listing just two options: Homeschool or pay tuition.

3.  What I hear in this post is a concern about DOJ/FBI forays into educational realms -- is that correct?  First, that the FBI could go beyond the intention expressed in Garland's memo and the DOJ press release  to address criminal conduct directed toward school personnel, including "violence, threats of violence, and other forms of intimidation and harassment" into unnamed overreach; but also/second that FBI surveillance could drive an exodus into homeschooling; and thereafter/third that FBI interest & interference could continue to expand into what homeschoolers taught at home? Is that the concern you are positing in the first part here?

4. The second part of this post is about "school choice."  That is another term that means different things to different people, and long before I myself knew the term Critical Race Theory I certainly knew of many particular specific examples (WDC charter school network; NYC's G&T "school within the schools" system; a project I worked on in grad school looking at vouchers for religious schools in several southern states) in which "school choice" programs -- perhaps in the very best of faith, perhaps as a wholly unintended consequence -- enabled de facto resegregation after Brown v BoE dismantled de jure segregation.  In your view, is it appropriate to ask/ gather data/ research /advocate about the extent to which "school choice" programs affect different groups differently? Or should that question be off the table entirely -- because looking at outcomes, rather than intent, is itself "CRT"?

 

On 10/8/2021 at 12:26 PM, Fritz said:

So typical of this board, attack the source and not the content. Google for yourselves and you will find CRT has been rebranded as DEI.

Parents are being told they have no right to know or have input into what their children are being taught (cue Terry McAuliffe) ,

and the DOJ has tasked the FBI with monitoring school board meetings.

And teachers unions refuse to allow for school choice.

(the first three of these are restating content from the prior posts; but)

5.  In the last of these you raise what I believe is a new concern, that teacher unions oppose "school choice."  In your mind, do you believe teacher union opposition about "school choice" is related to "CRT" and/or "DEI"?  If so, what do you understand that connection to be?

 

On 10/8/2021 at 12:31 PM, Fritz said:

Parents shouting and the police having to remove some folks? Not dangerous enough to involve the DOJ calling in the FBI. Yes, I think there are better ways of handling the meetings. Perhaps if the school boards were more concerned about getting the children in their schools up to grade level on the subjects they have been hired to teach there wouldn't be this about of outrage.

This post restates the concern about potential for FBI overreach. 

6. I can't tell if the last bit, about school boards' inability to get children up to grade level on "subjects they have been hired to teach" is suggesting something different?  Do you believe that American history, civics, and literature are among "subjects they have been hired to teach"?  (To be clear: I ask about those subjects specifically because in my own mind, and also in the debates playing out in my own town, those are the content areas in which these debates are focused.)

 

7 hours ago, Fritz said:

I'm not angry about this. I thinking it is concerning how much power the teacher's unions have. We shall see how this plays out. It sounds like  your acceptable sources have not done any reporting on how much power the teacher's unions have had in keeping schools closed during the pandemic.

I do find it interesting that Merrick Garland's son-in-law's company sells CRT materials to schools. 

The first bit restates concern about teacher unions... which (#5) I am not really following how they relate to "CRT" or "DEI" or the other bits that are troubling you.

7.   The second bit raises an entirely new maybe-concern / maybe-red herring / maybe-smear, that I had to go look up. Sure enough, it's a talking point. For clarity: are you suggesting here that Garland may be siccing the FBI on local school boards because he has a self interest in "CRT materials" being sold, and is concerned that if school boards ban "CRT materials" that he'll be adversely affected financially? 

 

4 hours ago, Fritz said:

Welcome to DEI. This is the new CRT just more widely focused than just race.

https://diversity.umich.edu/about/defining-dei/

Diversity: We commit to increasing diversity, which is expressed in myriad forms, including race and ethnicity, gender and gender identity, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, language, culture, national origin, religious commitments, age, (dis)ability status and political perspective.

Equity: We commit to working actively to challenge and respond to bias, harassment, and discrimination. We are committed to a policy of equal opportunity for all persons and do not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, marital status, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, disability, religion, height, weight, or veteran status.

Inclusion: We commit to pursuing deliberate efforts to ensure that our campus is a place where differences are welcomed, different perspectives are respectfully heard and where every individual feels a sense of belonging and inclusion. We know that by building a critical mass of diverse groups on campus and creating a vibrant climate of inclusiveness, we can more effectively leverage the resources of diversity to advance our collective capabilities.

I don't understand, at all, what the University of Michigan's mission statement of having an inclusive student environment has to do with any of the other concerns you've raised.  You opted, I think, to bold the words "socioeconomic status."

 

2 hours ago, Fritz said:

From the post above: 

"I haven’t seen anything inappropriate at our school thus far, but I do see leftist propaganda being pushed constantly. My son’s health class taught him he needs to fight for social justice to improve his emotional health. In his English class assignment they had to read an article about the lack of empathy among wealthy and outline all the ways rich people lack empathy. Even my left wing son rolled his eyes when he was reading."

So you think this is acceptable to be taught in an English class or a Health class? Just like in the previous thread about CRT we will now be told over and over again that this is not DEI. It's just not being implemented correctly etc...even though there was countless evidence that it was indeed how CRT was being presented in the public schools. And just like we saw with CRT teacher's are being encouraged to interject this crap into every subject. 

Both CRT and DEI are at their core about equity being equal outcomes. So how can this "unempathetic rich person" have the same outcome as the less fortunate person? 

These same people pushing "equity" will NOT allow for school choice. Why is that?

Much of this is in response to a back-and-forth with other posters' posts; but

  8.  ...in the end you outline -- I think for the first time -- what you understand "CRT" and "DEI" to be "about": equality of outcomes.  Just to ensure I'm following you correctly: Do you understand "CRT" and "DEI" to be a declaration of values calling for equal "outcomes"?  If so, in what particular "outcomes" (ie, income, wealth, health metrics, representation in particular schools/ universities / corporate boards / Senate... others).  Hypothetically: if advocates for "CRT" or "DEI" arrived at the Promised Land, what would look different from the terrain today?

(I will note, as an aside, that "equal outcomes" is NOT what I myself understand either to be "about"; nor do I understand the two "things" to be the same -- and if you choose to answer some or all of my questions, perhaps we can delve into the differences in how we understand those constructs.) 

 

Then at the very end you return to concerns about teacher unions (#5) and school choice (#4).  As noted above, although I hear *that* you are concerned about both these areas, I'm not clear about *what* you fear may be happening, or how the two related to "CRT" or "DEI."

 

Please believe that I am, genuinely, trying to understand where you're coming from.

I understand if you are disinclined to engage in a serious way. Because doing so is HARD.

[Fritz]

3 minutes ago, Pam in CT said:

@Fritz , this is the third thread that I can recall your having initiated about "CRT." And "it" is indisputably a topic in national news, state legislatures, and local school boards, although -- language -- there are different understandings about what "it" is. This is a board that often delves into educational topics, This is one, or maybe several, educational topics.  It is worth our time, if we take it seriously.

You are clearly troubled by multiple facets of what you understand "it" to be.  Your uneasiness comes through clearly.  What is less clear to me at least is what, precisely, you are troubled about. I am, genuinely, trying to sift through the competing-language issues, and also the ricochet between specific mirco-level examples & incidents, vs sweeping macro-level characterizations and legislative responses [that national news / state legislation passed to date / local school board kerfuffles / those of us on this board have all made]; and also, I expect, significant differences in worldview on a number of different, but related, dimensions like why public education exists in the first place, what are appropriate roles/standing for individual teachers v local school boards v states v federal government, what justifies federal investigation, how should public policies be evaluated, what do the words "equity" or "outcome" or "school choice" mean.

Engaging ~~seriously~~ across that much complexity and potential difference is ~~hard~~.

Not everyone is up for it. 

Some of those who are up for it some of the time, still can't manage it all of the time.  Because it's hard, and often frustrating, and other times irritating, and -- I am sorry to report -- more often than not fruitless.

So if -- for any reason -- you don't feel like answering any of the following, that is fine. I get it.

 

From the OP:

1.  You titled the thread "CRT now rebranded as [DEI]..."  Who, in your view, is responsible for that "rebranding"?  What do you understand to be the purpose behind this effort to "rebrand"?

2.  This opening post ricochets between a. specific incidents (ie the Fieldston kid reporting that white males are "often" expected to speak second rather than first); b. fairly sweeping characterizations of judgment (ie ""[Black]students are being taught that it is the system, not their own effort and abilities, that will determine their future in life. This discourages hard work, motivation, ambition and aspiration"); and c. DOJ's announcement  of the actions it intends to address violence against school officials and teachers.  I can't discern from your post -- most of which is comprised of quotations, which is fine -- which of these is particularly troubling to you; or which of these is, in your judgment, what "CRT" or "DEI" is about.

 

3.  What I hear in this post is a concern about DOJ/FBI forays into educational realms -- is that correct?  First, that the FBI could go beyond the intention expressed in Garland's memo and the DOJ press release  to address criminal conduct directed toward school personnel, including "violence, threats of violence, and other forms of intimidation and harassment" into unnamed overreach; but also/second that FBI surveillance could drive an exodus into homeschooling; and thereafter/third that FBI interest & interference could continue to expand into what homeschoolers taught at home? Is that the concern you are positing in the first part here?

4. The second part of this post is about "school choice."  That is another term that means different things to different people, and long before I myself knew the term Critical Race Theory I certainly knew of many particular specific examples (WDC charter school network; NYC's G&T "school within the schools" system; a project I worked on in grad school looking at vouchers for religious schools in several southern states) in which "school choice" programs -- perhaps in the very best of faith, perhaps as a wholly unintended consequence -- enabled de facto resegregation after Brown v BoE dismantled de jure segregation.  In your view, is it appropriate to ask/ gather data/ research /advocate about the extent to which "school choice" programs affect different groups differently? Or should that question be off the table entirely -- because looking at outcomes, rather than intent, is itself "CRT"?

 

(the first three of these are restating content from the prior posts; but)

5.  In the last of these you raise what I believe is a new concern, that teacher unions oppose "school choice."  In your mind, do you believe teacher union opposition about "school choice" is related to "CRT" and/or "DEI"?  If so, what do you understand that connection to be?

 

This post restates the concern about potential for FBI overreach. 

6. I can't tell if the last bit, about school boards' inability to get children up to grade level on "subjects they have been hired to teach" is suggesting something different?  Do you believe that American history, civics, and literature are among "subjects they have been hired to teach"?  (To be clear: I ask about those subjects specifically because in my own mind, and also in the debates playing out in my own town, those are the content areas in which these debates are focused.)

 

The first bit restates concern about teacher unions... which (#5) I am not really following how they relate to "CRT" or "DEI" or the other bits that are troubling you.

7.   The second bit raises an entirely new maybe-concern / maybe-red herring / maybe-smear, that I had to go look up. Sure enough, it's a talking point. For clarity: are you suggesting here that Garland may be siccing the FBI on local school boards because he has a self interest in "CRT materials" being sold, and is concerned that if school boards ban "CRT materials" that he'll be adversely affected financially? 

 

I don't understand, at all, what the University of Michigan's mission statement of having an inclusive student environment has to do with any of the other concerns you've raised.  You opted, I think, to bold the words "socioeconomic status."

 

Much of this is in response to a back-and-forth with other posters' posts; but

  8.  ...in the end you outline -- I think for the first time -- what you understand "CRT" and "DEI" to be "about": equality of outcomes.  Just to ensure I'm following you correctly: Do you understand "CRT" and "DEI" to be a declaration of values calling for equal "outcomes"?  If so, in what particular "outcomes" (ie, income, wealth, health metrics, representation in particular schools/ universities / corporate boards / Senate... others).  Hypothetically: if advocates for "CRT" or "DEI" arrived at the Promised Land, what would look different from the terrain today?

(I will note, as an aside, that "equal outcomes" is NOT what I myself understand either to be "about"; nor do I understand the two "things" to be the same -- and if you choose to answer some or all of my questions, perhaps we can delve into the differences in how we understand those constructs.) 

 

Then at the very end you return to concerns about teacher unions (#5) and school choice (#4).  As noted above, although I hear *that* you are concerned about both these areas, I'm not clear about *what* you fear may be happening, or how the two related to "CRT" or "DEI."

 

Please believe that I am, genuinely, trying to understand where you're coming from.

I understand if you are disinclined to engage in a serious way. Because doing so is HARD.

I will not rehash the old threads as Plum posted multiple examples of how CRT has actually been being implemented in the classrooms. As I have also stated multiple times I believe schools are failing children in academics. Their focus should be on preparing children for the future not teaching social justice.

Someone up thread posted that they work with a very diverse group and school needs to prepare children for that. Really?? Doesn't living your life prepare you for that? That's the parents responsibility to teach their children to treat all people with respect. I too work with a very diverse group. So what? I treat each of them as I would like to be treated. 

 

[Pam in CT]

5 minutes ago, Fritz said:

I will not rehash the old threads as Plum posted multiple examples of how CRT has actually been being implemented in the classrooms. As I have also stated multiple times I believe schools are failing children in academics. Their focus should be on preparing children for the future not teaching social justice.

Someone up thread posted that they work with a very diverse group and school needs to prepare children for that. Really?? Doesn't living your life prepare you for that? That's the parents responsibility to teach their children to treat all people with respect. I too work with a very diverse group. So what? I treat each of them as I would like to be treated. 

 

I'm sorry that I wasn't clear: all 8 of my questions come directly from your posts in *this* thread. 

(I only mentioned the others because the fact that you've initiated several, reinforces how important the topic is to you.)

And as I said, if you don't want to engage deeply, I get it.  Really, I do.

[Eos]

33 minutes ago, Fritz said:

What's wrong with school choice?

Using tax money to pay for religious and/or racially re-segregated schools is what's wrong with it.

 

3 minutes ago, Fritz said:

Their focus should be on preparing children for the future not teaching social justice.

Social justice is the future.  You need not be afraid.

[AmandaVT]

I've had to sit through many many very boring union meetings at school. They never talk about teaching or children. Building cleanliness seems to be a bit talking point. Contract stuff ALL.THE.TIME. All the things they feel the admin team is doing poorly. Leading questions trying to get us to say we're being treated badly and we have a hostile work environment (we don't). And many pleas to "wear red for Ed!" 

I am pro-union in theory. I'm very happy we're not making widgets on an assembly line for 20 hrs a day and kids aren't sent to work at 10 to mine coal. But, I'm not a fan of the back and forth of the minutiae we have to listen to at least monthly. 

They do not get into what to teach, how to teach, how to indoctrinate kids? or anything along those lines. Lots of "how are the bathroom sinks?" though or "has anyone asked you to work outside of contract hours?"

[Happy2BaMom]

3 hours ago, Fritz said:

By @Roadrunners comments they were not brought up in the context of the class. I do love how when anyone disagrees with the lefts tactics they are labeled as a white supremacist! So typical and tedious!

What’s typical and tedious is you refusing to answer any of the many questions people have asked you and endlessly hiding behind “you called me a racist!!” and/or endlessly repeating your circular arguments. 

 

Edited October 11, 2021 by Happy2BaMom

[kokotg]

I'm in a facebook group for AP lit teachers. We do AP lit at home, so I'm there for ideas about lesson plans and how to teach the FRQs and all that, but I've been absolutely horrified by the accounts of what's going on in public schools in conservative states right now (it was helpful to remember that group when I was having some self-doubts during the recent "does anyone else regret homeschooling" thread). So some example of how this bizarre CRT mania is "actually being implemented in the classroom": a teacher in Tennessee who is now afraid to teach ANY works by Black writers. Teacher after teacher having to change booklists or offer alternate books to students because some random parent complained about a book of very well established literary merit. Teachers having to get every text they assign approved by the administration to make sure it's not going to be controversial in any way

I wonder how these kids will fare when they get to college and their parents can no longer protect them from the horrors of grappling with complex ideas. 

[Faith-manor]

13 minutes ago, kokotg said:

I'm in a facebook group for AP lit teachers. We do AP lit at home, so I'm there for ideas about lesson plans and how to teach the FRQs and all that, but I've been absolutely horrified by the accounts of what's going on in public schools in conservative states right now (it was helpful to remember that group when I was having some self-doubts during the recent "does anyone else regret homeschooling" thread). So some example of how this bizarre CRT mania is "actually being implemented in the classroom": a teacher in Tennessee who is now afraid to teach ANY works by Black writers. Teacher after teacher having to change booklists or offer alternate books to students because some random parent complained about a book of very well established literary merit. Teachers having to get every text they assign approved by the administration to make sure it's not going to be controversial in any way

I wonder how these kids will fare when they get to college and their parents can no longer protect them from the horrors of grappling with complex ideas. 

Further more, how will they cope as adults in the workplace? There is going to be no protection for their fragile feelings. If they work for corporate America, diversity training, anti-racism seminars, sexual.harassment workshops, diverse work places, it will entirely snowball on them.

The parent hand wringing and pearl clutching on this issue and many, many others needs to end unless these parents plan on having the fragile egos they have raised remain video gaming in their basements for the rest of their lives. The work world does not care about their feelings, not one little bit.

This is not the way to raise adults. On top of which, with the birth rates so low for whites, in another 25 years today's teens will be middle aged and navigating life as a minority. These parents need to get on board teaching their children to navigate a world that will be very different from the here and now.

I cannot imagine the horror of being a teacher these days!

[Pam in CT]

re effects of "CRT" content bans in classrooms

1 hour ago, kokotg said:

I'm in a facebook group for AP lit teachers. We do AP lit at home, so I'm there for ideas about lesson plans and how to teach the FRQs and all that, but I've been absolutely horrified by the accounts of what's going on in public schools in conservative states right now (it was helpful to remember that group when I was having some self-doubts during the recent "does anyone else regret homeschooling" thread). So some example of how this bizarre CRT mania is "actually being implemented in the classroom": a teacher in Tennessee who is now afraid to teach ANY works by Black writers. Teacher after teacher having to change booklists or offer alternate books to students because some random parent complained about a book of very well established literary merit. Teachers having to get every text they assign approved by the administration to make sure it's not going to be controversial in any way

I wonder how these kids will fare when they get to college and their parents can no longer protect them from the horrors of grappling with complex ideas. 

CT hasn't instituted statewide bans (and is unlikely to).  But over the last six months  extremely vocal segments have sprung up in many towns, including my own, armed with lists of putatively "CRT texts" they demand be excised from the curriculum, that range from Ta-Nehisi Coates' Case for Reparations at the high school level to (the two different - Robert Coles'/2010; Bridges' own/2020) Ruby Bridges picture books at the elementary school level.

And all sorts of other content covering actual historical facts and the environmental context that made them possible --stuff like the Tulsa Massacre (that my own public school certainly never covered; I only learned about as a 50-something adult)-- and actual current events and the environmental context that make them possible -- stuff like the BLM protests and their LEO / incarceration / privatization of prison wraparound beyond the one-off "incident" with its one-off Bad Apple.

And I really do struggle to see the whole brouhaha -- which is, clearly, structural and systemic  (evidenced not only by how the whole thing sprang up whole, nearly overnight, with an organized national footprint, within months of Chris Rufo's call to arms & instant amplification by the then-sitting POTUS -- how many of us had even heard the term a year ago?  -- but also proven by the adoption of state-wide legislative bans, which inarguably are, by definition, structural and systemic -- as anything other than an intentional and coerced exclusion of real (but unpleasant) historical fact, real (but unpleasant) analysis of the context around those facts; and real (but unpleasant) evidence, like the ProPublica piece OS linked yesterday) that such problems do not lie solidly and solely in our past.  A past which in any event is also being excised.

 

To lay my own cards on the table:

I do NOT deny that potentially well-intended efforts can result in unintended bad effects (whether the effort is to address racism, or open "school choice").

I do NOT condone classroom exercises,  particularly *public* exercises, that sort kids by characteristics of birth and demand that they speak "for," or "defend," their race/sex/ethnic group etc., some of which were outlined in one of the other threads.  Whatever the original intention, that is not appropriate.

I think it is not only appropriate, but affirmatively good, to assign kids work that asks them to consider multiple perspectives.  (ie "Write a letter back to the Old Country from the POV of an indentured servant who made the journey).

I think it is not only appropriate, but affirmatively NECESSARY, to study historical facts like Ruby Bridges (=WTM "grammar" stage); Tulsa Massacre and its before/after context (=WTM "logic" stage); and Case for Reparations (= WTM "rhetoric" stage); and to assign kids work that asks them to respond in developmentally appropriate ways ("grammar" - draw a picture and write a few sentences; "logic" - 2-4 paragraphs comparing what the Greenwood district looked like before and after; "rhetoric" - essay on what/when/where/why "redlining" was important, why, when & how it was changed, and what are some residual effects).

 

 

 

 

 

[Fritz]

17 hours ago, Harpymom said:

Using tax money to pay for religious and/or racially re-segregated schools is what's wrong with it.

 

Social justice is the future.  You need not be afraid.

Not all private schools are religiously oriented. The left is against charter schools (so are the teacher's unions) as well as school choice.

I am not afraid of social justice. It has no place in public schools. Academics is the purpose of public schools. If school boards continue to refuse to listen to parents and insist on pushing programs the parents are not on board with I hope it will result in a mass exodus from public schools. I do hope parents and voters will insist on school choice. Why is the left so afraid of charter schools and school choice? Because they will no longer have a captive audience with no choice but the shitty one they've been given by their school board.

[goldberry]

Related to this topic, here is another book being considered CRT:

https://www.click2houston.com/news/local/2021/10/05/katy-isd-pulls-books-cancels-authors-visit-after-parents-petition-claiming-subject-matter-teaches-critical-race-theory/

There is a general goal among CRT or DEI opponents that "no one should be made to feel bad because of their race", a phrase that has been used in some of the anti-CRT laws. That seems like a good goal, but it's far too vague and subjective.  Reading a story about an all-too-common experience in which a black kid is bullied and or/ostracized by white kids is not trying to make white kids feel guilty.  It's trying to make bullies feel guilty (as it should), make white kids be more aware of that dynamic happening and how hurtful it is,, and make black kids feel seen and more understood.  Reading history about actual crimes committed by white people (or Asian people or Native Americans or anyone else) should not make any individual feel guilty about THEMSELVES unless they personally engaged in that behavior.  What it should do is make people AWARE, and hence *educated* about the reality of what has happened in the world due to racism, colonialism, and other factors.

I can read about damage humans have done to the environment.  Do I feel guilty, like it's my personal fault?  No.  But do I feel "bad" that humans, the group I am a part of, have done so much harm?  Yeah, I do.  It's a feeling that makes me want to take action, to do things better.  That's a positive feeling, not negative.

I can't understand that argument, that everyone wants white people to feel guilty or feel bad for being white. What they should be is *educated* and *aware* of history and of certain realities and how those realities affect the system we live in. And yes, fighting against that looks really bad and even racist.      

[wathe]

1 hour ago, Fritz said:

Not all private schools are religiously oriented. The left is against charter schools (so are the teacher's unions) as well as school choice.

I am not afraid of social justice. It has no place in public schools. Academics is the purpose of public schools. If school boards continue to refuse to listen to parents and insist on pushing programs the parents are not on board with I hope it will result in a mass exodus from public schools. I do hope parents and voters will insist on school choice. Why is the left so afraid of charter schools and school choice? Because they will no longer have a captive audience with no choice but the shitty one they've been given by their school board.

Public schools, in their essence, are the very definition of social justice.  Free, equitable schooling for all, regardless of race, religion, socioeconomic status, or ability to pay.  Public schools are "The bulldozer that levels the playing fields of opportunities in America" - to quote from interview upthread.  Of course social justice belongs in public schools.  Social justice belongs everywhere!  But it especially belongs in public schools.

[goldberry]

Also just chiming in about the school board situation, here locally there are eight candidates for school board with I think three openings.  Typically positions go unfilled because no one is interested.  I'm a little fearful, because I live in a very conservative county, no mask mandates, etc.  So I wonder, what do these candidates want to happen?  We did have one incident where a teacher posted something outside of school time that she supported BLM.  That created an uproar that she should be fired.  We have a very vocal Christian organization that has been pushing the "take over your communities!" line.  I think that's been the main motivation.

I can only hope that whoever gets these positions will still be interested in the boring work once the political frenzy dies down.

[Harriet Vane]

It is absolutely impossible to accurately teach history, government, economics, or current events without looking at social justice issues. The assertion that social justice has no place in schools is nonsensical when social justice has been THE defining factor for major national and world events as well as structural government systems and regular everyday business. French Revolution? World War 2? The Trail of Tears? Tulsa Massacre? Kosovo? And on it goes. 

The only way to avoid one-side bias is by looking at multiple perspectives. Even if you agree ideologically with one side, it is vitally important to understand the concerns that motivate other sides. Why? Because the other side might have valid considerations even if you disagree with their ultimate conclusions, OR if an honest and accurate analysis shows the weakness of the other side then you simply bolster your case for what you personally believe in. And frankly, often it's a combination of both. There are no downsides to principled evaluation of multiple perspectives.

 

[Kassia]

2 minutes ago, Harriet Vane said:

It is absolutely impossible to accurately teach history, government, economics, or current events without looking at social justice issues. The assertion that social justice has no place in schools is nonsensical when social justice has been THE defining factor for major national and world events as well as structural government systems and regular everyday business. French Revolution? World War 2? The Trail of Tears? Tulsa Massacre? Kosovo? And on it goes. 

The only way to avoid one-side bias is by looking at multiple perspectives. Even if you agree ideologically with one side, it is vitally important to understand the concerns that motivate other sides. Why? Because the other side might have valid considerations even if you disagree with their ultimate conclusions, OR if an honest and accurate analysis shows the weakness of the other side then you simply bolster your case for what you personally believe in. And frankly, often it's a combination of both. There are no downsides to principled evaluation of multiple perspectives.

 

This is what would happen in a perfect world, but it seems like there are only extremes on both sides.  😞

[Roadrunner]

nm

Edited October 11, 2021 by Roadrunner

[Pam in CT]

re "no kid should have to feel bad because of their race"

1 hour ago, goldberry said:

Related to this topic, here is another book being considered CRT:

https://www.click2houston.com/news/local/2021/10/05/katy-isd-pulls-books-cancels-authors-visit-after-parents-petition-claiming-subject-matter-teaches-critical-race-theory/

There is a general goal among CRT or DEI opponents that "no one should be made to feel bad because of their race", a phrase that has been used in some of the anti-CRT laws. That seems like a good goal, but it's far too vague and subjective.  Reading a story about an all-too-common experience in which a black kid is bullied and or/ostracized by white kids is not trying to make white kids feel guilty.  It's trying to make bullies feel guilty (as it should), make white kids be more aware of that dynamic happening and how hurtful it is,, and make black kids feel seen and more understood.  Reading history about actual crimes committed by white people (or Asian people or Native Americans or anyone else) should not make any individual feel guilty about THEMSELVES unless they personally engaged in that behavior.  What it should do is make people AWARE, and hence *educated* about the reality of what has happened in the world due to racism, colonialism, and other factors. ...

This seems obvious though, doesn't it?  We study the Roman gladiator games, we study early Christians tossed to the lions, we study Jews and Muslims tortured throughout the Inquisition, we study accused witches burned at the stake at Salem, we study all sorts of distressing things.  We don't feel "guilty" -- we feel horror and empathy and gratitude that we are lucky enough to have been born into a more enlightened age. 

What switch suddenly goes off when we study more modern history about minority populations now in our midst?  Why would Trail of Tears make kids feel "bad" when enslaved Roman gladiators do not? 

 

The distinction you draw here between personal "guilt" vs stepped-up sense of ethical "responsibility" is helpful.

1 hour ago, goldberry said:

...I can read about damage humans have done to the environment.  Do I feel guilty, like it's my personal fault?  No.  But do I feel "bad" that humans, the group I am a part of, have done so much harm?  Yeah, I do.  It's a feeling that makes me want to take action, to do things better.  That's a positive feeling, not negative.

I can't understand that argument, that everyone wants white people to feel guilty or feel bad for being white. What they should be is *educated* and *aware* of history and of certain realities and how those realities affect the system we live in. And yes, fighting against that looks really bad and even racist.      

 

 

 

 

 

[Melissa Louise]

26 minutes ago, Pam in CT said:

re "no kid should have to feel bad because of their race"

This seems obvious though, doesn't it?  We study the Roman gladiator games, we study early Christians tossed to the lions, we study Jews and Muslims tortured throughout the Inquisition, we study accused witches burned at the stake at Salem, we study all sorts of distressing things.  We don't feel "guilty" -- we feel horror and empathy and gratitude that we are lucky enough to have been born into a more enlightened age. 

What switch suddenly goes off when we study more modern history about minority populations now in our midst?  Why would Trail of Tears make kids feel "bad" when enslaved Roman gladiators do not? 

 

The distinction you draw here between personal "guilt" vs stepped-up sense of ethical "responsibility" is helpful.

 

 

 

 

 

Generally, because of unskilled teaching and/or use of explicitly didactic texts. 

Sometimes, as a deliberately produced effect (see unskilful teaching).

 

[Melissa Louise]

Further to skillfulness being important:

I'm studying s degree that explicitly goes much further than DEI - indigenous perspectives are foregrounded, in an act of reparation..

It bears zero relation to the incidents/resources outlined in Plum's previous thread. It is emotionally safe (for all students), spacious, relational. Challenges to perspectives unfurl as a result of skilful course design. 

Children deserve this deeply thought through engagement.

 

[Fritz]

20 hours ago, Melissa Louise said:

Further to skillfulness being important:

I'm studying s degree that explicitly goes much further than DEI - indigenous perspectives are foregrounded, in an act of reparation..

It bears zero relation to the incidents/resources outlined in Plum's previous thread. It is emotionally safe (for all students), spacious, relational. Challenges to perspectives unfurl as a result of skilful course design. 

Children deserve this deeply thought through engagement.

 

Skillfulness is the key. As we saw with all of the info that was presented in the CRT thread there was zero skillfulness. I do not recall one example of skillfulness in the previous thread. Am I wrong?

In the US this will be/is being presented as leftist proaganda cloaked as DEI or CRT once again.

More on the involvement of the FBI

https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/why-are-moms-like-me-being-called

What is currently happening in NYC in the name of "equality".

https://thefederalist.com/2021/10/11/in-canceling-gifted-education-in-new-york-city-the-left-tells-parents-yet-again-your-kids-belong-to-us/

[WildflowerMom]

@Fritz, I don't get it.  What do you want?   Kids to be taught only life-skills and nothing else?   Kind of like trade school?   If you teach English, History, Science, or yes, even health, diversity is a must.  You can't leave diversity out of say, an English class.  How would that even happen?   

[Tanaqui]

The G&T program in NYC has always been a crock. It's *good* that they're phasing it out - testing kids before they even enter kindergarten is madness.

[madteaparty]

2 minutes ago, Tanaqui said:

The G&T program in NYC has always been a crock. It's *good* that they're phasing it out - testing kids before they even enter kindergarten is madness.

Listen my kid bombed that test at age 4 so spectacularly I thought we needed an award for it, but I think the G&T program in NYC, as hot of a mess as it is, has been a lifeline to many immigrant families. I’m sad it’s going away (and knowing what I know now I would not put a kid of mine in even a citywide G&T, even if DS hadn’t relieved us of the option 🤣). I’m still glad programs like that exist. 

[Roadrunner]

You know, you can’t please every parent. Older I get, more pro school choice I become. If I want a school where my kid reads Dickens and Milton and other dead white men, and where he isn’t taught that being masculine is toxic and being rich is immoral, it would be nice to have that option. Classical charters exist I was told. Dang, I would hand over my share to SWB for WTMA education. I can also see that others might want a more modern approach to curriculum. I do think choice is good. That isn’t to say we shouldn’t engage opposite opinions. It’s to say we might want a different core as education is concerned. 
and yes to gifted schools. They have served many well. I wish we had a choice of one locally. 

Edited October 12, 2021 by Roadrunner

[KSera]

15 minutes ago, Tanaqui said:

The G&T program in NYC has always been a crock. It's *good* that they're phasing it out - testing kids before they even enter kindergarten is madness.

I don’t know what the answer is for gifted education, but neither the current system, nor eliminating it seem like good options. Lack of a local gifted program was largely responsible for why we initially began homeschooling. What I see now, is people prepping their kids for taking the test to enter gifted programs, which is craziness. That’s not what it’s for, that’s not how it works. of course, that’s neither here nor there for the original topic, but the original topic is suspect in itself, so oh well lol. 
 

To that point of the original topic, what I’m noticing that is the irony in all this, is that it’s actually the CRT-Protesting folks who are doing this so-called rebranding of CRT as DEI and then turning around and accusing others of having done so. And it still makes no sense, because they aren’t parallel concepts or structures, so you can’t re-brand one as the other. They’re not both curriculum, they’re not both policies, they’re not both anything because they are two different kinds of things. It’s non sensical to say one is being rebranded as the other.

[Pam in CT]

Maybe "school choice" warrants its own thread.  It's definitely on topic to the boards, but incorporates a lot of issues / tradeoffs distinct from "CRT" or "DEI" though there may well be some Venn Diagram overlap (IME there are equity & inclusion effects resulting from some choice programs).

My mother taught in middling-quality public schools her entire career; I personally benefited a good deal from a G&T program within one of those schools; one of my best friends founded and thereafter served as ED for a charter school in WDC; another very good friend has spent her entire adult life as a teacher in some pretty economically depressed areas; I have several friends and one family branch who've availed of very good charters in WDC and NYC; and two sets of nephews in NYC who went through/are now going through the preschool testing ->G&T school within a school ->competitive test-in public high school circus; and I've steered ESL students into both the magnet and charter systems here in CT.

And my own thoughts on "choice" are all.over.the.map.  I don't even know where I ultimately come out, other than the specific charters / founding documents matter a LOT.  This isn't about broad principles as much as wonky weedy details.

 

 

 

Edited October 12, 2021 by Pam in CT
adding my own experience/benefit to litany

[Melissa Louise]

2 hours ago, Fritz said:

Skillfulness is the key. As we saw with all of the info that was presented in the CRT thread there was zero skillfulness. I do not recall one example of skillfulness in the previous thread. Am I wrong?

 

No, you're not wrong. 

I generally have a poor opinion of compulsory schooling anyway, so the lack of skill doesn't surprise me. Schools are very fad-driven; that doesn't lend itself to deeply thought through engagement. 

 

 

 

 

[Melissa Louise]

2 hours ago, WildflowerMom said:

@Fritz, I don't get it.  What do you want?   Kids to be taught only life-skills and nothing else?   Kind of like trade school?   If you teach English, History, Science, or yes, even health, diversity is a must.  You can't leave diversity out of say, an English class.  How would that even happen?   

An English curriculum can be made more diverse in any of several directions.

I tend to think diversity of form and voice matter more than author diversity (though they are somewhat linked) but it's always going to depend on the critical lens you program with. 

To program with a DEI lens is one valid approach. Another might be a psychoanalytic lens, a Marxist lens, a reader-response lens. Personally, I tend to program from a  new criticism perspective. 

Throwing a multiplicity of approaches out with the bathwater, though, isn't great.

Just as I need to know when a text may benefit from a social and historical reading, or a feminist lens, those with a social justice lens might need to know how to incorporate close reading and evaluation of the text independent of context. 

Any time we flatten literature, by excluding ways of reading, we've moved closer to propaganda and away from the humanities. I could flatten it in a classroom, by shutting down issues of sex/race/class. Someone else could flatten by insisting a text be primarily read through a race/sex/class lens. 

I totally understand how an English teacher could resist top down instruction to shrink the study of text to a single lens, and still not be a white supremacist. 

Are these conversations happening in staffrooms? Do they take place in a way where collegial norms allow a multitude of perspectives to be worked through to consensus, and a whole of school approach? 

The driving question, really, would be 'What is English for?' 

 

[Fritz]

On 10/11/2021 at 10:32 AM, kokotg said:

I'm in a facebook group for AP lit teachers. We do AP lit at home, so I'm there for ideas about lesson plans and how to teach the FRQs and all that, but I've been absolutely horrified by the accounts of what's going on in public schools in conservative states right now (it was helpful to remember that group when I was having some self-doubts during the recent "does anyone else regret homeschooling" thread). So some example of how this bizarre CRT mania is "actually being implemented in the classroom": a teacher in Tennessee who is now afraid to teach ANY works by Black writers. Teacher after teacher having to change booklists or offer alternate books to students because some random parent complained about a book of very well established literary merit. Teachers having to get every text they assign approved by the administration to make sure it's not going to be controversial in any way

I wonder how these kids will fare when they get to college and their parents can no longer protect them from the horrors of grappling with complex ideas. 

I doubt Randy Weingarten wants input from teachers anymore than she wants parents input. Were you asked about CRT or DEI in the classroom?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/weingarten-teachers-union-critical-race-theory-crt-11626990795

[Janeway]

What’s bad here is that this whole thing is being used as an attack on an entire segment of society. people are being marginalized based on their race or their gender. My son, who has autism, is trying to take a science class where the chemistry lab is requiring that everyone write a paper on a non-white non-male non-heterosexual chemist. Why does this belong in a chemistry lab class? it’s a one credit class attached to the chemistry class and he already spent three hours a week in it and hast to do the lab reports and stuff but now he has spent a bunch of time doing a big written thesis project.  I was also informed by a staff member at his school that they were told that they have to first consider non-white non-hetero non-male applicants for jobs before they consider any hetero white male. And then I realized as I look around campus, I don’t see any hetero white males working in work-study jobs or otherwise. Why does anyone think it’s OK to be so nasty and so discriminatory prejudice against an entire segment of the population as some sort of response to a perceived behavior of prejudice against another segment? Also, it’s causing a lot of division in this country to keep making out one race is being the bad guy against the other race. It really is working well the pit the races against each other. It is not ok. If these programs were simply teaching inclusion, it would be OK. But they’re not. They’re teaching exclusion. They’re teaching people that it’s OK to exclude somebody based on their race or their gender or their gender identity or their sexual identity.

[WildflowerMom]

11 minutes ago, Janeway said:

What’s bad here is that this whole thing is being used as an attack on an entire segment of society. people are being marginalized based on their race or their gender. My son, who has autism, is trying to take a science class where the chemistry lab is requiring that everyone write a paper on a non-white non-male non-heterosexual chemist. Why does this belong in a chemistry lab class? it’s a one credit class attached to the chemistry class and he already spent three hours a week in it and hast to do the lab reports and stuff but now he has spent a bunch of time doing a big written thesis project.  I was also informed by a staff member at his school that they were told that they have to first consider non-white non-hetero non-male applicants for jobs before they consider any hetero white male. And then I realized as I look around campus, I don’t see any hetero white males working in work-study jobs or otherwise. Why does anyone think it’s OK to be so nasty and so discriminatory prejudice against an entire segment of the population as some sort of response to a perceived behavior of prejudice against another segment? Also, it’s causing a lot of division in this country to keep making out one race is being the bad guy against the other race. It really is working well the pit the races against each other. It is not ok. If these programs were simply teaching inclusion, it would be OK. But they’re not. They’re teaching exclusion. They’re teaching people that it’s OK to exclude somebody based on their race or their gender or their gender identity or their sexual identity.

This sounds crazy!   So I guess you have to write 'I am xxxxxx' on the top of the application?   I mean, how else would they know if someone is non-hetero?   Do they think they can tell based on what they wear or whatever else?   That's so invasive and yucky.  

[KSera]

37 minutes ago, WildflowerMom said:

This sounds crazy!   So I guess you have to write 'I am xxxxxx' on the top of the application?   I mean, how else would they know if someone is non-hetero?   Do they think they can tell based on what they wear or whatever else?  

It sounds not just crazy, but totally implausible. You can't ask someone their sexual orientation in a job interview. You can't even ask them if they have children.

I also keep hearing some people use the phrase "pit the races against each other" when they talk about this topic, and it definitely makes me think they are reading or watching some strange things.

[WildflowerMom]

1 minute ago, KSera said:

It sounds not just crazy, but totally implausible. You can't ask someone their sexual orientation in a job interview. You can't even ask them if they have children.

I also keep hearing some people use the phrase "pit the races against each other" when they talk about this topic, and it definitely makes me think they are reading or watching some strange things.

Agree.   I also think there's something missing because when I re-read it, even janeway said every worker was non-hetero.  How does one know that?   Maybe there's a missing piece to the story.  🤷🏻‍♀️

[goldberry]

On 10/12/2021 at 11:55 AM, Fritz said:

More on the involvement of the FBI

https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/why-are-moms-like-me-being-called

 

The woman in your first article says:

      We are parents, and we have every right to speak passionately and publicly about our children’s education. To post on social media. To write open letters to school board members. To submit op-eds to newspapers. To form advocacy organizations with other parents. To organize protests. To show up to school board meetings.

None of those things are being investigated by the FBI or anyone else as long as parties are following the law.  It seems too often the goal is to *shut down* a school board meeting rather than to just show up, and communicate according to guidelines (which include time limits, non-threatening speech, no name-calling).  If you think the threats are not really happening you might want to research that more.  NO ONE is calling concerned parents terrorists if they are behaving like concerned parents and civil adults.  For the parents that aren't, I wonder what kind of example they think they are setting for their children about how to resolve conflict.

I did find this comment interesting:

      Why should our children — in class, in front of their peers — be required to discuss their sexual orientation? Give their pronouns? Renounce their “privilege”? Plumbing children for this kind of personal information is grotesque and inappropriate, and it has everything to do with the worldview of Critical Race Theory. Anyone who denies as much is lying. 

Pronouns and sexual orientation may be their own issue, but have ZERO to do with CRT.  If they truly are requiring people to announce their sexual orientation in class (rather than just someone who wants to volunteer that) I agree that's weird and inappropriate.  But it's still not CRT.

 

[Pam in CT]

re anything that triggers me, is CRT

5 minutes ago, goldberry said:

The woman in your first article says:

      We are parents, and we have every right to speak passionately and publicly about our children’s education. To post on social media. To write open letters to school board members. To submit op-eds to newspapers. To form advocacy organizations with other parents. To organize protests. To show up to school board meetings.

None of those things are being investigated by the FBI or anyone else as long as parties are following the law.  It seems too often the goal is to *shut down* a school board meeting rather than to just show up, and communicate according to guidelines (which include time limits, non-threatening speech, no name-calling).  If you think the threats are not really happening you might want to research that more.  NO ONE is calling concerned parents terrorists if they are behaving like concerned parents and civil adults.  For the parents that aren't, I wonder what kind of example they think they are setting for their children about how to resolve conflict.

I did find this comment interesting:

      Why should our children — in class, in front of their peers — be required to discuss their sexual orientation? Give their pronouns? Renounce their “privilege”? Plumbing children for this kind of personal information is grotesque and inappropriate, and it has everything to do with the worldview of Critical Race Theory. Anyone who denies as much is lying. 

Pronouns and sexual orientation may be their own issue, but have ZERO to do with CRT.  If they truly are requiring people to announce their sexual orientation in class (rather than just someone who wants to volunteer that) I agree that's weird and inappropriate.  But it's still not CRT.

 

Well, we're back where we were over the summer, and how this brouhaha began.

There's a long form, which we thrashed out ad nauseum in the summer threads.  But the short form is an object lesson in clarity:

[goldberry]

A search returned these results pretty quickly, these are just a few:

Weapons at school board meeting, screaming profanities, houses egged, cars scratched, fire started in yards

https://www.pilotonline.com/news/education/vp-nw-school-board-meetings-20211009-dg3iidzdhfdbfk7rta6tcuvgjy-story.html

 

Threats including hanging or shooting (in public), sending photos of people being tortured saying that was what school board member deserved

https://www.reviewjournal.com/local/education/school-board-leader-tells-of-death-threats-after-vaccine-mandate-vote-2435629/

 

School board member followed around while driving, told they were coming for her and she needed to beg for mercy

https://www.wmfe.org/brevard-school-board-revises-public-comment-rules-as-violence-threats-against-school-board-members-rise-across-country/191553

 

We will make your lives miserable, you will be removed one way or the other

https://news.wosu.org/news/2021-09-21/some-ohio-school-board-members-receive-threats-over-curriculum

 

 

[Lady Florida.]

On 10/10/2021 at 5:29 PM, Lady Florida. said:

This happened in my county. Although three board members (out of five) have been voting for mask mandates despite our governor's ban on mandates, it was one who really pushed the idea from the start. People have been protesting outside her home since late last school year. The sheriff's department can't do anything because they say no actual laws have been broken and the protestors are on public sidewalks, but it's harassment and intimidation and her children have been taunted and mocked both in school and at their home. Her five year old is taunted. 

 

 

57 minutes ago, goldberry said:

A search returned these results pretty quickly, these are just a few:

School board member followed around while driving, told they were coming for her and she needed to beg for mercy

https://www.wmfe.org/brevard-school-board-revises-public-comment-rules-as-violence-threats-against-school-board-members-rise-across-country/191553

 

I'm quoting myself because the above link from goldberry is what I talked about in that post of mine. The school board member I mentioned in my post is the one speaking in the video below. I'm sorry that it's Don Lemon from CNN because some might think it political but if you just watch from about :39 to 1:30 you'll see and hear her speak. I couldn't find (or make) just the clip of her. This was at last night's school board meeting which I attended. Jennifer (who I'm proud to say I canvassed and text-banked for) has been dealing with threats since April when she put forth a motion to protect LGBTQ+ kids at school. For the past few months she's been harassed over her pro mask stance but imagine dealing with threats and harassment for 7 months! And she still stands up for her principles. 

 

[Pam in CT]

Just spent an hour folding laundry and listening to this well-done podcast interviewing Jelani Cobb, who recently did a long dive in the New Yorker about the academic & analytical roots of actual *    CRT.

It ends -- you can FF to the last 2-3 minutes to hear just this part -- with a solicitation of feedback from listeners, to choose one person and pose a question:

Quote

Is racism a permanent fixture of society?

and then ask one more follow-up question, based on whether the person responds Yes or No.

 

 

 

 

 

*     Here and elsewhere, I use the language "actual" ______ to refer to people who themselves embrace / identify with a particular label, as opposed to how *opponents* of something, or others who do not themselves identify with it, define what a theory or movement or identity group is "about."  So by that understanding...

• The best people to articulate what homeschooling is "about" are homeschoolers, not public school teachers   (...and similarly, the best people to articulate "what happens" in public schools are the teachers and students within it, rather than those on the sidelines)
• The best people to articulate what feminists "want" are people who identify as feminists, not critics of the movement
• The best people to articulate what Judaism "is" are Jews, not Christians   (...and vice versa)
• The best people to articulate what BLM "stands for" are people who identify with the movement, not people who oppose it
• and etc.

[Melissa Louise]

4 minutes ago, Pam in CT said:

Just spent an hour folding laundry and listening to this well-done podcast interviewing Jelani Cobb, who recently did a long dive in the New Yorker about the academic & analytical roots of actual *    CRT.

It ends -- you can FF to the last 2-3 minutes to hear just this part -- with a solicitation of feedback from listeners, to choose one person and pose a question:

and then ask one more follow-up question, based on whether the person responds Yes or No.

 

 

 

 

 

*     Here and elsewhere, I use the language "actual" ______ to refer to people who themselves embrace / identify with a particular label, as opposed to how *opponents* of something, or others who do not themselves identify with it, define what a theory or movement or identity group is "about."  So by that understanding...

• The best people to articulate what homeschooling is "about" are homeschoolers, not public school teachers   (...and similarly, the best people to articulate "what happens" in public schools are the teachers and students within it, rather than those on the sidelines)
• The best people to articulate what feminists "want" are people who identify as feminists, not critics of the movement
• The best people to articulate what Judaism "is" are Jews, not Christians   (...and vice versa)
• The best people to articulate what BLM "stands for" are people who identify with the movement, not people who oppose it
• and etc.

I'd be more swayed by this if I'd never experienced the whole TERF nonsense, where the most progressive of the progressives are absolutely A-OK with defining radical feminists as genocidal conservatives who deserve to be burnt at the metaphorical (and sometimes literal) stake. 

See also: allowing working class women to speak. 

Speck, own eye etc comes to mind. 

Lots of house tidying to do on the left before preaching to anyone else about 'listening'. 

~

Separately, schools work best as a three way partnership - student, family, school. Telling families they have no  (or an inferior) voice in education is far from best practice and risks backfiring on the most vulnerable families.

[Pam in CT]

re TERF nonsense

5 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

I'd be more swayed by this if I'd never experienced the whole TERF nonsense, where the most progressive of the progressives are absolutely A-OK with defining radical feminists as genocidal conservatives who deserve to be burnt at the metaphorical (and sometimes literal) stake. 

See also: allowing working class women to speak. 

Speck, own eye etc comes to mind. 

Lots of house tidying to do on the left before preaching to anyone else about 'listening'. 

~

Separately, schools work best as a three way partnership - student, family, school. Telling families they have no  (or an inferior) voice in education is far from best practice and risks backfiring on the most vulnerable families.

Yeah, I've had limited visibility into that conflict, but from that limited vantage (much of it coming from you, on these boards) it appears (?) also to include some of that dynamic where *opponents* of a movement declare what the movement is/ should be "about."

Anyway. You definitely should not listen to a podcast you're not in the mood for! 

 

--

Separately: Totally agree re schools ideally being a 3-way partnership, student, family, school.  And the farther from those vested-parties you go -- state level, federal level -- the less responsive to on-the-ground needs of kids, and strengths of teachers, the policies can be. 

There is a place for state and federal policy in the sector -- I don't know if this played out in Australia, but in the US, kids with disabilities were simply turned away at the door of many public schools until the federal IDEA was passed; and -- appropos of this thread-- until Brown v BoE many states, as a matter of law, segregated by race into Separate and decidedly Unequal schools.  And etc.

But when state or federal government get into granular curricular decisions -- either through legislation, or via purchasing power for/against particular texts -- effects, unintended or no -- ensue.

[Sneezyone]

And again, that pesky circle rears its ugly head, where the left wing of the left makes common cause with the rightest of the right.

2 hours ago, Pam in CT said:

re TERF nonsense

Yeah, I've had limited visibility into that conflict, but from that limited vantage (much of it coming from you, on these boards) it appears (?) also to include some of that dynamic where *opponents* of a movement declare what the movement is/ should be "about."

Anyway. You definitely should not listen to a podcast you're not in the mood for! 

 

--

Separately: Totally agree re schools ideally being a 3-way partnership, student, family, school.  And the farther from those vested-parties you go -- state level, federal level -- the less responsive to on-the-ground needs of kids, and strengths of teachers, the policies can be. 

There is a place for state and federal policy in the sector -- I don't know if this played out in Australia, but in the US, kids with disabilities were simply turned away at the door of many public schools until the federal IDEA was passed; and -- appropos of this thread-- until Brown v BoE many states, as a matter of law, segregated by race into Separate and decidedly Unequal schools.  And etc.

But when state or federal government get into granular curricular decisions -- either through legislation, or via purchasing power for/against particular texts -- effects, unintended or no -- ensue.

The corollary to that is that, in some parts of the country, the minority view/minority needs are completely ignored as non-existent or irrelevant. I've been amused by the push-back to the remake of the Wonder Years, currently airing on ABC channels. People are both upset and shocked by the presence of a whole different 'wonder years' experience (covering the same time period) unlike that of Fred Savage's original character. The presence of one story doesn't negate the other. Both deserve to be told and we need to hold space for that.

Edited October 14, 2021 by Sneezyone

[KSera]

19 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

I'd be more swayed by this if I'd never experienced the whole TERF nonsense, where the most progressive of the progressives are absolutely A-OK with defining radical feminists as genocidal conservatives who deserve to be burnt at the metaphorical (and sometimes literal) stake. 

See also: allowing working class women to speak. 

Speck, own eye etc comes to mind. 

Lots of house tidying to do on the left before preaching to anyone else about 'listening'.

I think I took Pam's post in the opposite way, as I was thinking of the same issue, but in reverse. Under Pam's schema, the best people to articulate what radical feminists believe about trans people would be radical feminists themselves, not the people calling them TERFs.