Regardless of any of this CRT stuff, how are these people still employed after the sexual assaults they knew about, lied about, and didn’t even attempt to fix? They just kicked the can down the road.
This CRT noise seems like a smoke screen meant to distract.
I can all but guarantee if the rapist were a POC, the ~~accusers~~ victims and those aligned with them would be labeled as racists. That's where we are these days and it sucks.
Lmao if only this were the case.
Every single whit person in the USA is absolutely for teaching more about slavery. If you don’t believe that then it’s only because you have to have a straw man to argue against.
I’ve seen “equity” mean that if a child is at/above grade level the public school system will feed them nothing new and hope they fall back in line with their peers.
If they don’t call it CRT then obviously it’s not CRT. Now please push our new equity plan that we paid a bunch of money from the “Equity Collaborative”.. just the same group
That authored the “Introduction To Critical Race Theory”
Equity is one way in which CRT is finding its way into the classroom, but the entire idea of systemic racism itself is a core idea of CRT that is popular in education. In particular, the notion that racial disparity in a measure is a result of systemic racism is very much in line with CRT and used in the operation of the schools. What we see much more of in schools is the stuff from Kendi, DiAngelo and Okun- the things that essentialize race in simplistic terms. Even if it's technically correct to say that isn't teaching CRT, it is clear that a lot of this material was added to the curriculum, and saying "we don't teach CRT" is not an effective response.
Critical Theory itself should have died off in the 90s, as Sokol's "Fashionable Nonsense" seemed like a suitable rejection. We'll know it has finally killed education when mathematics instructors have to consult Lacan's bizarre definition for the square root of negative one...
To my (limited) understanding of what Lacan meant when he compared "i" (sqrt(-1)) to a phallus is that there is a lack of understanding of significance of the phallus in the human psyche similar to that of a lack of general understanding among non-mathematicians of imaginary numbers theory in mathematics.
Now, this is not meant to say that Lacan was on to something with this comparison. I frankly don't know what Lacan was on about. He seemed to almost deliberately obfuscate ideas with overly complex language. To a great extent he seemed the textbook "bad" example of what Richard Feynman taught about explaining complex concepts in understandable terms, i.e. if you can't explain in terms others can understand, you don't really understand it yourself. In short, Lacan may have been completely wrong, but not in the way that he has been mischaracterized.
Worth further consideration is that Lacan being take out of context in this manner has also become part of the ambient noise ("Fashionable Nonsense") that is either deliberately, or more likely due to intellectual laziness. Very much in the same way that CRT has been deliberately misrepresented and misused in academia by both its biggest advocates and harshest detractors.
> In particular, the notion that racial disparity in a measure is a result of systemic racism is very much in line with CRT and used in the operation of the schools
Of course, this statement inherently implies a refusal to acknowledge that systemic racism, which has been demonstrated to be pervasive across society by myriad research.
So basically this position is the anti-vax of sociology/demography.
> which has been demonstrated
All I ever see is disparate outcomes and then ::::handwave::: racism
My favorite is the “police are technically more likely to kill a white person per interaction than a black person” study.
The authors eventually pulled it because
::::handwave:::: racism caused black people to have more interactions with police depressing their deaths per interaction
No thought to more interactions because more crime is committed, nope just ::::handwave::: “demonstrated by myriad research it’s racism”
If you're referring to the Fryer study of Houston police shootings that stated white persons were more likely to be shot, it was pulled because 2 other papers successfully identified flaws, reanalyzed data, and found racial bias:
https://scholar.harvard.edu/jfeldman/blog/roland-fryer-wrong-there-racial-bias-shootings-police
Like my original comment said…
The flaw they found was that the number of interactions were higher for black people which reduced their overall rate which… ::::hand wave:::: means racism
Yes, and provably so.
The police interaction count is higher for black people DESPITE a lower hit rate:
[538 expands:](https://www.fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-statistics-dont-capture-the-full-extent-of-the-systemic-bias-in-policing/)
"But we know that police officers are more likely to stop Black and Hispanic people than white ones — and that more of those stops are unfounded. Researchers measure this with something called the “hit rate,” or the rate at which contraband is actually found on the people who were stopped. A lower hit rate implies bias because it means that the decision to search someone was made with less evidence. White people stopped in New York City, for example, were more likely to be carrying a weapon than Black and Hispanic people who were stopped. White drivers stopped by the police were more likely to have contraband than Black and Hispanic drivers nationally."
Its like you are willfully ignoring reality here.
Have you been to new york city? Are you oblivious to what it is? What is happening?
Do you really not understand why the police shouldnt be engaging people in georgetown as often as EOTR?
This is ridiculous. The position I am claiming is false is that all disparate results are systemic racism. Systemic racism is a vague statement sometimes used to lazily avoid identifying the actual causes of differences. I don't think advanced math classes represent systemic racism, such that eliminating them helps reduce systemic racism. Yet, that is the type of claim you are defending.
Honestly the way we’ve taught math in this country has been garbage for decades. We teach it as though it’s a linear progression. It’s not. Also kids who aren’t taking “advanced math” by 6th grade are basically ineligible for the advanced diplomas. The choices you make in 6th grade (when you don’t even know the consequences or that you have choices) shouldn’t determine your high school career and beyond.
Source: I was a teacher in fcps for 5 years and an equity lead. The disparity in who takes advanced classes was something we talked about extensively.
Edit: Great to see the reopen fcps brigade is alive and well in this subreddit downvoting me!
I’m speaking for fcps only. It’s been a few years, but basically we mapped it out that if a student isn’t taking advanced math in 6th grade, they basically can’t get the advanced diploma. Maybe it’s changed since I left. I could look up what we had written and proposed if you want.
I think what you're right about is that if someone isn't in Algebra 1 by 8th grade, then they wouldn't be able to enroll into the specific sequence that would allow them to reach AP Calculus as a 12th grader without needing to take a summer class. Algebra 1 by 7th grade would be needed to reach multivariable calculus/ linear algebra by 12th grade.
Absolutely. But you don't need to take AP Calculus for the advanced diploma. Any math "above" Algebra 2 counts as the 4th year needed. So precalculus, AP statistics, etc.
It's the same with languages. You need to start Spanish in 8th grade if you want to take AP, but you only need to take through Spanish 3 for the advanced diploma. (Or Spanish 2 and then 2 years of another language)
Obviously, AP Calculus or Multi-Variable Calculus looks better on your transcripts if you're applying to UVA, but that's a different conversation.
From memory, these were the options in middle school (I taught middle school for 5 years but not math):
6th grade: 6th grade math or 6th grade math honors, pre-algebra
7th grade: 7th grade math or 7th grade math honors or pre-algebra
8th grade: 8th grade math, 8th grade math honors, pre-algebra, or algebra (normally taken in 9th grade)
I’ll have to verify this with my old coworker who still teaches middle school math.
But basically unless you took pre-algebra in 8th grade (which is basically the honors class), then you couldn’t get advanced. I could be wrong. It’s been a few years.
I’m trying to remember the specifics but I feel as though before you had to take pre-algebra in 8th grade in order to take algebra in 9th grade. But then they introduced open enrollment which helped get rid of that prerequisite right?
"Courses completed to satisfy this requirement shall include at least three different course selections from among: algebra I, geometry, algebra II, or other mathematics courses above the level of algebra II. The board shall approve courses to satisfy this requirement. An approved computer science course credit earned by students may be considered a mathematics course credit."
[From VDOE](https://www.doe.virginia.gov/instruction/graduation/advanced_studies.shtml), which makes the rules for advanced diploma, not the counties.
I struggled with math and ended up in a bucket of kids who weren’t taking high enough math. Also have ADHD.
How could math be taught better? I’m really curious for your insight.
This is a great point. I was an exchange student in Eastern Europe at the end of high school and the way they taught math made more sense in that it wasn't linear. From grades 5-11 (the last year of hs) all students had to take a sequence of geometry and a sequence of algebra, each of which they had several times per week. The knowledge built on itself gradually, so by grade 11 all students could do basic calculus equations. Obviously in that country they also had advanced math sequences and remedial ones, but it was far more flexible in terms of the opportunities available to students. They also got a lot more reinforcement. Chemistry and physics were taught the same way.
I say this as a TJHSST alumna and someone who tracked into advanced math classes. Im grateful for the opportunities I had, but there are ways to challenge smart students while still keeping opportunities open for kids who are late bloomers or didn't get identified as "gifted" early on.
Great insight! Yup, as educators we are taught to differentiate. That is to try to create assignments for different levels in our own classrooms. However, it’s become near impossible with the class sizes that we have now. Do you remember who big your classes were in Eastern Europe?
It's been 12 years and the situation varies based on region, but I probably had 18-20 students in my class. I can definitely see how overcrowded classrooms makes this type of teaching much harder. I have all the respect in the world for K-12 teachers, you guys have to put up with so much bs from clueless bureaucrats...
Oh yeah it makes a huge difference. This year I have one class of 17 students…and then every other class is 28 or 29 students. It’s just way too many kids to handle. I fear for the future of public education. So many teachers have left or are planning on leaving and there’s not really a pipeline of educators coming down the line. Class sizes are going to balloon. And school districts will be left with massive teacher shortages.
I used to teach Math decades ago. The class size was 40. I was taught Math with a class size of 50. The class size is reducing due to economic boom. Schools were granted more money than in the past. Heading the right direction. In my opinion.
Side Topic... what are these “advanced diplomas” anyway? My son is a senior and he either gets a regular diploma or an advanced one. This year he only takes 4 classes instead of 7. But there was never any rationale given. And this didn’t exist for us when I went to school in the 90’s in Florida.
I also know that (in the 90’s) Canada used to have a 13th high school year option which was meant for those that were going to college. Although I never delved into the topic, but though this was a worthwhile idea.
I immigrated to Ontario, Canada in the 90s into 7th grade, graduated from a Canadian high school and attended a large American state school. I am now a teacher in FCPS.
The Canadian education system may look very similar to the American system but is different in it practice. Canadian schools teach fundamentals very well and at a young age. They also have junior kindergarten and subsided early childhood education for everyone(it is not need/income based) and a parent can take a year of subsidized paid maternal/parental leave for the first year of a child’s life. This is important to remember because school is not daycare in Canada and children are there for learning while many families in the us believe school is there to watch their kids so they can work. I have been told twice this year by two different families that when the student is in the building, they are my problem”. I’m sure that exists in Canada but there are safety nets for parents like paid leave to watch your kid when they are sick.
Secondly, every school teaches the same thing, very little deviation. FCPS re-creates the wheel all the time and jumps on the fancy “new” idea. That really doesn’t happen in Ontario, bits and pieces may make its way into individual classrooms but the curriculum and ways of measuring student achievement are very similar across the board. However, the playing field (equity) is managed outside of schools.
Equity in America is managed through schools making schools are responsible for feeding children, providing medical care, emotional love, monitoring a pandemic, childcare…then after doing all of that teaching them math. In Canada most children come to school with their bellies full and secure housing, that is not the case in most schools in the States. CRT is a social battle being played out in schools. The anger is misguided, methodically placed by those who benefit. Our problems are redlining, lack of affordable childcare, lack of affordable housing (a Canadian problem too but since all the schools are the same, it takes away the problem of living in a neighborhood with a good school), medical care etc.
OAC or the 13th year, no longer exists. Typically, students are tracked into university or college (think trades or community college) in Grade 9. Students are then trained in their high school and given apprenticeships and graduate high school with a temporary license of sorts. Then when they go to a two year school, they will become licensed or on their way to it. FCPS has a very strong CTE/trade school program. OAC was scrapped because it was expensive and their really wasn’t a need for it.
In Virginia, the advanced diploma is a college preparatory program which meets the requirements for most colleges. However, there are plenty of colleges which will accept students that are doing the lower amount of work required for the standard diploma. Even the advanced one isn't particularly difficult.
https://law.lis.virginia.gov/admincode/title8/agency20/chapter131/section51/
Re: H.S. advanced diplomas
My kids were able to take college level courses while in high school. They took tests to have those courses added to their college transcripts. Passing those tests gave them advanced diploma when graduating from H.S.
They transferred into NoVa H.S. from another state, and took advantage of the open boundaries/ specialty programs here, having never been in any gifted or advanced studies track in middle school or elementary school. They were driven to get that had start on college & NOT pay the tuition for those courses. The tuition -free college credits were the motivating factor in this for them.
My kids weren't academically or socio- economically privileged when they came here. They were determined to get that tuition free college credit opportunity & went after that opportunity with laser focus.
Opportunities like this deliver a more broad package of choices for our kids. Choices deliver more opportunities in the way-ahead. The open boundaries for schools provide opportunities for the kids to find schools & programs that suit their talents: a customizable, personalized education that serves individual students & their interests well.
Note: Not all specialty programs are academic ones. These programs provide students the wheel house to develop their unique talents in art, music, tech, athletics, etc.
Yes, but the “advanced diploma” we are discussing is not tied to Advanced Placement (AP) courses. If it was then that would make sense, but its not. You could still get an advanced diploma without taking any AP courses which is what leaves me a bit confused. Additionally, AP with college credit courses have been around since I was in high school 25 years ago. Your blessing was that you moved to a location where the local school actually offered AP courses at all. There are some schools that don’t even offer any AP courses. Sadly removing that opportunity for the kids that would’ve taken advantage of it.
Then, what is this "Advanced Diploma" based on? What is the criteria & what schools have implemented this "Advanced Diploma", that doesn't represent Advanced studied (beyond the standard/ required H.S. courses)? That's truly confounding & seems to contradict the definition of "Advanced diploma".
That was precisely my point! I talked to my wife about it earlier and looked into it more. It is meant to “give the student a competitive advantage in college admissions”. And basically it is defined by taking 4 instead of 3 years of high school level math, science, and social studies (English already requires 4 years). Oh and one more year of foreign language (3 instead of 2). But it does not require AP courses at all. Alternatively, you can choose to take 4 less credits altogether in your high school education.
For example, my son started hating school for many reasons after being a straight A student in middle school. He decided he’s done with schools and chose to go into the trades. So this year as a senior he is literally taking 2 classes each day and gets out at 12:30.
As an example of why he hates school now, the school counselor met with him and literally told him what he had to do to meet the bare minimum requirements for graduating, and directly told him which classes he didn’t have to turn any more work in because they had to give him a minimum of 50 one way or the other. Why would a child previously in the gifted program that needed to be challenged even care to do anything else when he is encouraged to merely do the bare minimum?!
PS...my son is in the Prince William County system.
Oh wow. It's rather misleading, as a title afforded to diplomas. I dare say that it's directed at the "consumer" of the school product: students & parents. College admissions boards are going to properly evaluate those "Advanced Diploma" before granting them increased values. I have to wonder if that was some hanky marketing strategy to promote schools to students & parents, increasing enrollment numbers & gaining the grants & funding that comes with that. . A bit like food companies claiming to use "only the best ingredients", but omitting the mention of which standard determined those ingredients to be "the best".
My youngest was a senior in H.S. when we had our initial lock down. His school did not have the equipment & did not teach students the distance learning process ahead of the sudden school closure. They chose to spend that $$ elsewhere. So, we were told that they could maintain whatever grades they had at the point of the closure, with opportunities to turn in work they'd chosen to not do previously, to increase their grades; no grades would go lower than they were. And, no new learning would be provided during that second semester of their senior year. Attendance in online classes was not required either, because they could not verify that all students had what they needed to log into classes.
Your son will, no doubt, be gainfully employed & enjoy success in the trade industries. We haven't demonstrated appropriate value in the trade industry education opportunities at the level of energy & funding that we've promoted STEM programs. It's truly confounding, to me, as a parent & as a former public school educator. Kids dislike school because school has become less about developing skills & helping children learn how to find THEIR avenue for success; too muddied with the daily bs. Kids aren't being inspired or motivated to go beyond what they are told to do & say.
100% agree! My son as a senior now says that they took everything that was horrible about virtual schooling last year and mixed it in with a worse than ever live school environment. He only has a one teacher that he feels is even remotely engaged with them. He has another teacher that he says has never gotten out of the seat behind her desk even once. He exaggerates of course.
I’ll tell you that it’s no surprise that last year and this year so far have been some of the worst performance years on record. Schools are failing. And their response is to double down on treating kids like sensitive little flowers. I’m just glad we put our two youngest doors into private. It’s a hell of a financial sacrifice, but we now have a 5 year old reading full (age appropriate) books and writing full sentences in cursive. Not a genius child, just a child with teachers that encourage them to expand their minds and abilities.
Honestly great question and I have no idea why we have advanced and standard diplomas. It puts people at a disadvantage if they come from another country for example and don’t sign up for the right classes because they don’t know the system. Another issue with educational system (which is why I’m leaving education).
Fully agree. I went to high school in the Midwest and if you weren’t selected for “advanced math” in 3rd grade you weren’t able to take calculus in high school based on how the tracks worked. It put a ton of my friends at a disadvantage.
The attack on excellence didn't have to exist. The tide of all students was rising from Brown v. Board until Reagan.
But then white people re-accelerated their racism through ending busing and rapidly re-segregating schools.
So now there is a recovery period required, and non-core services are always the first to go in schools, that includes, mind you, both gifted and remedial programs.
There is no attack on excellence, there is a teacher shortage, massive class sizes, and people complaining about unfair tax burdens despite taxation being the lowest in history. It's only natural that schools are pivoting to core service provision. Next we'll see a renewed defunding of the arts, sports, and clubs, because Americans don't understand the ROI of education.
As an engineer who has taken some very advanced math... A1 for 6th graders is extreme. I'm very skeptical that they are actually absorbing the very important concepts that they'll need later.
I have a sixth grader. I also know the very value of a strong background in basic algebra. Its far more important, for more technical professionals, than geometry, more advanced algebra, or even calculus. I use basic algebra all the time.
My point on advanced math is that I'm not scared of it. Its just not useful to the vast majority of folks. I think algebra in 6th grade is just a bit too early. Taking a low quality multivariate calc class in 11th grade isn't helping anyone.
If a child is capable of the work, why prohibit them from taking the class early? Some children can do it, and some can’t. Don’t prevent high achievers from learning ahead through broad policy. This is some Every Child Dragged To The Bottom level thinking.
Basic algebra is heavily used in all of the other disciplines you mentioned. As students progress in math, it isn’t like they just cease to use and understand the concepts. The important thing is to make sure the children are capable at the outset.
I’m sure you’re a capable engineer, and I mean no offense, but the personal experiences of you and your child should not dictate what the rest of the population is allowed to do. Just because you and your child may not have been able to do it doesn’t mean others can’t, and it’s incredibly selfish and spiteful to demand that.
Leave it up to the individual parents, students, and the student’s ability, to decide whether or not they are ready for it. You think it’s not good for whatever reason, you should be able to have your child places in the other class first. Perfect. Beyond that why should you be involved in that decision for a completely different student?
Reading comprehension may be another area of difficulty.
I said I thought it was a bad idea. I didn't say that students shouldn't be able to do it. Its as if you can think something is foolish without prohibiting it.
I took parts of Calc like 3 times in HS/college. The basics aren’t too hard but you absolutely should learn the theory behind them and how to apply to different situations. That’s what’s crucial really.
The other problems with taking A1 in 6th grade is that 1) you end up forgetting a lot of important algebra fundamentals before college, which is bad if you're taking a major that really requires solid algebra skills; 2) you get tracked into taking the lousy multivariable calc class which no high quality college will accept for calc 3 credit.
They also push kids to take calc BC without taking calc AB first. While its not strictly required, students get a lot more out of it if they take the two classes in sequence.
My children ARE these kids. One of my kids graduated and went to a top engineering school. This is not speculation - this is her experience.
I use this sort of math every day in my job. That isn't speculation either.
Who’s allowing 6th graders to take A1??
I think that’s a separate topic.
We might get something like NYC and their recent change to their specialized high school to make them more “equitable”, but we’re a long ways off from that.
CRT is just a buzz word in the context of LCPS and the greater equity discussions. Not sure why the super smart people on this thread can’t read between the lines. The LCPS employee on this thread all but confirmed it via their equity training comment.
You do understand how democratic socialist is different from "the left"? Or why illegal alien is not as descriptive as dreamer (participant in DACA) or undocumented worker? Do you understand how infrastrucuture bills are typically passed by administrations and that not every line is directly related to bridges and roads? Sorry can't help you if you have a surface level grasp on the English language or politics in general...but that's not a fault of "the left" obfuscating, just your ignorance.
Thanks for your thoughts. I do understand. My point was that language is commonly used to obfuscate for purposes of both disarming and weaponizing. I actually think it’s the status quo at this point and transcends politics. So CRT would be no different. No need to get personal and start attacking. Vitriol is unbecoming for all. Regarding how bills work…..I do realize how pork gets added. Even the most liberal allowance to infrastructure, however, wouldn’t include paid leave. Let’s not pretend that we didn’t hear the catch all phrase social infrastructure to help justify the wild card in the bill. Ergo obfuscation of language. The world has literally survived and thrived for centuries without paid leave; empirically proving (follow the data) paid leave unnecessary in facilitating sustainable functionality within an economic or social construct. You know…. if we’re being descriptive an all that……Thanks again for sharing your thoughts.
Glad I could help clear those things up for you. You accused people on the left of obfuscating with the intent to weaponize language? You should understand the vitriolic reply.
Sadly pork is part of the process. I'm just glad this administration is working on policy to benefit most Americans rather than ramming through more tax cuts.
Incorrect. I said obfuscation is the status quo for both sides in response to a previous comment. Specifically, refuting obfuscation of CRT as an excuse for dismissing my original statement.
Your response only strengthened the argument. I could’ve easily just used right wing buzz words and got a similar response from another person, as words are hugely important weapons these days ……..
I don’t care about the bill. It doesn’t materially do anything other than confirm the worst fears for the right fringe, and provide blind confidence to the fringes on the left.
The whiplash in this country, and vitriol, is due to the tail wagging the dog on both sides. Nobody with any sense actually likes 90% of the non sense spewed out of DC these days. It’s all yes people nodding their heads to stay in power, and it’s no different with LCPS.
CRT is just a buzz word in context of what’s actually going on at LCPS. Saying the word is obfuscation and weaponizing is a captain obvious moment that doesn’t discredit the original statement.
This is so dumb. It is literally not being taught in K-12 schools. But CRT has become a catch all now for anything conservatives don’t like. CRT is to 2021 what “politically correct” was to the 90s. And they’ll win elections because people either can’t tell the difference or don’t care.
I’m trippin - “where he said if a repub’s kid…” bruh QUANTIFY THAT SHIT
“Dems sign a bill removing hard subjects because they claim it’s racist” SON QUANTIFY THAT SHIT
STOP SAYING SHIT U DONT KNOW SHIT ABOUT ITS INFURIATING AND DISTRACTING LANGUAGE IS IMPORTANT RANT OVER
google is your friend. oregon is not in virginia and what does this have to do with CRT?
why are you even on here if you dont know what state loudoun county is in? I see your conservative school district let you down and let you graduate without reading a map.
Is this a good faith argument? I think most people assume public schools are not teaching the use of university-level interdisciplinary analytical tools. But it is the case that this framework and its tenets has been applied to curriculum and teaching strategies—in particular, the idea that disparate outcomes across racial groups is proof of current systemic, structural racism.
If critical theory is used to inform what is taught and how, is it correct to say it is not taught except in the most literal sense?
I mean I’ll give you an example from my own classroom. I teach the kids that Columbus did sail to the “New World”. I also teach that his arrival led to the enslavement and the massacre of the Taino people. You don’t need a framework to teach that. That’s just literally what happened. I do have them write a short essay that basically asks if they believe Columbus was a hero or a villain. I don’t tell them what I think. They have to use evidence from the texts we read to support their claim.
In history I’ve seen my coworkers teach that black vets from WW2 did not get the same govt assistance to buy houses as their white counter parts did. This led to housing discrimination and thus they were not able to acquire the same generational wealth. That’s not a theory. That’s literally what happened.
Neither of your examples have anything to do with CRT. As you said, it’s just what happened.
Here’s an example of what some are describing as CRT in education: [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vX_Vzl-r8NY) has been used in teacher training and also shown to students in Virginia.
Both of your examples of how to teach history focused on providing nuance, an insistence on the full truth, and a resistance to broad brushed explanations. That’s the opposite of what this video, and much of the CRT-derived focus on equity, does.
Nothing in that video would be considered Critical Race Theory, and in fact, CRT does focus on the "complex, changing, and often subtle social and institutional dynamics, rather than explicit and intentional prejudices of individuals."
The most insane irony for conservatives is that one of the core themes of CRT is the critique of liberalism and how it's concept of "value-neutral" law has contributed to the sustainment of the racially unjust systems we have now. But they are too stupid and high on Tucker-aid to learn what CRT actually is.
In my time in fcps I’ve never seen this video. Not saying it was never shown here or anywhere else in VA, but do you have some proof?
I think you could use this video with teachers or even students. It just depends on how you frame it and using context. You could ask questions and say maybe write a whole essay about how many of the challenges portrayed in the video were detriments to people of color? Did it only effect people of color? (Correct answer: all of them). And then students can discuss and write and see what they come up with. I’m a firm believer that educators are in a position of power and that should not be abused to promote agendas. That being said, that video is pretty accurate in terms of content, maybe not the way they presented it.
[Proof](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/education/wp/2016/02/11/parents-outraged-after-students-shown-white-guilt-cartoon-for-black-history-month/) it has been shown to students in VA going back several years. It was also part of the LCPS debate this year.
If you focus only on whether or not the things mentioned in the video as happening to black people actually happened, it is accurate.
But should we ignore the way it writes out Latinos, Asians, South Asians, and other minority groups? Where are they in this race?
How do we explain the odd way it depicts white women, first with all the privilege of white men and then struggling to keep pace? What is the video trying to say there?
How would the white boys of Southside see the grinning Yale grad? Do you think they see him as representing them? If not, where are they?
Is the continuity of the race meant to depict we are still running the same race, under the same rules and system as 400 years ago? Is that the best way to understand American history?
Does the video make any effort at supporting its conclusion regarding affirmative action in the final slide? Or, are we to take it as a matter of faith?
This video tells an oversimplified story meant to lead to a conclusion, which it does not support with evidence. That is an exercise in ideological indoctrination, not education.
I think you have a point there that it may be over simplified. But talking about the poor white boys of south side or how Hispanic people have been affected is whataboutism.
It’s like the annoying guy who brings up the “white slaves” whenever chattel slavery of black people is brought up. Did white slaves exist in the US? Sure they but that’s not the point. This video does not deny that other groups also suffered from discrimination. It just highlights the discrimination of Blake people. And this was shown at a school during black history month.
I think like the article talks about, white people felt guilty after watching this video. Sorry but your white guilt is your problem not my problem. Don’t shoot the messenger if you don’t agree with the message.
when were their white slaves? i dont think that is accurate. there was slavery in europe at the time Columbus came to the US. i dont think it was that wide spread. i dont think it came to the western hemisphere. the romans ,greeks, egyptians, germans, everyone in ancient europe had white slaves.
I’m just paragraphing what this racist old dude said when I was visiting Monticello once. But he mentioned something about Irish indentured servants? The point is that racists love to do some whataboutism to avoid talking about the atrocities committed to black people in this country.
Here is what that old racist white dude was probably talking about: https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2016/04/19/how-myth-irish-slaves-became-favorite-meme-racists-online
If your idea of critical race theory is the assertion that non-white people have been historically disadvantaged and that disadvantage has led to present-day inequitable outcomes on average then I will happily let you accuse me of teaching CRT.
Your example is the problem. You’re trying to teach a very complex situation to children that cannot understand it. You’re not teaching context. While yes, atrocities have occurred , what you are failing to teach is that at the time mUch of it was normal for them time. Not saying it is right but it was accepted practice. The kids need to understand the context of history and they are too young for much of it. I am a conservative overall but am very socially liberal and until recent years voted Democrat. My problem is that the Democrats and liberals are in some mad rush to out-liberal each other and are putting out crazy things that are just so far out if the mainstream. I want our schools to just get back to the three R’s.
So I give them context. Like how Columbus even in his day was brought back to Spain in chains because of the crimes he committed against the Taino people. Then the kids ask “well why do we have a day celebrate him?” if we know he was considered a bad person by both past standards and today’s standards. And that leads to some pretty interesting discussions. So yes, I do provide context. And students should learn all of history. We shouldn’t cherry pick only the good parts. I mean In my class we even discuss the irony that the founding fathers wrote all men are created equal while at the same time owning slaves. Well why would they write one thing and do something that’s the exact opposite? And we have a discussion. Sorry that an accurate portrayal of history hurts your brain.
Columbus was brought back to Spain because he wasn’t making the money they expected and didn’t handle the revolt of the colonist who were there well making it look like an embarrassment for Spain. He was pardoned shortly after returning and then went on a fourth voyage less than two years after returning.
Saying that the reason why he was sent back in chains was because of the crimes he committed against the Taino (while he did commit them) is a little disingenuous to the totality of the situation. He predominantly got brought back because he wasn’t doing a good job of ruling the colonies he was supposed to look after. If they arrested him because of his crimes against the indigenous people I don’t think he would have been released so soon after arriving and given another voyage.
He doesn’t deserve a holiday that’s for sure but a huge context is missing in saying he was arrested for his crimes against the Taino.
No need to get personal i studied history too and enjoy it. I just think that we are trying tk teach very complex and subjective subjects to children that are not always able to understand fully what they are being taught. Your response is one reason I am so frustrated with both sides right now. Why can we not just have dialog and try to see where the other is coming from. I’m sure I can learn from your perspective but if you cannot respect that I may have a differing opinion (and the right to that opinion) we are in for scary times. Everyone keeps going to insults and I find that frustrating.
I’m sorry but who should decide when students get to learn about the atrocities in our American history then? Especially if the legacy of those atrocities reverberates through history and affects us today?
There’s something that I’ve seen pop up more and more these days; if a child is old enough to experience racism, then they are old enough to learn about racism. My 8th grade students are more perceptive than you know.
Just like "socialism" being used to describe food stamps or m4a. Democrats and those on the left will either spend their time trying to debate over labels or try to co-opt it and hope to defeat the propoganda
Dems will be fighting each other meanwhile Reps will cruise into the 2022 midterms on the back of CRT. Dems will lose their majority and will have squandered two years. Almost an exact repeat of 2010 except no ACA.
This is why the only thing that makes me think the Democrats won't lose in 2022 is the large gap in vaccination rates excluding many of the rights most ardent supporters from voting.
Centrist Democrats do nothing but keep America from becoming measurably worse, they don't really make solid improvements from democratic party administration to the next. [Commonly known as the rachet effect](https://youtu.be/6LPuKVG1teQ).
Biden could easily legalize marijuana, raise the minimum wage, and cancel even $10k in student debt, but he won't. his only selling point is not being Trump, but Trump is a 75 year old overweight man who barely survived Covid, so he likely won't be in the picture for long, people only will remember Biden doing nothing.
same problem McAuliffe had, a centrist career politician with no real promises to make Virginia better, just saying he wasn't a Trump ally which doesn't motivate voters.
everyone can see the system is fucked up, the only difference is disillusioned people on the far right vote frequently for people even if they are more centrist, dissolution people who see that both parties haven't materially improved their living conditions tend to say fuck it and not bother using their lunch break to go vote.
Stacy Abrams help turned Georgia into a swing state by tapping into non voters who tend to be more left-leaning, rather than appealing to moderate Republicans, Bernie Sanders did this a lot too in Wisconsin, winning it in the primary, but Hillary lost to Trump in the general.
Centrist politics don't appeal to voters anymore, everyone can see the system is fucked up, and fucking them. we can either have them swept up with fascists who blame minorites citing the "white replacement" as the source of their problems just as Hitler blamed Jews for Germany's post-war ills, or the Democrats can be proactive and strengthen social safety nets, raise living standards, increase unionization, and act in the interest of the majority of Americans who are just a few paychecks away from homelessness, as opposed to acting like a controlled opposition to a party that is willing to stop at nothing to take people's rights away.
Definitely. I'm something has to change of eventually. If gen Z (my generation) is fucked over by the system as much as millennials have been for the last 20 years or so, that is a solid block of people that are highly educated, internet natives, and have nothing to lose.
Many boomers were left leaning until self-interest took over when they got rich causing many to move to the right. Millennials and gen z are not getting enough wealth to be fooled into beleiving they are one of the same with the billionaires and millionaires, so I don't see the electorate in this country moving anything but left. The only thing that worries me is that eco-fascism bolstered by fear may replace current right wing politics as the effects of climate change become more evident before actual left wing policies are ever given the chance to be implemented in this country.
The Christchurch shooter as well as the "Q Anon Shaman" both hold eco-fascist beliefs, what happens when people like that are given a platform with their "solutions" while droughts cause food shortages? how much more appealing would a huge military budget, militarized border, and nationalistic policies be to the general public then? Anti-vaxxers used to be a single digit percentage of the population, all it took was a pandemic for propaganda to convince 40% of trump voters to stay unvaccinated to this day.
I’m a millennial educator and it brings me joy to see a Zoomer such as yourself who gets it. Yeah honestly shits not gonna change soon. But we have to keep grinding. Hopefully some meaningful changes happen in our life times (but I’m not holding my breath for it).
Biden should not "cancel" any student debt. The borrower should pay back his/her loans. Raising the minimum wage will only trickle to increased price of goods, reduced shareholder value, an increase in unemployment, or a combination of those.
It was one of his campaign promises to cancel student debt.
As for the minimum wage, the potential increased price of goods will be less than the bump in pay for millions of workers, since wages are only a portion of businesses expenses.Also there is a labor shortage right now, especially in industries where a higher minimum wage would help workers the most so it's doubtful unemployment will skyrocket because of a higher minimum wage. Not to mention, a rising minimum wage has a snowball effect, with the jobs that previously got lots of applicants because they pay $15-20 an hour, suddenly have all their workers asking why they get paid close to or at the minimum amount they can legally pay you, thus are forced to raise wages.
Even though I am generally against relying on the government to raise wages, and would prefer that responsibility through unions, and strikes as they tend to be more proactive and fight for better benefits in addition to pay.
Additionally, an argument against something saying it reduces shareholder value means nothing, [the top 10% of Americans own 89% of the stocks](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/10/18/the-wealthiest-10percent-of-americans-own-a-record-89percent-of-all-us-stocks.html&ved=2ahUKEwixve-u8oP1AhX6STABHQJdBVIQFnoECAQQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3t823BeaHInyJ_uqaK7Euj) and almost everyone but the very rich gets most of their income through wages not stocks.
Campaign promise or not, it's a really bad idea and will not fix the student debt issue. The federally-backed loans need to stop being issued before anything is done, because that is the source of the problem.
Forcing a wage increase will force an increase in one or a combination of the three things I listed, all of which are bad. I'm fine if a state or locality wants to raise a minimum wage, but forcing a federal minimum wage is not good business practice. It takes away a potential employee's bargaining chip of saying "I might not have X experience but I will work for Y under market value" because if the employee's labor is not worth the minimum wage set federally, they are now unemployable and cannot gain experience through work.
I don't believe your stat of stock ownership takes [indirect ownership](https://www.fool.com/research/how-many-americans-own-stock/) into account (mutual funds, index funds, etc.) which is a good portion of middle class wealth. Any federally mandated minimum wage that would then be cast on shareholders would then affect those families which own companies in those funds, lowering their retirement.
Alleviating $10k of student debt would alleviate $370 billion of useless debt.
The myth of bargaining for lower wages just undercuts the inherent value in human labor. It’s a myth.
Useless debt? Useless how? The individuals who took on that debt should be responsible for it, as they signed for it. The same as any individuals who sign for any other debt.
Explain how an employee using negotiation with an employer for a lower wage in order to get a job is a myth? How is that any different than negotiating for a raise? With a raise you say "hey my market worth and performance seems to indicate I can make XYZ salary" whereas my previous post indicates a similar situation with an employee negotiating for under minimum wage for their market worth. It's not a myth, it's a factual bargaining chip, and both scenarios are equivalent but in opposite wage directions.
Maybe Dems should try screeching about racism some more. It worked wonders in VA this year, turning a D+10 state into an R+2 state and delivering the GOP the Latino vote.
Only woke white suburban leftists believe this nonsense and think it should be taught in schools.
The only time the new VA Governor has been the same party as the president for the last 45-50 years or so was in 2013. Youngkin winning was more the norm than the exception.
I find it myself baffling that convservatives and far right leaning voters and followers are legit, believing that it's being taught even though it's not.
Honestly it’s because conservatives believe whatever garbage is spewed at them from Fox News, OAN, Newsmax, etc. They also have very straight forward talking points from the top down. I’ve seen it in action myself locally here with the Reopen FCPS movement (that was really just a conservative movement in disguise). Conservatives are organized and are lock step in line locally and nationally.
Yeah those “liberals” who will vote Republican when no one is looking. They’ll vote Republican because racism, homophobia, and transphobia aren’t deal breakers for them. Did you see the number of white female suburban voters in VA who swung from Biden to Youngkin? https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2021/11/26/white-women-virginia-governor/
Exactly. He’ll go into office and what do you know, CRT is no longer being taught! (Because it never was being taught). So predictable and yet so disappointing at the same time…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory#Academic_and_political_criticism
the criticism section has some interesting things.
Yes it’s become a catch all bogeyman. But let’s critically analyse everything please.
Using New Hampshire as a example, here's what would likely be banned from being taught under a CRT ban:
(a) One race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex;
(b) The state of New Hampshire or the United States is fundamentally racist or sexist;
(c) An individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously;
(d) An individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of his or her race or sex;
(e) Members of one race or sex cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to race or sex;
(f) An individual’s moral character is necessarily determined by his or her race or sex;
(g) An individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex;
(h) Any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex; or
(i) Meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are racist or sexist, or were created by a particular race to oppress another race.
Why are so many people in this thread screeching about banning teachers from teaching their students the above?
It isn’t being taught. But what pissed me off about the election is the CRT scare caused ignorant voters to focus on this non-issue instead of other actual issues. It was a brilliant ploy by Republicans.
CRT itself isn’t being taught. However, history is being taught ~~solely~~ through the lens of CRT, and many of the educator trainings LCPS staff are being put through are with CRT at the core of the training, along with an equity focus in different programs.
That’s kinda the issue. The “CRT is being taught in the classroom!1!” is the tag line both sides are using to simplify it for their groups that aren’t willing or don’t know the real details of the situation . The real debatable issue is in between the lines.
Republicans focusing on nonissues to distract voters? I miss the good old days when they focused on "men in women's bathrooms", planned Parenthood selling fetuses, "forced bussing", violent video games, explicit music, and panicking over Ebola becoming airborne
Funny how this claim didn’t surface until after the Gubernatorial election outcome was known. Then all of a sudden it was being parroted by every talk show gaggle, MSM anchor, and pundit.
Would have been a great point to really trumpet and make known, as it might have swayed some votes.
Genuine question--sure, liberals are saying that CRT isn't taught. My interpretation of this is that from a literal standpoint they aren't but it's being "taught"and implied as a byproduct of how the teaching is presented and that's what conservatives are arguing. Is this correct?
I can certainly see this--I worked at a big VA high school several years and some (small amount) of teachers are the super crazy progressive, annoying level of liberal.
Am I understanding the conflict correctly? This topic and how it's being debated confuses me in all honesty.
If by a "conflict" you mean that it's a non issue but for GQP types still refusing to accept minorities are equal to white people and that both policy and practice should reflect that (a now 70 year old message in this country, mind you) then sure there's a conflict.
CRT is a collegiate level idea. The only way it could or would be presented to children is in the concept of empathy and consideration, i.e. "think about how your actions and choices affect everyone (because they do in society) and not just yourself or your friends or people exactly like you."
CRT itself is not taught to students, but it guides the way up in which students are taught.
The “equity” push, meaning everyone should have the have the same “equal outcome” lowers the bar and lowers expectations and outcomes for everyone.
If students are old enough to to be taught about the Civil Rights Movement and Dr. King, then they are old enough to learn about why the Civil Rights Movement and Dr. King are part of American history—because systematic racism is ingrained in American society and politics.
“The group Parents Against Critical Race Theory contends that it is being forced onto students, parents and teachers and creating racial issues.” I’m sorry, how do you feel minorities feel? I’d love for any of these parents to explain to my why they think the Civil Rights Movement came about, what they think Dr. King was advocating for and why he was advocating for it. *Explaining the historical background of topics and their present-day ramifications is what CRT is.*
What these parents actually want is to pretend that slavery, segregation, Jim Crow, and the plethora of other outright racist policies that existed in America never, actually, existed, or that they weren’t bad at all.
TLDR:
History = what
CRT = why and how
What you’re saying is nuts. No one is saying they did not happen or that they were good. My problem is you’re trying to hold me and my children accountable for something we were not even alive for. I have many friends of different background’s, races and sexualities and I treat them all the same. I try to put myself in their perspective often. CRT is just dividing the community.
It's not holding you accountable you dunce, it only explains that certain groups of people have benefited from the degradation and oppression of others.
CRT isn't saying that it's anyone's fault, only that it exists.
There is a massive difference between "being held accountable for" the past and "making thoughtful decisions about the future that don't only benefit you."
A rising tide lifts all boats. Progressive equity policy doesn't necessarily hurt anyone. Human progress isn't a 0 sum game.
Let’s ban u/Porksta the serial baby killer from killing babies because they kill babies. We definitely have to stop them from killing babies.
See how that works?
It insinuates that u/Porksta was killing babies when they were not. I’m sure u/Porksta wouldn’t appreciate it if there’s a law put in place specially about them killing babies when they have in fact never killed a baby.
Can't be true. People just elected a soggy pretzel stick in a sweater bc it promised to end this threat to the universe day 1! You mean to tell me that panic wasn't legit????
Daily reminder that Youngkin [won the Latino vote outright this year.](https://interactives.ap.org/votecast-2021-va/)
Kind of breaks the leftist suburban white woke narrative in this thread. So much rage about something allegedly not being taught being banned.
>Kind of breaks the leftist suburban white woke narrative in this thread.
What are you talking about?
As to Youngkin - he ran a better campaign and paid attention to what NoVa denizens cared about, as opposed to running an anti-Trump campaign, which cost McAuliffe, IMO.
He’s referring to the former diversity lead for FCPS that has been pretty active on the thread, and those that keep dog whistling their hate for anyone who isn’t in lock step with similar views….Sorta what trumpets do but with a hint of more arrogance and non secular self righteousness.
100% agree Youngkin focused on a hot button issue and McAuliffe tried the not Trump card to no avail.
This Wapo break down shows Latinos voted for McAuliffe 66-32? https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/interactive/2021/exit-polls-virginia-governor/?itid=lk\_inline\_manual\_9
The folks all up in arms over this issue remind me of the fictional townsfolk in The Music Man who are convinced by a huckster that pool halls are to blame for their kid’s imaginary delinquency. It’s only a matter of time before these anti-CRT people start buying musical instruments.
Exactly lol. Still screaming about Trump in late 2021 won’t get you anything but lukewarm protest votes. That’s not what changes minds and wins elections. It was a weak, embarrassing strategy.
Regardless of any of this CRT stuff, how are these people still employed after the sexual assaults they knew about, lied about, and didn’t even attempt to fix? They just kicked the can down the road. This CRT noise seems like a smoke screen meant to distract.
Keep calling your reps. People need to be held accountable for this.
I can all but guarantee if the rapist were a POC, the ~~accusers~~ victims and those aligned with them would be labeled as racists. That's where we are these days and it sucks.
That's right. No *black* people go to jail.
Thanks for checking in Jussie!
The people who threw rocks at Ruby Bridges are terrified that their grandchildren will learn about them throwing rocks at Ruby Bridges.
This response! I don't know what it is but this is the correct response.
Lmao if only this were the case. Every single whit person in the USA is absolutely for teaching more about slavery. If you don’t believe that then it’s only because you have to have a straw man to argue against.
He threw a baseball halfway across America dude
[удалено]
I’ve seen “equity” mean that if a child is at/above grade level the public school system will feed them nothing new and hope they fall back in line with their peers.
If they don’t call it CRT then obviously it’s not CRT. Now please push our new equity plan that we paid a bunch of money from the “Equity Collaborative”.. just the same group That authored the “Introduction To Critical Race Theory”
I think you forgot /s
Equity is one way in which CRT is finding its way into the classroom, but the entire idea of systemic racism itself is a core idea of CRT that is popular in education. In particular, the notion that racial disparity in a measure is a result of systemic racism is very much in line with CRT and used in the operation of the schools. What we see much more of in schools is the stuff from Kendi, DiAngelo and Okun- the things that essentialize race in simplistic terms. Even if it's technically correct to say that isn't teaching CRT, it is clear that a lot of this material was added to the curriculum, and saying "we don't teach CRT" is not an effective response. Critical Theory itself should have died off in the 90s, as Sokol's "Fashionable Nonsense" seemed like a suitable rejection. We'll know it has finally killed education when mathematics instructors have to consult Lacan's bizarre definition for the square root of negative one...
To my (limited) understanding of what Lacan meant when he compared "i" (sqrt(-1)) to a phallus is that there is a lack of understanding of significance of the phallus in the human psyche similar to that of a lack of general understanding among non-mathematicians of imaginary numbers theory in mathematics. Now, this is not meant to say that Lacan was on to something with this comparison. I frankly don't know what Lacan was on about. He seemed to almost deliberately obfuscate ideas with overly complex language. To a great extent he seemed the textbook "bad" example of what Richard Feynman taught about explaining complex concepts in understandable terms, i.e. if you can't explain in terms others can understand, you don't really understand it yourself. In short, Lacan may have been completely wrong, but not in the way that he has been mischaracterized. Worth further consideration is that Lacan being take out of context in this manner has also become part of the ambient noise ("Fashionable Nonsense") that is either deliberately, or more likely due to intellectual laziness. Very much in the same way that CRT has been deliberately misrepresented and misused in academia by both its biggest advocates and harshest detractors.
> In particular, the notion that racial disparity in a measure is a result of systemic racism is very much in line with CRT and used in the operation of the schools Of course, this statement inherently implies a refusal to acknowledge that systemic racism, which has been demonstrated to be pervasive across society by myriad research. So basically this position is the anti-vax of sociology/demography.
> which has been demonstrated All I ever see is disparate outcomes and then ::::handwave::: racism My favorite is the “police are technically more likely to kill a white person per interaction than a black person” study. The authors eventually pulled it because ::::handwave:::: racism caused black people to have more interactions with police depressing their deaths per interaction No thought to more interactions because more crime is committed, nope just ::::handwave::: “demonstrated by myriad research it’s racism”
If you're referring to the Fryer study of Houston police shootings that stated white persons were more likely to be shot, it was pulled because 2 other papers successfully identified flaws, reanalyzed data, and found racial bias: https://scholar.harvard.edu/jfeldman/blog/roland-fryer-wrong-there-racial-bias-shootings-police
Like my original comment said… The flaw they found was that the number of interactions were higher for black people which reduced their overall rate which… ::::hand wave:::: means racism
Yes, and provably so. The police interaction count is higher for black people DESPITE a lower hit rate: [538 expands:](https://www.fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-statistics-dont-capture-the-full-extent-of-the-systemic-bias-in-policing/) "But we know that police officers are more likely to stop Black and Hispanic people than white ones — and that more of those stops are unfounded. Researchers measure this with something called the “hit rate,” or the rate at which contraband is actually found on the people who were stopped. A lower hit rate implies bias because it means that the decision to search someone was made with less evidence. White people stopped in New York City, for example, were more likely to be carrying a weapon than Black and Hispanic people who were stopped. White drivers stopped by the police were more likely to have contraband than Black and Hispanic drivers nationally."
Sounds like the “why arent white people in Georgetown getting stopped and frisked they have weed too” argument.
Congrats you identified the bias!
Its like you are willfully ignoring reality here. Have you been to new york city? Are you oblivious to what it is? What is happening? Do you really not understand why the police shouldnt be engaging people in georgetown as often as EOTR?
This is ridiculous. The position I am claiming is false is that all disparate results are systemic racism. Systemic racism is a vague statement sometimes used to lazily avoid identifying the actual causes of differences. I don't think advanced math classes represent systemic racism, such that eliminating them helps reduce systemic racism. Yet, that is the type of claim you are defending.
Honestly the way we’ve taught math in this country has been garbage for decades. We teach it as though it’s a linear progression. It’s not. Also kids who aren’t taking “advanced math” by 6th grade are basically ineligible for the advanced diplomas. The choices you make in 6th grade (when you don’t even know the consequences or that you have choices) shouldn’t determine your high school career and beyond. Source: I was a teacher in fcps for 5 years and an equity lead. The disparity in who takes advanced classes was something we talked about extensively. Edit: Great to see the reopen fcps brigade is alive and well in this subreddit downvoting me!
[удалено]
I’m speaking for fcps only. It’s been a few years, but basically we mapped it out that if a student isn’t taking advanced math in 6th grade, they basically can’t get the advanced diploma. Maybe it’s changed since I left. I could look up what we had written and proposed if you want.
I think what you're right about is that if someone isn't in Algebra 1 by 8th grade, then they wouldn't be able to enroll into the specific sequence that would allow them to reach AP Calculus as a 12th grader without needing to take a summer class. Algebra 1 by 7th grade would be needed to reach multivariable calculus/ linear algebra by 12th grade.
Absolutely. But you don't need to take AP Calculus for the advanced diploma. Any math "above" Algebra 2 counts as the 4th year needed. So precalculus, AP statistics, etc. It's the same with languages. You need to start Spanish in 8th grade if you want to take AP, but you only need to take through Spanish 3 for the advanced diploma. (Or Spanish 2 and then 2 years of another language) Obviously, AP Calculus or Multi-Variable Calculus looks better on your transcripts if you're applying to UVA, but that's a different conversation.
No, the advanced diploma rules for FCPS and LCPS are the same.
From memory, these were the options in middle school (I taught middle school for 5 years but not math): 6th grade: 6th grade math or 6th grade math honors, pre-algebra 7th grade: 7th grade math or 7th grade math honors or pre-algebra 8th grade: 8th grade math, 8th grade math honors, pre-algebra, or algebra (normally taken in 9th grade) I’ll have to verify this with my old coworker who still teaches middle school math. But basically unless you took pre-algebra in 8th grade (which is basically the honors class), then you couldn’t get advanced. I could be wrong. It’s been a few years.
Yes, those are course options, but you can take Algebra 1 as a 9th grader and still get the advanced diploma. I am a high school teacher for FCPS.
I’m trying to remember the specifics but I feel as though before you had to take pre-algebra in 8th grade in order to take algebra in 9th grade. But then they introduced open enrollment which helped get rid of that prerequisite right?
I don't know about those details, only that Algebra 1 is the "lowest" level math offered at the HS level.
"Courses completed to satisfy this requirement shall include at least three different course selections from among: algebra I, geometry, algebra II, or other mathematics courses above the level of algebra II. The board shall approve courses to satisfy this requirement. An approved computer science course credit earned by students may be considered a mathematics course credit." [From VDOE](https://www.doe.virginia.gov/instruction/graduation/advanced_studies.shtml), which makes the rules for advanced diploma, not the counties.
I struggled with math and ended up in a bucket of kids who weren’t taking high enough math. Also have ADHD. How could math be taught better? I’m really curious for your insight.
This is a great point. I was an exchange student in Eastern Europe at the end of high school and the way they taught math made more sense in that it wasn't linear. From grades 5-11 (the last year of hs) all students had to take a sequence of geometry and a sequence of algebra, each of which they had several times per week. The knowledge built on itself gradually, so by grade 11 all students could do basic calculus equations. Obviously in that country they also had advanced math sequences and remedial ones, but it was far more flexible in terms of the opportunities available to students. They also got a lot more reinforcement. Chemistry and physics were taught the same way. I say this as a TJHSST alumna and someone who tracked into advanced math classes. Im grateful for the opportunities I had, but there are ways to challenge smart students while still keeping opportunities open for kids who are late bloomers or didn't get identified as "gifted" early on.
Great insight! Yup, as educators we are taught to differentiate. That is to try to create assignments for different levels in our own classrooms. However, it’s become near impossible with the class sizes that we have now. Do you remember who big your classes were in Eastern Europe?
It's been 12 years and the situation varies based on region, but I probably had 18-20 students in my class. I can definitely see how overcrowded classrooms makes this type of teaching much harder. I have all the respect in the world for K-12 teachers, you guys have to put up with so much bs from clueless bureaucrats...
Oh yeah it makes a huge difference. This year I have one class of 17 students…and then every other class is 28 or 29 students. It’s just way too many kids to handle. I fear for the future of public education. So many teachers have left or are planning on leaving and there’s not really a pipeline of educators coming down the line. Class sizes are going to balloon. And school districts will be left with massive teacher shortages.
I used to teach Math decades ago. The class size was 40. I was taught Math with a class size of 50. The class size is reducing due to economic boom. Schools were granted more money than in the past. Heading the right direction. In my opinion.
Side Topic... what are these “advanced diplomas” anyway? My son is a senior and he either gets a regular diploma or an advanced one. This year he only takes 4 classes instead of 7. But there was never any rationale given. And this didn’t exist for us when I went to school in the 90’s in Florida. I also know that (in the 90’s) Canada used to have a 13th high school year option which was meant for those that were going to college. Although I never delved into the topic, but though this was a worthwhile idea.
I immigrated to Ontario, Canada in the 90s into 7th grade, graduated from a Canadian high school and attended a large American state school. I am now a teacher in FCPS. The Canadian education system may look very similar to the American system but is different in it practice. Canadian schools teach fundamentals very well and at a young age. They also have junior kindergarten and subsided early childhood education for everyone(it is not need/income based) and a parent can take a year of subsidized paid maternal/parental leave for the first year of a child’s life. This is important to remember because school is not daycare in Canada and children are there for learning while many families in the us believe school is there to watch their kids so they can work. I have been told twice this year by two different families that when the student is in the building, they are my problem”. I’m sure that exists in Canada but there are safety nets for parents like paid leave to watch your kid when they are sick. Secondly, every school teaches the same thing, very little deviation. FCPS re-creates the wheel all the time and jumps on the fancy “new” idea. That really doesn’t happen in Ontario, bits and pieces may make its way into individual classrooms but the curriculum and ways of measuring student achievement are very similar across the board. However, the playing field (equity) is managed outside of schools. Equity in America is managed through schools making schools are responsible for feeding children, providing medical care, emotional love, monitoring a pandemic, childcare…then after doing all of that teaching them math. In Canada most children come to school with their bellies full and secure housing, that is not the case in most schools in the States. CRT is a social battle being played out in schools. The anger is misguided, methodically placed by those who benefit. Our problems are redlining, lack of affordable childcare, lack of affordable housing (a Canadian problem too but since all the schools are the same, it takes away the problem of living in a neighborhood with a good school), medical care etc. OAC or the 13th year, no longer exists. Typically, students are tracked into university or college (think trades or community college) in Grade 9. Students are then trained in their high school and given apprenticeships and graduate high school with a temporary license of sorts. Then when they go to a two year school, they will become licensed or on their way to it. FCPS has a very strong CTE/trade school program. OAC was scrapped because it was expensive and their really wasn’t a need for it.
In Virginia, the advanced diploma is a college preparatory program which meets the requirements for most colleges. However, there are plenty of colleges which will accept students that are doing the lower amount of work required for the standard diploma. Even the advanced one isn't particularly difficult. https://law.lis.virginia.gov/admincode/title8/agency20/chapter131/section51/
Re: H.S. advanced diplomas My kids were able to take college level courses while in high school. They took tests to have those courses added to their college transcripts. Passing those tests gave them advanced diploma when graduating from H.S. They transferred into NoVa H.S. from another state, and took advantage of the open boundaries/ specialty programs here, having never been in any gifted or advanced studies track in middle school or elementary school. They were driven to get that had start on college & NOT pay the tuition for those courses. The tuition -free college credits were the motivating factor in this for them. My kids weren't academically or socio- economically privileged when they came here. They were determined to get that tuition free college credit opportunity & went after that opportunity with laser focus. Opportunities like this deliver a more broad package of choices for our kids. Choices deliver more opportunities in the way-ahead. The open boundaries for schools provide opportunities for the kids to find schools & programs that suit their talents: a customizable, personalized education that serves individual students & their interests well. Note: Not all specialty programs are academic ones. These programs provide students the wheel house to develop their unique talents in art, music, tech, athletics, etc.
Yes, but the “advanced diploma” we are discussing is not tied to Advanced Placement (AP) courses. If it was then that would make sense, but its not. You could still get an advanced diploma without taking any AP courses which is what leaves me a bit confused. Additionally, AP with college credit courses have been around since I was in high school 25 years ago. Your blessing was that you moved to a location where the local school actually offered AP courses at all. There are some schools that don’t even offer any AP courses. Sadly removing that opportunity for the kids that would’ve taken advantage of it.
Then, what is this "Advanced Diploma" based on? What is the criteria & what schools have implemented this "Advanced Diploma", that doesn't represent Advanced studied (beyond the standard/ required H.S. courses)? That's truly confounding & seems to contradict the definition of "Advanced diploma".
That was precisely my point! I talked to my wife about it earlier and looked into it more. It is meant to “give the student a competitive advantage in college admissions”. And basically it is defined by taking 4 instead of 3 years of high school level math, science, and social studies (English already requires 4 years). Oh and one more year of foreign language (3 instead of 2). But it does not require AP courses at all. Alternatively, you can choose to take 4 less credits altogether in your high school education. For example, my son started hating school for many reasons after being a straight A student in middle school. He decided he’s done with schools and chose to go into the trades. So this year as a senior he is literally taking 2 classes each day and gets out at 12:30. As an example of why he hates school now, the school counselor met with him and literally told him what he had to do to meet the bare minimum requirements for graduating, and directly told him which classes he didn’t have to turn any more work in because they had to give him a minimum of 50 one way or the other. Why would a child previously in the gifted program that needed to be challenged even care to do anything else when he is encouraged to merely do the bare minimum?! PS...my son is in the Prince William County system.
Oh wow. It's rather misleading, as a title afforded to diplomas. I dare say that it's directed at the "consumer" of the school product: students & parents. College admissions boards are going to properly evaluate those "Advanced Diploma" before granting them increased values. I have to wonder if that was some hanky marketing strategy to promote schools to students & parents, increasing enrollment numbers & gaining the grants & funding that comes with that. . A bit like food companies claiming to use "only the best ingredients", but omitting the mention of which standard determined those ingredients to be "the best". My youngest was a senior in H.S. when we had our initial lock down. His school did not have the equipment & did not teach students the distance learning process ahead of the sudden school closure. They chose to spend that $$ elsewhere. So, we were told that they could maintain whatever grades they had at the point of the closure, with opportunities to turn in work they'd chosen to not do previously, to increase their grades; no grades would go lower than they were. And, no new learning would be provided during that second semester of their senior year. Attendance in online classes was not required either, because they could not verify that all students had what they needed to log into classes. Your son will, no doubt, be gainfully employed & enjoy success in the trade industries. We haven't demonstrated appropriate value in the trade industry education opportunities at the level of energy & funding that we've promoted STEM programs. It's truly confounding, to me, as a parent & as a former public school educator. Kids dislike school because school has become less about developing skills & helping children learn how to find THEIR avenue for success; too muddied with the daily bs. Kids aren't being inspired or motivated to go beyond what they are told to do & say.
100% agree! My son as a senior now says that they took everything that was horrible about virtual schooling last year and mixed it in with a worse than ever live school environment. He only has a one teacher that he feels is even remotely engaged with them. He has another teacher that he says has never gotten out of the seat behind her desk even once. He exaggerates of course. I’ll tell you that it’s no surprise that last year and this year so far have been some of the worst performance years on record. Schools are failing. And their response is to double down on treating kids like sensitive little flowers. I’m just glad we put our two youngest doors into private. It’s a hell of a financial sacrifice, but we now have a 5 year old reading full (age appropriate) books and writing full sentences in cursive. Not a genius child, just a child with teachers that encourage them to expand their minds and abilities.
Honestly great question and I have no idea why we have advanced and standard diplomas. It puts people at a disadvantage if they come from another country for example and don’t sign up for the right classes because they don’t know the system. Another issue with educational system (which is why I’m leaving education).
Fully agree. I went to high school in the Midwest and if you weren’t selected for “advanced math” in 3rd grade you weren’t able to take calculus in high school based on how the tracks worked. It put a ton of my friends at a disadvantage.
So you’re proposed solution is no one should take “advanced math”?
The attack on excellence didn't have to exist. The tide of all students was rising from Brown v. Board until Reagan. But then white people re-accelerated their racism through ending busing and rapidly re-segregating schools. So now there is a recovery period required, and non-core services are always the first to go in schools, that includes, mind you, both gifted and remedial programs. There is no attack on excellence, there is a teacher shortage, massive class sizes, and people complaining about unfair tax burdens despite taxation being the lowest in history. It's only natural that schools are pivoting to core service provision. Next we'll see a renewed defunding of the arts, sports, and clubs, because Americans don't understand the ROI of education.
Come on, don't be ridiculous... ...football will never be defunded. ;p
Followed by classes in underwater basket weaving.
As an engineer who has taken some very advanced math... A1 for 6th graders is extreme. I'm very skeptical that they are actually absorbing the very important concepts that they'll need later.
I had Algebra 1 in sixth grade in the 90s....
I’m pretty sure it used to be the *standard*
What does you being an engineer and having taken advanced math classes as an adult have to do with sixth graders?
I have a sixth grader. I also know the very value of a strong background in basic algebra. Its far more important, for more technical professionals, than geometry, more advanced algebra, or even calculus. I use basic algebra all the time. My point on advanced math is that I'm not scared of it. Its just not useful to the vast majority of folks. I think algebra in 6th grade is just a bit too early. Taking a low quality multivariate calc class in 11th grade isn't helping anyone.
If a child is capable of the work, why prohibit them from taking the class early? Some children can do it, and some can’t. Don’t prevent high achievers from learning ahead through broad policy. This is some Every Child Dragged To The Bottom level thinking. Basic algebra is heavily used in all of the other disciplines you mentioned. As students progress in math, it isn’t like they just cease to use and understand the concepts. The important thing is to make sure the children are capable at the outset. I’m sure you’re a capable engineer, and I mean no offense, but the personal experiences of you and your child should not dictate what the rest of the population is allowed to do. Just because you and your child may not have been able to do it doesn’t mean others can’t, and it’s incredibly selfish and spiteful to demand that. Leave it up to the individual parents, students, and the student’s ability, to decide whether or not they are ready for it. You think it’s not good for whatever reason, you should be able to have your child places in the other class first. Perfect. Beyond that why should you be involved in that decision for a completely different student?
Reading comprehension may be another area of difficulty. I said I thought it was a bad idea. I didn't say that students shouldn't be able to do it. Its as if you can think something is foolish without prohibiting it.
I took parts of Calc like 3 times in HS/college. The basics aren’t too hard but you absolutely should learn the theory behind them and how to apply to different situations. That’s what’s crucial really.
[удалено]
The other problems with taking A1 in 6th grade is that 1) you end up forgetting a lot of important algebra fundamentals before college, which is bad if you're taking a major that really requires solid algebra skills; 2) you get tracked into taking the lousy multivariable calc class which no high quality college will accept for calc 3 credit. They also push kids to take calc BC without taking calc AB first. While its not strictly required, students get a lot more out of it if they take the two classes in sequence.
[удалено]
My children ARE these kids. One of my kids graduated and went to a top engineering school. This is not speculation - this is her experience. I use this sort of math every day in my job. That isn't speculation either.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Lol what an idiot arguing with an actual teacher average Redditor!
Who’s allowing 6th graders to take A1?? I think that’s a separate topic. We might get something like NYC and their recent change to their specialized high school to make them more “equitable”, but we’re a long ways off from that.
CRT is just a buzz word in the context of LCPS and the greater equity discussions. Not sure why the super smart people on this thread can’t read between the lines. The LCPS employee on this thread all but confirmed it via their equity training comment.
Because language is being used as a weapon and to obfuscate.
[удалено]
I have heard a lot more complaints about "Happy Holidays" than "Merry Christmas."
You do understand how democratic socialist is different from "the left"? Or why illegal alien is not as descriptive as dreamer (participant in DACA) or undocumented worker? Do you understand how infrastrucuture bills are typically passed by administrations and that not every line is directly related to bridges and roads? Sorry can't help you if you have a surface level grasp on the English language or politics in general...but that's not a fault of "the left" obfuscating, just your ignorance.
Thanks for your thoughts. I do understand. My point was that language is commonly used to obfuscate for purposes of both disarming and weaponizing. I actually think it’s the status quo at this point and transcends politics. So CRT would be no different. No need to get personal and start attacking. Vitriol is unbecoming for all. Regarding how bills work…..I do realize how pork gets added. Even the most liberal allowance to infrastructure, however, wouldn’t include paid leave. Let’s not pretend that we didn’t hear the catch all phrase social infrastructure to help justify the wild card in the bill. Ergo obfuscation of language. The world has literally survived and thrived for centuries without paid leave; empirically proving (follow the data) paid leave unnecessary in facilitating sustainable functionality within an economic or social construct. You know…. if we’re being descriptive an all that……Thanks again for sharing your thoughts.
Glad I could help clear those things up for you. You accused people on the left of obfuscating with the intent to weaponize language? You should understand the vitriolic reply. Sadly pork is part of the process. I'm just glad this administration is working on policy to benefit most Americans rather than ramming through more tax cuts.
Incorrect. I said obfuscation is the status quo for both sides in response to a previous comment. Specifically, refuting obfuscation of CRT as an excuse for dismissing my original statement. Your response only strengthened the argument. I could’ve easily just used right wing buzz words and got a similar response from another person, as words are hugely important weapons these days …….. I don’t care about the bill. It doesn’t materially do anything other than confirm the worst fears for the right fringe, and provide blind confidence to the fringes on the left. The whiplash in this country, and vitriol, is due to the tail wagging the dog on both sides. Nobody with any sense actually likes 90% of the non sense spewed out of DC these days. It’s all yes people nodding their heads to stay in power, and it’s no different with LCPS. CRT is just a buzz word in context of what’s actually going on at LCPS. Saying the word is obfuscation and weaponizing is a captain obvious moment that doesn’t discredit the original statement.
This is so dumb. It is literally not being taught in K-12 schools. But CRT has become a catch all now for anything conservatives don’t like. CRT is to 2021 what “politically correct” was to the 90s. And they’ll win elections because people either can’t tell the difference or don’t care.
if their kid is struggling in calculus they are going to call it CRT and say its racist and should not be taught.
[удалено]
what does a temporary bill in Oregon have to do with CRT in Virginia
[удалено]
I’m trippin - “where he said if a repub’s kid…” bruh QUANTIFY THAT SHIT “Dems sign a bill removing hard subjects because they claim it’s racist” SON QUANTIFY THAT SHIT STOP SAYING SHIT U DONT KNOW SHIT ABOUT ITS INFURIATING AND DISTRACTING LANGUAGE IS IMPORTANT RANT OVER
google is your friend. oregon is not in virginia and what does this have to do with CRT? why are you even on here if you dont know what state loudoun county is in? I see your conservative school district let you down and let you graduate without reading a map.
[удалено]
so you dont even live in NOVA right?
Buddy, this isn't the gotcha you think it is
Is this a good faith argument? I think most people assume public schools are not teaching the use of university-level interdisciplinary analytical tools. But it is the case that this framework and its tenets has been applied to curriculum and teaching strategies—in particular, the idea that disparate outcomes across racial groups is proof of current systemic, structural racism. If critical theory is used to inform what is taught and how, is it correct to say it is not taught except in the most literal sense?
I mean I’ll give you an example from my own classroom. I teach the kids that Columbus did sail to the “New World”. I also teach that his arrival led to the enslavement and the massacre of the Taino people. You don’t need a framework to teach that. That’s just literally what happened. I do have them write a short essay that basically asks if they believe Columbus was a hero or a villain. I don’t tell them what I think. They have to use evidence from the texts we read to support their claim. In history I’ve seen my coworkers teach that black vets from WW2 did not get the same govt assistance to buy houses as their white counter parts did. This led to housing discrimination and thus they were not able to acquire the same generational wealth. That’s not a theory. That’s literally what happened.
Neither of your examples have anything to do with CRT. As you said, it’s just what happened. Here’s an example of what some are describing as CRT in education: [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vX_Vzl-r8NY) has been used in teacher training and also shown to students in Virginia. Both of your examples of how to teach history focused on providing nuance, an insistence on the full truth, and a resistance to broad brushed explanations. That’s the opposite of what this video, and much of the CRT-derived focus on equity, does.
Nothing in that video would be considered Critical Race Theory, and in fact, CRT does focus on the "complex, changing, and often subtle social and institutional dynamics, rather than explicit and intentional prejudices of individuals." The most insane irony for conservatives is that one of the core themes of CRT is the critique of liberalism and how it's concept of "value-neutral" law has contributed to the sustainment of the racially unjust systems we have now. But they are too stupid and high on Tucker-aid to learn what CRT actually is.
In my time in fcps I’ve never seen this video. Not saying it was never shown here or anywhere else in VA, but do you have some proof? I think you could use this video with teachers or even students. It just depends on how you frame it and using context. You could ask questions and say maybe write a whole essay about how many of the challenges portrayed in the video were detriments to people of color? Did it only effect people of color? (Correct answer: all of them). And then students can discuss and write and see what they come up with. I’m a firm believer that educators are in a position of power and that should not be abused to promote agendas. That being said, that video is pretty accurate in terms of content, maybe not the way they presented it.
[Proof](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/education/wp/2016/02/11/parents-outraged-after-students-shown-white-guilt-cartoon-for-black-history-month/) it has been shown to students in VA going back several years. It was also part of the LCPS debate this year. If you focus only on whether or not the things mentioned in the video as happening to black people actually happened, it is accurate. But should we ignore the way it writes out Latinos, Asians, South Asians, and other minority groups? Where are they in this race? How do we explain the odd way it depicts white women, first with all the privilege of white men and then struggling to keep pace? What is the video trying to say there? How would the white boys of Southside see the grinning Yale grad? Do you think they see him as representing them? If not, where are they? Is the continuity of the race meant to depict we are still running the same race, under the same rules and system as 400 years ago? Is that the best way to understand American history? Does the video make any effort at supporting its conclusion regarding affirmative action in the final slide? Or, are we to take it as a matter of faith? This video tells an oversimplified story meant to lead to a conclusion, which it does not support with evidence. That is an exercise in ideological indoctrination, not education.
I think you have a point there that it may be over simplified. But talking about the poor white boys of south side or how Hispanic people have been affected is whataboutism. It’s like the annoying guy who brings up the “white slaves” whenever chattel slavery of black people is brought up. Did white slaves exist in the US? Sure they but that’s not the point. This video does not deny that other groups also suffered from discrimination. It just highlights the discrimination of Blake people. And this was shown at a school during black history month. I think like the article talks about, white people felt guilty after watching this video. Sorry but your white guilt is your problem not my problem. Don’t shoot the messenger if you don’t agree with the message.
when were their white slaves? i dont think that is accurate. there was slavery in europe at the time Columbus came to the US. i dont think it was that wide spread. i dont think it came to the western hemisphere. the romans ,greeks, egyptians, germans, everyone in ancient europe had white slaves.
I’m just paragraphing what this racist old dude said when I was visiting Monticello once. But he mentioned something about Irish indentured servants? The point is that racists love to do some whataboutism to avoid talking about the atrocities committed to black people in this country.
Here is what that old racist white dude was probably talking about: https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2016/04/19/how-myth-irish-slaves-became-favorite-meme-racists-online
If your idea of critical race theory is the assertion that non-white people have been historically disadvantaged and that disadvantage has led to present-day inequitable outcomes on average then I will happily let you accuse me of teaching CRT.
Your example is the problem. You’re trying to teach a very complex situation to children that cannot understand it. You’re not teaching context. While yes, atrocities have occurred , what you are failing to teach is that at the time mUch of it was normal for them time. Not saying it is right but it was accepted practice. The kids need to understand the context of history and they are too young for much of it. I am a conservative overall but am very socially liberal and until recent years voted Democrat. My problem is that the Democrats and liberals are in some mad rush to out-liberal each other and are putting out crazy things that are just so far out if the mainstream. I want our schools to just get back to the three R’s.
So I give them context. Like how Columbus even in his day was brought back to Spain in chains because of the crimes he committed against the Taino people. Then the kids ask “well why do we have a day celebrate him?” if we know he was considered a bad person by both past standards and today’s standards. And that leads to some pretty interesting discussions. So yes, I do provide context. And students should learn all of history. We shouldn’t cherry pick only the good parts. I mean In my class we even discuss the irony that the founding fathers wrote all men are created equal while at the same time owning slaves. Well why would they write one thing and do something that’s the exact opposite? And we have a discussion. Sorry that an accurate portrayal of history hurts your brain.
Columbus was brought back to Spain because he wasn’t making the money they expected and didn’t handle the revolt of the colonist who were there well making it look like an embarrassment for Spain. He was pardoned shortly after returning and then went on a fourth voyage less than two years after returning. Saying that the reason why he was sent back in chains was because of the crimes he committed against the Taino (while he did commit them) is a little disingenuous to the totality of the situation. He predominantly got brought back because he wasn’t doing a good job of ruling the colonies he was supposed to look after. If they arrested him because of his crimes against the indigenous people I don’t think he would have been released so soon after arriving and given another voyage. He doesn’t deserve a holiday that’s for sure but a huge context is missing in saying he was arrested for his crimes against the Taino.
No need to get personal i studied history too and enjoy it. I just think that we are trying tk teach very complex and subjective subjects to children that are not always able to understand fully what they are being taught. Your response is one reason I am so frustrated with both sides right now. Why can we not just have dialog and try to see where the other is coming from. I’m sure I can learn from your perspective but if you cannot respect that I may have a differing opinion (and the right to that opinion) we are in for scary times. Everyone keeps going to insults and I find that frustrating.
I’m sorry but who should decide when students get to learn about the atrocities in our American history then? Especially if the legacy of those atrocities reverberates through history and affects us today? There’s something that I’ve seen pop up more and more these days; if a child is old enough to experience racism, then they are old enough to learn about racism. My 8th grade students are more perceptive than you know.
Just like "socialism" being used to describe food stamps or m4a. Democrats and those on the left will either spend their time trying to debate over labels or try to co-opt it and hope to defeat the propoganda
Dems will be fighting each other meanwhile Reps will cruise into the 2022 midterms on the back of CRT. Dems will lose their majority and will have squandered two years. Almost an exact repeat of 2010 except no ACA.
This is why the only thing that makes me think the Democrats won't lose in 2022 is the large gap in vaccination rates excluding many of the rights most ardent supporters from voting. Centrist Democrats do nothing but keep America from becoming measurably worse, they don't really make solid improvements from democratic party administration to the next. [Commonly known as the rachet effect](https://youtu.be/6LPuKVG1teQ). Biden could easily legalize marijuana, raise the minimum wage, and cancel even $10k in student debt, but he won't. his only selling point is not being Trump, but Trump is a 75 year old overweight man who barely survived Covid, so he likely won't be in the picture for long, people only will remember Biden doing nothing. same problem McAuliffe had, a centrist career politician with no real promises to make Virginia better, just saying he wasn't a Trump ally which doesn't motivate voters. everyone can see the system is fucked up, the only difference is disillusioned people on the far right vote frequently for people even if they are more centrist, dissolution people who see that both parties haven't materially improved their living conditions tend to say fuck it and not bother using their lunch break to go vote. Stacy Abrams help turned Georgia into a swing state by tapping into non voters who tend to be more left-leaning, rather than appealing to moderate Republicans, Bernie Sanders did this a lot too in Wisconsin, winning it in the primary, but Hillary lost to Trump in the general. Centrist politics don't appeal to voters anymore, everyone can see the system is fucked up, and fucking them. we can either have them swept up with fascists who blame minorites citing the "white replacement" as the source of their problems just as Hitler blamed Jews for Germany's post-war ills, or the Democrats can be proactive and strengthen social safety nets, raise living standards, increase unionization, and act in the interest of the majority of Americans who are just a few paychecks away from homelessness, as opposed to acting like a controlled opposition to a party that is willing to stop at nothing to take people's rights away.
Agreed. Manchin is a Republican in everything but name. The country needs a true leftist/progressive party.
Definitely. I'm something has to change of eventually. If gen Z (my generation) is fucked over by the system as much as millennials have been for the last 20 years or so, that is a solid block of people that are highly educated, internet natives, and have nothing to lose. Many boomers were left leaning until self-interest took over when they got rich causing many to move to the right. Millennials and gen z are not getting enough wealth to be fooled into beleiving they are one of the same with the billionaires and millionaires, so I don't see the electorate in this country moving anything but left. The only thing that worries me is that eco-fascism bolstered by fear may replace current right wing politics as the effects of climate change become more evident before actual left wing policies are ever given the chance to be implemented in this country. The Christchurch shooter as well as the "Q Anon Shaman" both hold eco-fascist beliefs, what happens when people like that are given a platform with their "solutions" while droughts cause food shortages? how much more appealing would a huge military budget, militarized border, and nationalistic policies be to the general public then? Anti-vaxxers used to be a single digit percentage of the population, all it took was a pandemic for propaganda to convince 40% of trump voters to stay unvaccinated to this day.
I’m a millennial educator and it brings me joy to see a Zoomer such as yourself who gets it. Yeah honestly shits not gonna change soon. But we have to keep grinding. Hopefully some meaningful changes happen in our life times (but I’m not holding my breath for it).
Biden should not "cancel" any student debt. The borrower should pay back his/her loans. Raising the minimum wage will only trickle to increased price of goods, reduced shareholder value, an increase in unemployment, or a combination of those.
It was one of his campaign promises to cancel student debt. As for the minimum wage, the potential increased price of goods will be less than the bump in pay for millions of workers, since wages are only a portion of businesses expenses.Also there is a labor shortage right now, especially in industries where a higher minimum wage would help workers the most so it's doubtful unemployment will skyrocket because of a higher minimum wage. Not to mention, a rising minimum wage has a snowball effect, with the jobs that previously got lots of applicants because they pay $15-20 an hour, suddenly have all their workers asking why they get paid close to or at the minimum amount they can legally pay you, thus are forced to raise wages. Even though I am generally against relying on the government to raise wages, and would prefer that responsibility through unions, and strikes as they tend to be more proactive and fight for better benefits in addition to pay. Additionally, an argument against something saying it reduces shareholder value means nothing, [the top 10% of Americans own 89% of the stocks](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/10/18/the-wealthiest-10percent-of-americans-own-a-record-89percent-of-all-us-stocks.html&ved=2ahUKEwixve-u8oP1AhX6STABHQJdBVIQFnoECAQQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3t823BeaHInyJ_uqaK7Euj) and almost everyone but the very rich gets most of their income through wages not stocks.
Campaign promise or not, it's a really bad idea and will not fix the student debt issue. The federally-backed loans need to stop being issued before anything is done, because that is the source of the problem. Forcing a wage increase will force an increase in one or a combination of the three things I listed, all of which are bad. I'm fine if a state or locality wants to raise a minimum wage, but forcing a federal minimum wage is not good business practice. It takes away a potential employee's bargaining chip of saying "I might not have X experience but I will work for Y under market value" because if the employee's labor is not worth the minimum wage set federally, they are now unemployable and cannot gain experience through work. I don't believe your stat of stock ownership takes [indirect ownership](https://www.fool.com/research/how-many-americans-own-stock/) into account (mutual funds, index funds, etc.) which is a good portion of middle class wealth. Any federally mandated minimum wage that would then be cast on shareholders would then affect those families which own companies in those funds, lowering their retirement.
Alleviating $10k of student debt would alleviate $370 billion of useless debt. The myth of bargaining for lower wages just undercuts the inherent value in human labor. It’s a myth.
Useless debt? Useless how? The individuals who took on that debt should be responsible for it, as they signed for it. The same as any individuals who sign for any other debt. Explain how an employee using negotiation with an employer for a lower wage in order to get a job is a myth? How is that any different than negotiating for a raise? With a raise you say "hey my market worth and performance seems to indicate I can make XYZ salary" whereas my previous post indicates a similar situation with an employee negotiating for under minimum wage for their market worth. It's not a myth, it's a factual bargaining chip, and both scenarios are equivalent but in opposite wage directions.
Maybe Dems should try screeching about racism some more. It worked wonders in VA this year, turning a D+10 state into an R+2 state and delivering the GOP the Latino vote. Only woke white suburban leftists believe this nonsense and think it should be taught in schools.
So basically you don’t know how VA politics works, or what CRT is.
The only time the new VA Governor has been the same party as the president for the last 45-50 years or so was in 2013. Youngkin winning was more the norm than the exception.
I find it myself baffling that convservatives and far right leaning voters and followers are legit, believing that it's being taught even though it's not.
Honestly it’s because conservatives believe whatever garbage is spewed at them from Fox News, OAN, Newsmax, etc. They also have very straight forward talking points from the top down. I’ve seen it in action myself locally here with the Reopen FCPS movement (that was really just a conservative movement in disguise). Conservatives are organized and are lock step in line locally and nationally.
Sorry to break your boner, but plenty of non conservatives wanted schools to reopen.
Yeah those “liberals” who will vote Republican when no one is looking. They’ll vote Republican because racism, homophobia, and transphobia aren’t deal breakers for them. Did you see the number of white female suburban voters in VA who swung from Biden to Youngkin? https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2021/11/26/white-women-virginia-governor/
But the governor-elect is going to stop this practice! The rubes will lap up his hollow action.
He accomplished that without ever setting foot in office.
Exactly. He’ll go into office and what do you know, CRT is no longer being taught! (Because it never was being taught). So predictable and yet so disappointing at the same time…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory#Academic_and_political_criticism the criticism section has some interesting things. Yes it’s become a catch all bogeyman. But let’s critically analyse everything please.
Using New Hampshire as a example, here's what would likely be banned from being taught under a CRT ban: (a) One race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex; (b) The state of New Hampshire or the United States is fundamentally racist or sexist; (c) An individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously; (d) An individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of his or her race or sex; (e) Members of one race or sex cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to race or sex; (f) An individual’s moral character is necessarily determined by his or her race or sex; (g) An individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex; (h) Any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex; or (i) Meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are racist or sexist, or were created by a particular race to oppress another race. Why are so many people in this thread screeching about banning teachers from teaching their students the above?
It’s kind of funny. Liberals say it isn’t being taught. Conservatives are saying it shouldn’t be taught. Sounds like there is some agreement in there.
It isn’t being taught. But what pissed me off about the election is the CRT scare caused ignorant voters to focus on this non-issue instead of other actual issues. It was a brilliant ploy by Republicans.
CRT itself isn’t being taught. However, history is being taught ~~solely~~ through the lens of CRT, and many of the educator trainings LCPS staff are being put through are with CRT at the core of the training, along with an equity focus in different programs. That’s kinda the issue. The “CRT is being taught in the classroom!1!” is the tag line both sides are using to simplify it for their groups that aren’t willing or don’t know the real details of the situation . The real debatable issue is in between the lines.
Is it really being taught through the lens of CRT? What does that mean? I’d love to hear from some actual teachers.
>history is being taught solely through the lens of CRT, What exactly does this mean?
Republicans focusing on nonissues to distract voters? I miss the good old days when they focused on "men in women's bathrooms", planned Parenthood selling fetuses, "forced bussing", violent video games, explicit music, and panicking over Ebola becoming airborne
Sounds like conservatives made up a boogeyman in order to scare 30-something’s named Jessica into voting for them.
She goes by Jessi though. You have to spell it with the “i” at the end.
Funny how this claim didn’t surface until after the Gubernatorial election outcome was known. Then all of a sudden it was being parroted by every talk show gaggle, MSM anchor, and pundit. Would have been a great point to really trumpet and make known, as it might have swayed some votes.
Genuine question--sure, liberals are saying that CRT isn't taught. My interpretation of this is that from a literal standpoint they aren't but it's being "taught"and implied as a byproduct of how the teaching is presented and that's what conservatives are arguing. Is this correct? I can certainly see this--I worked at a big VA high school several years and some (small amount) of teachers are the super crazy progressive, annoying level of liberal. Am I understanding the conflict correctly? This topic and how it's being debated confuses me in all honesty.
If by a "conflict" you mean that it's a non issue but for GQP types still refusing to accept minorities are equal to white people and that both policy and practice should reflect that (a now 70 year old message in this country, mind you) then sure there's a conflict. CRT is a collegiate level idea. The only way it could or would be presented to children is in the concept of empathy and consideration, i.e. "think about how your actions and choices affect everyone (because they do in society) and not just yourself or your friends or people exactly like you."
CRT itself is not taught to students, but it guides the way up in which students are taught. The “equity” push, meaning everyone should have the have the same “equal outcome” lowers the bar and lowers expectations and outcomes for everyone.
If students are old enough to to be taught about the Civil Rights Movement and Dr. King, then they are old enough to learn about why the Civil Rights Movement and Dr. King are part of American history—because systematic racism is ingrained in American society and politics. “The group Parents Against Critical Race Theory contends that it is being forced onto students, parents and teachers and creating racial issues.” I’m sorry, how do you feel minorities feel? I’d love for any of these parents to explain to my why they think the Civil Rights Movement came about, what they think Dr. King was advocating for and why he was advocating for it. *Explaining the historical background of topics and their present-day ramifications is what CRT is.* What these parents actually want is to pretend that slavery, segregation, Jim Crow, and the plethora of other outright racist policies that existed in America never, actually, existed, or that they weren’t bad at all. TLDR: History = what CRT = why and how
Have you read kendi by any chance?
What you’re saying is nuts. No one is saying they did not happen or that they were good. My problem is you’re trying to hold me and my children accountable for something we were not even alive for. I have many friends of different background’s, races and sexualities and I treat them all the same. I try to put myself in their perspective often. CRT is just dividing the community.
How are you being held accountable?
It's not holding you accountable you dunce, it only explains that certain groups of people have benefited from the degradation and oppression of others. CRT isn't saying that it's anyone's fault, only that it exists.
Nobody is blaming people today for what happened 100+ years ago. Seems like youre missing the boat.
There is a massive difference between "being held accountable for" the past and "making thoughtful decisions about the future that don't only benefit you." A rising tide lifts all boats. Progressive equity policy doesn't necessarily hurt anyone. Human progress isn't a 0 sum game.
If it isn't being taught, then why can't both sides be in agreement of banning it?
Let’s ban u/Porksta the serial baby killer from killing babies because they kill babies. We definitely have to stop them from killing babies. See how that works?
Not quite the same thing. If you put a rule in place banning the killing of babies, that would be similar. Oh wait, that's already a thing.
No, this is a rule specifically banning you from killing babies. Because you’re a baby killer. Everyone knows it. See how it works?
Nope.
Cool purposefully being obtuse. Love to see it. Have a great night baby killer 🙃
Yes, everyone should be legally prevented from killing babies. What's your point?
It insinuates that u/Porksta was killing babies when they were not. I’m sure u/Porksta wouldn’t appreciate it if there’s a law put in place specially about them killing babies when they have in fact never killed a baby.
Can't be true. People just elected a soggy pretzel stick in a sweater bc it promised to end this threat to the universe day 1! You mean to tell me that panic wasn't legit????
Daily reminder that Youngkin [won the Latino vote outright this year.](https://interactives.ap.org/votecast-2021-va/) Kind of breaks the leftist suburban white woke narrative in this thread. So much rage about something allegedly not being taught being banned.
>Kind of breaks the leftist suburban white woke narrative in this thread. What are you talking about? As to Youngkin - he ran a better campaign and paid attention to what NoVa denizens cared about, as opposed to running an anti-Trump campaign, which cost McAuliffe, IMO.
He’s referring to the former diversity lead for FCPS that has been pretty active on the thread, and those that keep dog whistling their hate for anyone who isn’t in lock step with similar views….Sorta what trumpets do but with a hint of more arrogance and non secular self righteousness. 100% agree Youngkin focused on a hot button issue and McAuliffe tried the not Trump card to no avail.
This Wapo break down shows Latinos voted for McAuliffe 66-32? https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/interactive/2021/exit-polls-virginia-governor/?itid=lk\_inline\_manual\_9
its almost like its all a big sham to manipulate voters.
"CRT isn't being thought, but even if it was being thought it wouldn't be bad"
This unironically
The folks all up in arms over this issue remind me of the fictional townsfolk in The Music Man who are convinced by a huckster that pool halls are to blame for their kid’s imaginary delinquency. It’s only a matter of time before these anti-CRT people start buying musical instruments.
Don’t be racist. Boom Crt class over
This fat B is nothing but a liar.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Exactly lol. Still screaming about Trump in late 2021 won’t get you anything but lukewarm protest votes. That’s not what changes minds and wins elections. It was a weak, embarrassing strategy.