Conservative-friendly schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

the nonstop promotion of LGBTQ and also by history/social studies getting 90% swallowed up by lessons about racism, the civil rights movement, etc.

It's difficult to take you seriously when you speak in hyperbole. "Nonstop"? "90%" This might be why your post has received such negative responses. I call troll.

And if you're not, I recommend moving out of major metropolitan areas as your unfounded hostility toward minority communities is no longer socially acceptable.

100% of the 2022 Deal MS summer reading list for 8th grade were books about racism. 100%. My kids home room had BLM flag, trans flag, picture of RBG and two Obama pictures on the wall. That’s the definition of nonstop. Critical thinking is completely stifled at DCPS schools.

Or, it is opening kids of differening backgrounds to the idea of an inclusive society, something modern "conservatives" appear to oppose.

Honest question here. Does “inclusive” have room for religion? Can we have flags in that room representing tons of faiths represented in that classroom? Is it okay to have a Republican elephant present?

And I ask these questions as a pretty liberal person, who is wondering where the line is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They call us racist and we call them groomers. It is sadly par for the course in this day and age. My daughter is in a known private school and had to study a speech by Greta Thunberg and write a paper about the rainbow coalition within a week. The references were limited to source material from places like the SPLC. I don't necessarily have a problem with this, as you should learn about all aspects of society. However, there is no way to see what is happening in public and private schools and conclude it is anything but indoctrination. Our family spends quite a bit of time undoing the context and reframing many of the social issues raised in our private school. There is definately a disconnect between the sensible currcilum presented and sold (at a very high cost) to the parents, the actual material covered and the context in which is presented. Talk to your kids and have them question everything - whether attending the Height or GDS.

So you are undoing lessons about the environment and climate change and perseverance of q girl with learning differences, or tolerance of those who are not straight?

Winning for you, I guess?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My kids are in public schools and I’m concerned about the level of political/ideological indoctrination they are getting. I’m not even particularly conservative myself by the standards of ten years ago, but am uncomfortable with the nonstop promotion of LGBTQ and also by history/social studies getting 90% swallowed up by lessons about racism, the civil rights movement, etc. Yes these things happened but they are not the only things that happened and you are actually not getting a good education in history or social studies if you think black-white relations in the US constitute all of human history.

We are considering private schools, but I’m concerned it’s going to be a similar story there. What private schools offer a more balanced approach and are open to ideological diversity? Would it mostly be the mid level Catholic schools vs the fancy schools? We are not Catholic or religious so I’m uncertain about those.

Thanks, and looking to get actual advice here vs starting a big political argument so won’t respond to posts that try to do that

Immanuel Christian School, Word of Life Christian Academy, Trinity Christian, Christ Chapel, Catholic Schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is’t hard.

Religious schools teach their values at there schools fact.

When those values are hate, racism, antisemitism, non reporting of child abuse that is indoctrination. There is no reality we’re a kid in a religious private is not being indoctrinated into that religion it is literally the purpose of the school.

You are an idiot to think otherwise.

Clearly if you send your kid to a private like that you believe those ideas and you want that instilled in your child.


No public is doing that. Big whoop they teach inclusion while you all send your kids to places where thinking for themselves is not allowed.

Again not hard for people with brains who are not sheep who do not send their kids to schools were child abuse is hidden for years and years covered up looking at you Catholics and evangelicals

Religion’s core is to indoctrinate!

Troll post? Hard to tell.

Non-Catholic with a really logical brain here who sends her children to Catholic schools:
I want my children to be raised believing that we should leave the world better than we found it. We should perform service to the community. We should be kind to ALL others. People aren’t monoliths and we should refrain from blanket insults and judgments.

Catholic school seems to be working for us.

Perhaps if you stepped foot in one, you could shed a bit of your ignorance toward an entire swath of people.

The issue is more Evangelical Christians, not traditional Catholics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm still confused as to what students in private schools are being indoctrinated into. So far, some posters have complained that their children talk too much about race and sexual orientation in classes. But how does studying race/racism/sexuality/identity or whatever indoctrinate children into a particular biased ideology?

That’s violation of the code of white supremacy’s. There is a rule that you should never acknowledge that racism exists publicly.

We are discussing private schools here.
Who are the white supremacists? Did you post on the wrong thread?

There’s that white supremacist deflection.

I think you are a bot

To the radical left, white supremacist is merely a political term for anybody whose views they don’t like.

I can prove it - I invite anybody who thinks that phrase is a worthwhile part of the discourse on this thread, to tell us which of the announced 2024 Republican Presidential Candidates are, in your opinion, NOT white supremacists?

Chris Christie, Asa Hutchinson are two.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm still confused as to what students in private schools are being indoctrinated into. So far, some posters have complained that their children talk too much about race and sexual orientation in classes. But how does studying race/racism/sexuality/identity or whatever indoctrinate children into a particular biased ideology?

The nuance is that what’s happening isn’t the STUDYING of any of those things - instead, it’s the instruction of kids in a secular catechism whereby the evil force solely responsible for [insert bad thing here] is always prejudice against [insert victim here]

I don't agree with your framing of this and it doesn't make sense to me. The reality is that there is racism in this country and it's caused by, among other forces, white supremacy and a systemic bias against people of color. That's just a fact. What is the cause of homophobia? Prejudice against gay people. Transphobia? Fear and hatred of trans people. What causes sexism and/or misogyny? Bias toward or hatred of women. You can certainly debate whether or not specific policies perpetuate inequality, unintentionally or otherwise. That's where the nuance comes in. Can you debate whether or not LGBTQ people should receive equal rights, including civil marriage rights? You can, but you'll be labeled intolerant because you're denying a minority group equal rights under the Constitution. I know that stance used to be socially acceptable not so long ago, but it isn't anymore, just like being opposed to integration used to be more socially palatable. But saying that there aren't definitive causes of various -isms or phobias when the historical record clearly says otherwise is just inaccurate.

this framing is sort of circular... racism is caused by prejudice, yes, but what I was talking about is one step up: the idea that everything in society we don't like is caused by racism (for example - or the other isms)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm still confused as to what students in private schools are being indoctrinated into. So far, some posters have complained that their children talk too much about race and sexual orientation in classes. But how does studying race/racism/sexuality/identity or whatever indoctrinate children into a particular biased ideology?

The nuance is that what’s happening isn’t the STUDYING of any of those things - instead, it’s the instruction of kids in a secular catechism whereby the evil force solely responsible for [insert bad thing here] is always prejudice against [insert victim here]

I don't agree with your framing of this and it doesn't make sense to me. The reality is that there is racism in this country and it's caused by, among other forces, white supremacy and a systemic bias against people of color. That's just a fact. What is the cause of homophobia? Prejudice against gay people. Transphobia? Fear and hatred of trans people. What causes sexism and/or misogyny? Bias toward or hatred of women. You can certainly debate whether or not specific policies perpetuate inequality, unintentionally or otherwise. That's where the nuance comes in. Can you debate whether or not LGBTQ people should receive equal rights, including civil marriage rights? You can, but you'll be labeled intolerant because you're denying a minority group equal rights under the Constitution. I know that stance used to be socially acceptable not so long ago, but it isn't anymore, just like being opposed to integration used to be more socially palatable. But saying that there aren't definitive causes of various -isms or phobias when the historical record clearly says otherwise is just inaccurate.

this framing is sort of circular... racism is caused by prejudice, yes, but what I was talking about is one step up: the idea that everything in society we don't like is caused by racism (for example - or the other isms)

I sincerely doubt this is what independent schools are teaching their students.

[Anonymous]

probably not in so many words, I'll grant that

but I don't get the feeling that they're doing the opposite either, which is exposing kids to basic social anthropology (the different goals and behaviors different cultural groups may have even in the US) - or broad differences between men and women in priorities and decision-making - and how all that interacts with external factors (of which prejudice is just one) to produce the unequal results we can all observe

you can barely even discuss things like that in polite company in DC, let alone teach them to children - but that's what I meant about real learning vs. catechism

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:probably not in so many words, I'll grant that

but I don't get the feeling that they're doing the opposite either, which is exposing kids to basic social anthropology (the different goals and behaviors different cultural groups may have even in the US) - or broad differences between men and women in priorities and decision-making - and how all that interacts with external factors (of which prejudice is just one) to produce the unequal results we can all observe

you can barely even discuss things like that in polite company in DC, let alone teach them to children - but that's what I meant about real learning vs. catechism

and TBH maybe the schools could try to nail down teaching kids to read and do math before they promote themselves to teaching value systems

I don't know if that counts as a "conservative" viewpoint these days but I think plenty of very middle of the road people might agree

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:probably not in so many words, I'll grant that

but I don't get the feeling that they're doing the opposite either, which is exposing kids to basic social anthropology (the different goals and behaviors different cultural groups may have even in the US) - or broad differences between men and women in priorities and decision-making - and how all that interacts with external factors (of which prejudice is just one) to produce the unequal results we can all observe

you can barely even discuss things like that in polite company in DC, let alone teach them to children - but that's what I meant about real learning vs. catechism

But many of "the different goals of behaviors different cultural groups may have even in the US" are worthy of criticism when they are inherently biased. My sense is that this is what the issue is: people now realize that many, but not all, of the the long-held traditions many people ascribed to just ten years ago were based on bigotry or flawed logic. This very idea scares many people because of the change/transformation that is inevitably happening in our society today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NCS teaches LGBTQ studies classes, just an FYI.

Also, NCS has stopped addressing parents about their “daughters”. It is always about your “student”. I do find this irritating because we are at an all girls school. You have a transgender son, I really, really don’t care. But if the administrators referring to the student body collectively as “girls”, “Young women” or “daughters” offends you or causes you to complain, maybe send them to a co-ed school??

Big surprise! Misinformation on DCUM! The policy is when addressing an entire group of students not to refer to them in any gendered terms as there might be students in the group who do not identify as women/girls. It's about being polite and not making trans-identified or questioning students feel uncomfortable. NCS is still a girls school and all of its marketing keeps that in place. Again, this is just a practice of being considerate and not making students feel excluded from those around them at any given moment. Trans kids at NCS know it's a girls' school, but they choose to stay there because many have attended since lower school and have established a friend network who supports their identities. They just want to be seen and acknowledged. But I guess people like yourself don't even want to extend even the slightest common courtesy.

JFC. What happened that we now are putting up with stuff like the above?? Complete lack of common sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:probably not in so many words, I'll grant that

but I don't get the feeling that they're doing the opposite either, which is exposing kids to basic social anthropology (the different goals and behaviors different cultural groups may have even in the US) - or broad differences between men and women in priorities and decision-making - and how all that interacts with external factors (of which prejudice is just one) to produce the unequal results we can all observe

you can barely even discuss things like that in polite company in DC, let alone teach them to children - but that's what I meant about real learning vs. catechism

But many of "the different goals of behaviors different cultural groups may have even in the US" are worthy of criticism when they are inherently biased. My sense is that this is what the issue is: people now realize that many, but not all, of the the long-held traditions many people ascribed to just ten years ago were based on bigotry or flawed logic. This very idea scares many people because of the change/transformation that is inevitably happening in our society today.

Is it flawed logic though? I think a lot of recent changes defy common sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm still confused as to what students in private schools are being indoctrinated into. So far, some posters have complained that their children talk too much about race and sexual orientation in classes. But how does studying race/racism/sexuality/identity or whatever indoctrinate children into a particular biased ideology?

I’m just upset they are not studying things holistically. Feel like they miss big picture bc they only study racial conflicts around the globe instead of world history. They don’t have a solid base beyond these very narrow topics, and have huge learning gaps.

I’m actually ok with some of this - as long as it’s not at the expense of teaching history.

[Anonymous]

We are Catholic and my kids go to Catholic school. While catholic schools is prob what OP is looking for, their kids are probably going to grow up pretty insensitive and dense about racism and other social injustices.

As a non-white family at our Catholic school, we do a fair amount of trying to ensure that our kids are exposed to the realities of social injustices and think critically about those issues not because it is in “vogue” because it directly affects them and the school doesn’t do a sufficient job on it. The kids at the school are generally kind kids but personal experiences of racism, especially when it’s micro aggressions, are often met with an expectation that you just ignore and move past it or it’s really not a big deal.

I am an employment attorney and have counseled HRs regarding dealing with employees who have many complaints against them for racist, homophobic, etc. remarks. Remarks that weren’t intended to malicious but the employees were just so unaware and insensitive, or likely grew up in an environment where what they said was not considered offensive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We are Catholic and my kids go to Catholic school. While catholic schools is prob what OP is looking for, their kids are probably going to grow up pretty insensitive and dense about racism and other social injustices.

As a non-white family at our Catholic school, we do a fair amount of trying to ensure that our kids are exposed to the realities of social injustices and think critically about those issues not because it is in “vogue” because it directly affects them and the school doesn’t do a sufficient job on it. The kids at the school are generally kind kids but personal experiences of racism, especially when it’s micro aggressions, are often met with an expectation that you just ignore and move past it or it’s really not a big deal.

I am an employment attorney and have counseled HRs regarding dealing with employees who have many complaints against them for racist, homophobic, etc. remarks. Remarks that weren’t intended to malicious but the employees were just so unaware and insensitive, or likely grew up in an environment where what they said was not considered offensive.

Honest question since you seem thoughtful

In your work, where do you think the line should be drawn between “shouldn’t have said it” and “shouldn’t have taken offense” (maybe in terms of what percent of average people you think would be offended???) - obviously some people are pretty hard to offend and some take offense at nearly anything - whether white, black, Catholic, Jewish, whatever

I certainly don’t have an answer in mind, just curious how you see it