Is this CRT?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No it is not CRT

Stop trying to make an issue when there is none


VA on the other hand taking MLK and Obama out of history WTF?

Source?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe not CRT but the term “intersectionality” is a buzzword for woke pablum.

I’m pretty liberal, but my eyes automatically roll when I hear that word.

It’s jargon but it just means everyone has their own experiences with discrimination and consideration should be given to things that affect marginalized people. It rubs some white people the wrong way because they have never experienced discrimination and can’t relate. They also probably consider themselves to be good people and can’t separate that from acknowledging the system is set up to benefit them, which is why they can’t relate to the discrimination marginalized people experience.

Contradict much?

No. White people don’t experience discrimination.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe not CRT but the term “intersectionality” is a buzzword for woke pablum.

I’m pretty liberal, but my eyes automatically roll when I hear that word.

It’s jargon but it just means everyone has their own experiences with discrimination and consideration should be given to things that affect marginalized people. It rubs some white people the wrong way because they have never experienced discrimination and can’t relate. They also probably consider themselves to be good people and can’t separate that from acknowledging the system is set up to benefit them, which is why they can’t relate to the discrimination marginalized people experience.

Contradict much?

DP..don't see how this is contradictory. Some people never experience discrimination, therefore, that is their experience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe not CRT but the term “intersectionality” is a buzzword for woke pablum.

I’m pretty liberal, but my eyes automatically roll when I hear that word.

It’s jargon but it just means everyone has their own experiences with discrimination and consideration should be given to things that affect marginalized people. It rubs some white people the wrong way because they have never experienced discrimination and can’t relate. They also probably consider themselves to be good people and can’t separate that from acknowledging the system is set up to benefit them, which is why they can’t relate to the discrimination marginalized people experience.

Contradict much?

DP..don't see how this is contradictory. Some people never experience discrimination, therefore, that is their experience.

And also, the focus is on marginalized people. White people are not marginalized, even if some of them think they confuse equity with reverse discrimination.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe not CRT but the term “intersectionality” is a buzzword for woke pablum.

I’m pretty liberal, but my eyes automatically roll when I hear that word.

It’s jargon but it just means everyone has their own experiences with discrimination and consideration should be given to things that affect marginalized people. It rubs some white people the wrong way because they have never experienced discrimination and can’t relate. They also probably consider themselves to be good people and can’t separate that from acknowledging the system is set up to benefit them, which is why they can’t relate to the discrimination marginalized people experience.

Contradict much?

DP..don't see how this is contradictory. Some people never experience discrimination, therefore, that is their experience.

I've never experienced synchronized swimming. Does that mean that's my synchronized swimming experience, not experiencing it?

[Anonymous]

Horace Mann, while too Christian for my taste, envisioned the common, or public school, as a way to teach literacy AND citizenship.

The public school was founded upon the idea of teaching common ideals and propagating education, democracy, and morals.

That has always been the mission of the public school. It is just that some people don't like that the common ideals and morals have changed over time (becoming more humanist than simply religious), so now they are yelping that they just want the three Rs taught.

Disingenuous and/or misinformed over what our public school systems was born as.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe not CRT but the term “intersectionality” is a buzzword for woke pablum.

I’m pretty liberal, but my eyes automatically roll when I hear that word.

It’s jargon but it just means everyone has their own experiences with discrimination and consideration should be given to things that affect marginalized people. It rubs some white people the wrong way because they have never experienced discrimination and can’t relate. They also probably consider themselves to be good people and can’t separate that from acknowledging the system is set up to benefit them, which is why they can’t relate to the discrimination marginalized people experience.

Contradict much?

DP..don't see how this is contradictory. Some people never experience discrimination, therefore, that is their experience.

I've never experienced synchronized swimming. Does that mean that's my synchronized swimming experience, not experiencing it?

Yes. Or your experience is limited to VIEWING it, or defining it. Same as discrimination.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Technically no, but it’s what people are referring to when they talk about CRT in k-12 education.

A lot of parents don’t think public schools should teach students to be “agents of social change”. They expect their kids to be taught skills like math and reading, and facts like science and social studies. Creating social change agents seems outside of that mission.

Schools have always had the responsibility of creating good citizens.

The question is, do good citizens support and improve society or are good citizens change agents who, as another poster put it, dismantle the patriarchy?

I know what my answer is. And some posters have stated or implied their answer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Technically no, but it’s what people are referring to when they talk about CRT in k-12 education.

A lot of parents don’t think public schools should teach students to be “agents of social change”. They expect their kids to be taught skills like math and reading, and facts like science and social studies. Creating social change agents seems outside of that mission.

Schools have always had the responsibility of creating good citizens.

The question is, do good citizens support and [/b]improve society[b] or are good citizens change agents who, as another poster put it, dismantle the patriarchy?

I know what my answer is. And some posters have stated or implied their answer.

“Improving society” is tearing down racism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Technically no, but it’s what people are referring to when they talk about CRT in k-12 education.

A lot of parents don’t think public schools should teach students to be “agents of social change”. They expect their kids to be taught skills like math and reading, and facts like science and social studies. Creating social change agents seems outside of that mission.

Schools have always had the responsibility of creating good citizens.

The question is, do good citizens support and [/b]improve society[b] or are good citizens change agents who, as another poster put it, dismantle the patriarchy?

I know what my answer is. And some posters have stated or implied their answer.

“Improving society” is tearing down racism.

When will we know when this has been achieved?

[Anonymous]

I think discussions about CRT would work better if we stopped using the term CRT. Nobody can agree on what it means, and even if they do, it may not reflect the reality of what us happening in a specific classroom.

I think we’d be much better served to examine specific content and consider whether or not it is problematic. I would suggest that instead of asking “Is this CRT?”, let’s ask what does “Consistent with the local curriculum and state and local academic standards, the teacher creates demonstrates the ability to create opportunities for students to learn about power, privilege, intersectionality, and systemic oppression in the context of various communities and empowers learners to be agents of social change to promote equity." actually mean? How should it be implemented? How is it likely to be implemented? What are the benefits and drawbacks to this? Does this reflect what we want for our kids?

Those are meaningful questions. Frankly, this quote has enough jargon in it that I suspect it’s meaning will be almost as ambiguous as CRT. Rather than trying to see if one fuzzy concept reflects another, let’s stop focusing on labels and focus on the content behind it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Minnesota's changes to teacher licensing requirements includes
"Consistent with the local curriculum and state and local academic standards, the teacher creates demonstrates the ability to create opportunities for students to learn about power, privilege, intersectionality, and systemic oppression in the context of various communities and empowers learners to be agents of social change to promote equity."

Yes. Obvious ideologized nonsense.

Fight or Flight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Technically no, but it’s what people are referring to when they talk about CRT in k-12 education.

A lot of parents don’t think public schools should teach students to be “agents of social change”. They expect their kids to be taught skills like math and reading, and facts like science and social studies. Creating social change agents seems outside of that mission.

Schools have always had the responsibility of creating good citizens.

The question is, do good citizens support and [/b]improve society[b] or are good citizens change agents who, as another poster put it, dismantle the patriarchy?

I know what my answer is. And some posters have stated or implied their answer.

“Improving society” is tearing down racism.

When will we know when this has been achieved?

Where there is more equality in outcomes.

I.e. in incomes, wealth, health, rates of incarceration, etc.

I understand everyone freaks out over the “equality of outcomes” phrasing in a school context but in the broader context, so long as average white income is x% higher average black income, women earn 70 cents on the dollar as men, life expectancies and incarceration rates are wildly divergent … when those thing are more equalized, we have achieved equity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Minnesota's changes to teacher licensing requirements includes
"Consistent with the local curriculum and state and local academic standards, the teacher creates demonstrates the ability to create opportunities for students to learn about power, privilege, intersectionality, and systemic oppression in the context of various communities and empowers learners to be agents of social change to promote equity."

Yes. Obvious ideologized nonsense.

Fight or Flight.

^^ someone is anxious to preserve white supremacy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Technically no, but it’s what people are referring to when they talk about CRT in k-12 education.

A lot of parents don’t think public schools should teach students to be “agents of social change”. They expect their kids to be taught skills like math and reading, and facts like science and social studies. Creating social change agents seems outside of that mission.

Schools have always had the responsibility of creating good citizens.

The question is, do good citizens support and [/b]improve society[b] or are good citizens change agents who, as another poster put it, dismantle the patriarchy?

I know what my answer is. And some posters have stated or implied their answer.

“Improving society” is tearing down racism.

When will we know when this has been achieved?

Where there is more equality in outcomes.

I.e. in incomes, wealth, health, rates of incarceration, etc.

I understand everyone freaks out over the “equality of outcomes” phrasing in a school context but in the broader context, so long as average white income is x% higher average black income, women earn 70 cents on the dollar as men, life expectancies and incarceration rates are wildly divergent … when those thing are more equalized, we have achieved equity.

Exactly. We are still so far off.

It’s disgusting that some people just DGAF.