New Virginia social studies standards

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there any non-racist reason to remove MLK from the curriculum?

MLK is not removed from the curriculum. So I cannot answer your question.

Well sure if you count sticking him back in after the uproar over his removal but still not to the extent he was in there before.

That's incorrect. Just look at the first draft that was posted - MLK is there.

Come on. Are you really doubling down on this? Anyone can compare how MLK is treated in the Northam curriculum vs the Youngkin curriculum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there any non-racist reason to remove MLK from the curriculum?

MLK is not removed from the curriculum. So I cannot answer your question.

Well sure if you count sticking him back in after the uproar over his removal but still not to the extent he was in there before.

That's incorrect. Just look at the first draft that was posted - MLK is there.

Come on. Are you really doubling down on this? Anyone can compare how MLK is treated in the Northam curriculum vs the Youngkin curriculum.

It's funny to see people defending the whitewashed that even Youngkin had to back away from.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there any non-racist reason to remove MLK from the curriculum?

MLK is not removed from the curriculum. So I cannot answer your question.

Well sure if you count sticking him back in after the uproar over his removal but still not to the extent he was in there before.

That's incorrect. Just look at the first draft that was posted - MLK is there.

Come on. Are you really doubling down on this? Anyone can compare how MLK is treated in the Northam curriculum vs the Youngkin curriculum.

Not doubling down, just pointing out the inaccuracy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there any non-racist reason to remove MLK from the curriculum?

MLK is not removed from the curriculum. So I cannot answer your question.

Well sure if you count sticking him back in after the uproar over his removal but still not to the extent he was in there before.

That's incorrect. Just look at the first draft that was posted - MLK is there.

Come on. Are you really doubling down on this? Anyone can compare how MLK is treated in the Northam curriculum vs the Youngkin curriculum.

Not doubling down, just pointing out the inaccuracy.

Are you really ok with MLK's treatment in the new standards? And you're totally fine with skipping our first Black president completely?

This isn't the version of history I want my kids to learn. And I'm white.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there any non-racist reason to remove MLK from the curriculum?

MLK is not removed from the curriculum. So I cannot answer your question.

Well sure if you count sticking him back in after the uproar over his removal but still not to the extent he was in there before.

That's incorrect. Just look at the first draft that was posted - MLK is there.

Nope, they snuck him back in quietly once people noticed the omission. But still not as much as before.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“It’s just another attack on trying to make history what they want it to be," said James Fedderman, President of the Virginia Education Association.
In the 53-page document, policies outline what and when certain subjects are taught to Virginia students. Many difficult topics such as lynching would not be taught until 6th grade, and Christopher Columbus' role in the slave trade by 11th grade.
"There is also a removal of content of Martin Luther King Jr from the K-5 standards, no mention of Juneteenth, removal of content of LGBTQ+ histories," Fedderman said.

Speaking as a former Texan, there's really no reason that Virginian grade schoolers need to learn anything about Juneteenth. Ftr, MLK is in the 6th grade standard.

Agree. Juneteenth is part of Texas history.

It’s a federal holiday. Of course they should learn about it before sixth grade.

Yes, because Labor Day gets such extensive coverage in the K-5 curricula nationwide.

Pretty sure Memorial Day is not covered nor Veterans Day.

All the national holidays, including Labor Day and Veterans Day, are in the 2nd grade curriculum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there any non-racist reason to remove MLK from the curriculum?

MLK is not removed from the curriculum. So I cannot answer your question.

Well sure if you count sticking him back in after the uproar over his removal but still not to the extent he was in there before.

That's incorrect. Just look at the first draft that was posted - MLK is there.

Come on. Are you really doubling down on this? Anyone can compare how MLK is treated in the Northam curriculum vs the Youngkin curriculum.

Not doubling down, just pointing out the inaccuracy.

Are you really ok with MLK's treatment in the new standards? And you're totally fine with skipping our first Black president completely?

This isn't the version of history I want my kids to learn. And I'm white.

The *intention* is to downplay the contribution of anyone other than white people to this nation's history - that was a big appeal of Youngkin to his supporters. So not only are the okay with this, it's specifically what they want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there any non-racist reason to remove MLK from the curriculum?

MLK is not removed from the curriculum. So I cannot answer your question.

Well sure if you count sticking him back in after the uproar over his removal but still not to the extent he was in there before.

That's incorrect. Just look at the first draft that was posted - MLK is there.

Come on. Are you really doubling down on this? Anyone can compare how MLK is treated in the Northam curriculum vs the Youngkin curriculum.

Not doubling down, just pointing out the inaccuracy.

Are you really ok with MLK's treatment in the new standards? And you're totally fine with skipping our first Black president completely?

This isn't the version of history I want my kids to learn. And I'm white.

The *intention* is to downplay the contribution of anyone other than white people to this nation's history - that was a big appeal of Youngkin to his supporters. So not only are the okay with this, it's specifically what they want.

Oh I agree, and then they should just own that, rather than pretending that they didn't try to remove MLK.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there any non-racist reason to remove MLK from the curriculum?

MLK is not removed from the curriculum. So I cannot answer your question.

Well sure if you count sticking him back in after the uproar over his removal but still not to the extent he was in there before.

That's incorrect. Just look at the first draft that was posted - MLK is there.

Come on. Are you really doubling down on this? Anyone can compare how MLK is treated in the Northam curriculum vs the Youngkin curriculum.

Not doubling down, just pointing out the inaccuracy.

Are you really ok with MLK's treatment in the new standards? And you're totally fine with skipping our first Black president completely?

This isn't the version of history I want my kids to learn. And I'm white.

The *intention* is to downplay the contribution of anyone other than white people to this nation's history - that was a big appeal of Youngkin to his supporters. So not only are the okay with this, it's specifically what they want.

Oh I agree, and then they should just own that, rather than pretending that they didn't try to remove MLK.

The thing is, the draft is available. So you can look at it yourself rather than repeat what others have said...