Is this CRT?

[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.

Curious, how does one teach Social Studies without discussing social change? The terms are identical.

[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.

Curious, how does one teach Social Studies without discussing social change? The terms are identical.

DP. There's a difference between teaching about social change and teaching students to do (be agents of) social change.

[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.

This is where it gets hairy. A lot of what's being taught in social studies is not facts but someone's interpretation of facts, especially in k-12.

+1

Parents want social studies to be as uncontroversial as possible until maybe high school. Facts like George Washington was our first president isn’t very controversial. Explaining how the three branches of government work isn’t very controversial.

A lot of people feel heavier topics like race discussions should wait until high school. People don’t want to see it in elementary school. Elementary schools shouldn’t be a battleground.

Our entire US history is about race. Race and class. And no it is not an interpretation. The only battleground has to do with those who can't understand that.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

It kind of starts there, right?
*Men
*All men liberty
*Rights
*Life

[Anonymous]

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.

Because you don't understand it

[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.

Curious, how does one teach Social Studies without discussing social change? The terms are identical.

DP. There's a difference between teaching about social change and teaching students to do (be agents of) social change.

There's also a difference between teaching about social change and "teaching" to hate others based on race or how violence is ok.

[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.

Curious, how does one teach Social Studies without discussing social change? The terms are identical.

DP. There's a difference between teaching about social change and teaching students to do (be agents of) social change.

There's also a difference between teaching about social change and "teaching" to hate others based on race or how violence is ok.

Yeah, Mr. Santos, that's not going on, dear. At all.

[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.

Curious, how does one teach Social Studies without discussing social change? The terms are identical.

DP. There's a difference between teaching about social change and teaching students to do (be agents of) social change.

There's also a difference between teaching about social change and "teaching" to hate others based on race or how violence is ok.

Was the violence of the slave trade ok? The violence of lynching ok? The wiping out an entire indigenous culture ok?
The violence of sweatshops?
Which violence is ok then?

[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.

This is where it gets hairy. A lot of what's being taught in social studies is not facts but someone's interpretation of facts, especially in k-12.

+1

Parents want social studies to be as uncontroversial as possible until maybe high school. Facts like George Washington was our first president isn’t very controversial. Explaining how the three branches of government work isn’t very controversial.

A lot of people feel heavier topics like race discussions should wait until high school. People don’t want to see it in elementary school. Elementary schools shouldn’t be a battleground.

Our entire US history is about race. Race and class. And no it is not an interpretation. The only battleground has to do with those who can't understand that.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

It kind of starts there, right?
*Men
*All men liberty
*Rights
*Life

Parents in general want to prolong the innocence of their kids as long as possible. They want to protect their kids from some of the ugliness of the world.

Progressives seem like they want to shove it down their throats sometimes. There’s plenty of time for that when the kids are older.

Is that hard to understand? Parents can be ultra sensitive about this.

[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.

Curious, how does one teach Social Studies without discussing social change? The terms are identical.

DP. There's a difference between teaching about social change and teaching students to do (be agents of) social change.

How did social change happen then if there were no agents of social change?
Do you know what 3rd graders ask when learning about the South? Every single child, and I've been teaching for 35 years.

Why did people do that?

Do you know what 7th graders ask when learning about the Holocaust or South Africa?

Why did people go along with it? Who stopped it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is where it gets hairy. A lot of what's being taught in social studies is not facts but someone's interpretation of facts, especially in k-12.

+1

Parents want social studies to be as uncontroversial as possible until maybe high school. Facts like George Washington was our first president isn’t very controversial. Explaining how the three branches of government work isn’t very controversial.

A lot of people feel heavier topics like race discussions should wait until high school. People don’t want to see it in elementary school. Elementary schools shouldn’t be a battleground.

Our entire US history is about race. Race and class. And no it is not an interpretation. The only battleground has to do with those who can't understand that.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

It kind of starts there, right?
*Men
*All men liberty
*Rights
*Life

Parents in general want to prolong the innocence of their kids as long as possible. They want to protect their kids from some of the ugliness of the world.

Progressives seem like they want to shove it down their throats sometimes. There’s plenty of time for that when the kids are older.

Is that hard to understand? Parents can be ultra sensitive about this.

Serious question: when has sheltering children from reality ever had a good outcome? This isn’t “Life is Beautiful.”

[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.

Curious, how does one teach Social Studies without discussing social change? The terms are identical.

DP. There's a difference between teaching about social change and teaching students to do (be agents of) social change.

There's also a difference between teaching about social change and "teaching" to hate others based on race or how violence is ok.

Yes, DeSantis and Abbott are “teaching” kids that human trafficking brown people is ok. And Republicans in Congress are “teaching” kids that storming the Capitol is ok.

[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.

Curious, how does one teach Social Studies without discussing social change? The terms are identical.

DP. There's a difference between teaching about social change and teaching students to do (be agents of) social change.

There's also a difference between teaching about social change and "teaching" to hate others based on race or how violence is ok.

Yes, DeSantis and Abbott are “teaching” kids that human trafficking brown people is ok. And Republicans in Congress are “teaching” kids that storming the Capitol is ok.

You're so cute. Deporter-in-Chief Obama showed all you want about human trafficking and putting brown kids in jail, and it is Dems teaching it's ok to vandalize hundreds of cities at will.

[Anonymous]

You may have seen this before:

Studying history will sometimes make you uncomfortable.

Studying history will sometimes make you feel deeply upset.

Studying history will sometimes make you feel extremely angry.

If studying history always makes you feel proud and happy, you probably aren’t studying history.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Curious, how does one teach Social Studies without discussing social change? The terms are identical.

DP. There's a difference between teaching about social change and teaching students to do (be agents of) social change.

There's also a difference between teaching about social change and "teaching" to hate others based on race or how violence is ok.

Yes, DeSantis and Abbott are “teaching” kids that human trafficking brown people is ok. And Republicans in Congress are “teaching” kids that storming the Capitol is ok.

You're so cute. Deporter-in-Chief Obama showed all you want about human trafficking and putting brown kids in jail, and it is Dems teaching it's ok to vandalize hundreds of cities at will.

Sorry, not what happened. Poor try at debate.

[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.

This is where it gets hairy. A lot of what's being taught in social studies is not facts but someone's interpretation of facts, especially in k-12.

+1

Parents want social studies to be as uncontroversial as possible until maybe high school. Facts like George Washington was our first president isn’t very controversial. Explaining how the three branches of government work isn’t very controversial.

A lot of people feel heavier topics like race discussions should wait until high school. People don’t want to see it in elementary school. Elementary schools shouldn’t be a battleground.

Our entire US history is about race. Race and class. And no it is not an interpretation. The only battleground has to do with those who can't understand that.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

It kind of starts there, right?
*Men
*All men liberty
*Rights
*Life

That is absolutely an interpretation. One I would venture most Americans disagree with (that our county’s ENTIRE history is about race).