Youngkin Says Report on ‘Honesty Gap’ Points to Decline in Virginia Schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I attended public schools, sent my kids to public schools, and for a very long time defended public schools and vociferously opposed charter schools in VA.

But having watched the incompetence, mismanagement, and hypocrisy of a 12-0 Democrat School Board in FCPS over the past several years, I've come to welcome any initiative by the Youngkin administration, including the lab schools initiative, that will shake these folks up and get them to focus on the basic again: academics, facilities, teacher pay, and accountability. That is exactly what we are NOT getting with people like Karl Frisch, Elaine Tholen, Laura Jane Cohen, and Karen Keys Gamarra on the School Board, and it's time for a change.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/virginia-breaks-the-school-choice-barrier-glenn-youngkin-lab-schools-charters-11656445074

DemocratIC. You misspelled the adjective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Youngkin's solution will be to privatize everything so he can basically say its not my problem

I'm down. At least then we can choose to go to a good school.

You can choose a good school now. Either move or pay for it, don't ask the government to give you a hand out.

+1

I'm not subsidizing your private school at the expense of all of the public school kids.

[Anonymous]

Nothing that comes out of his mouth is true. Virginia made a huge mistake your vote will never count again. He tries to trash children on the internet he’s scum and that is me being nice, yiur schools are going to be privatized your taxes will go up.


And his kid who tried to vote illegally is a twat who should be in jail

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nothing that comes out of his mouth is true. Virginia made a huge mistake your vote will never count again. He tries to trash children on the internet he’s scum and that is me being nice, yiur schools are going to be privatized your taxes will go up.


And his kid who tried to vote illegally is a twat who should be in jail

Typical liberal liar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nothing that comes out of his mouth is true. Virginia made a huge mistake your vote will never count again. He tries to trash children on the internet he’s scum and that is me being nice, yiur schools are going to be privatized your taxes will go up.


And his kid who tried to vote illegally is a twat who should be in jail

Typical liberal liar

Which part was wrong? DP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nothing that comes out of his mouth is true. Virginia made a huge mistake your vote will never count again. He tries to trash children on the internet he’s scum and that is me being nice, yiur schools are going to be privatized your taxes will go up.


And his kid who tried to vote illegally is a twat who should be in jail

Typical liberal liar

I mean, the claims were bluntly made but 100% true. He has trashed children on the Internet, his AG is trying to invade the privacy of transgender youths in Loudoun and his son — who goes to a woke private school in DC, natch — did try to vote illegally. Twice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Achieve pushes “competency-based pathways.”

I say we need more critical thinking in schools, more holistic approaches.

Conservatives hate that idea because they won’t win future elections if voters think critically. So they push things like “competency based pathways.”

What you characterize as "critical thinking" is understood by many to mean the indoctrination of younger students with a particular set of political views by teachers who do not seek to explore multiple perspectives. "Comptency-based pathways" at least connotes learning things that will help graduates earn a living wage.

Yes, I am aware of the twisted narrative.

The difference is like the difference between teaching liberal arts in college or attending trade school. The most successful people in society today have a liberal arts/critical thinking background. It’s actually the opposite of indoctrination because it teaches students to challenge authority, which includes what is being taught.

The “just learn skills” crowd only wants students to know how to change a light fixture or repair a car or program a computer. It doesn’t want anyone seeing the forest for the trees. Because then people might second-guess voting for conservative politicians who promote policies that are bad for them. It makes them more prone to acquiescence.

This has been in the works for 30+ years in public education. What we’re seeing now is next level, however.

That's a lot to unpack.

It's not like students who just have liberal arts degrees graduate and set the world on fire. Many can barely find decent employment, and the higher-paid liberal arts graduates often are those who've gone on to attend graduate or professional schools, which may not be a financial option for many students.

As for whether "critical thinking" is being encouraged, it's notable that the School Board has been exploring, if it has not already adopted, revisions to an existing "controversial issues" policy that required teachers to consider presenting competing perspectives, which would be consistent with encouraging students to develop their own views, to instead allow teachers to advocate in classrooms for a particular point of view. That would be fine if students already had the so-called "critical thinking" skills to challenge their teachers, but in practice it may lead to race and class-centered indoctrination.

Finally, as for the suggestion that "competency-based pathways" boil down to "just learn skills," that would be unfortunate if it were all that it entailed. At least some conservatives want to ensure all students are receiving an education in what used to be called "civics" that entails gaining an understanding of the basics about, for example, the three branches of the federal government (executive, legislative, and judicial) and a federal system (under which certain powers are exercised by the federal government, while others are reserved to the states). That type of education can make for an informed citizenry and electorate, not one that only learns vocational training.

Certainly it would be preferable to some of what currently happens in FCPS, where multiple schools (including some where students might benefit the most from additional vocational pathways) instead have International Baccalaureate programs that purport to develop "global citizens," but are poorly subscribed, treat the United States as just one of many countries around the world, fail to cover basic "civics," and graduate few students on track to receive an IB diploma.

Funniest thing I've ever read on DCUM. EVER! Just where are those conservatives so concerned about students learning about our Constitution and government? Are they the same conservatives who don't understand what the Constitution actually says? Who disregard the contingencies stated within the 2nd amendment so they can argue a simple entitlement for every individual to own any gun, any number of guns, any capacity gun of their choosing for their "personal protection"?

The previous PP is spot on. DeSantis and his ilk do not want enlightened minds because you can't count on those minds to vote for them and fellow republicans. They want people to keep their heads down and just listen to what they tell them, don't question. They're too insecure in their own righteous ways and abilities and are seeking to restrict education to increase their likelihood of increasing and retaining power. Don't let slaves have guns....they might revolt.

There is no good reason that anyone training for a specific technical trade could - or should - not also be well educated in literature, philosophy, the arts, or any subject outside their specific field of training. People should have options. People should be knowledgeable, educated, and informed voters whether they are a trash collector, a lawyer, auto mechanic, or HVAC technician.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Achieve pushes “competency-based pathways.”

I say we need more critical thinking in schools, more holistic approaches.

Conservatives hate that idea because they won’t win future elections if voters think critically. So they push things like “competency based pathways.”

What you characterize as "critical thinking" is understood by many to mean the indoctrination of younger students with a particular set of political views by teachers who do not seek to explore multiple perspectives. "Comptency-based pathways" at least connotes learning things that will help graduates earn a living wage.

Yes, I am aware of the twisted narrative.

The difference is like the difference between teaching liberal arts in college or attending trade school. The most successful people in society today have a liberal arts/critical thinking background. It’s actually the opposite of indoctrination because it teaches students to challenge authority, which includes what is being taught.

The “just learn skills” crowd only wants students to know how to change a light fixture or repair a car or program a computer. It doesn’t want anyone seeing the forest for the trees. Because then people might second-guess voting for conservative politicians who promote policies that are bad for them. It makes them more prone to acquiescence.

This has been in the works for 30+ years in public education. What we’re seeing now is next level, however.

That's a lot to unpack.

It's not like students who just have liberal arts degrees graduate and set the world on fire. Many can barely find decent employment, and the higher-paid liberal arts graduates often are those who've gone on to attend graduate or professional schools, which may not be a financial option for many students.

As for whether "critical thinking" is being encouraged, it's notable that the School Board has been exploring, if it has not already adopted, revisions to an existing "controversial issues" policy that required teachers to consider presenting competing perspectives, which would be consistent with encouraging students to develop their own views, to instead allow teachers to advocate in classrooms for a particular point of view. That would be fine if students already had the so-called "critical thinking" skills to challenge their teachers, but in practice it may lead to race and class-centered indoctrination.

Finally, as for the suggestion that "competency-based pathways" boil down to "just learn skills," that would be unfortunate if it were all that it entailed. At least some conservatives want to ensure all students are receiving an education in what used to be called "civics" that entails gaining an understanding of the basics about, for example, the three branches of the federal government (executive, legislative, and judicial) and a federal system (under which certain powers are exercised by the federal government, while others are reserved to the states). That type of education can make for an informed citizenry and electorate, not one that only learns vocational training.

Certainly it would be preferable to some of what currently happens in FCPS, where multiple schools (including some where students might benefit the most from additional vocational pathways) instead have International Baccalaureate programs that purport to develop "global citizens," but are poorly subscribed, treat the United States as just one of many countries around the world, fail to cover basic "civics," and graduate few students on track to receive an IB diploma.

To “unpack” your response, one has to dispute the premises you lay out.

1) The notion that “it’s not like those who just have a liberal arts degree have set the world on fire” or cannot find decent employment is simply unsupported by the facts. In fact, it’s a lazy trope. Yes, many go on to get professional degrees or certifications but the liberal arts background equipped them to do so and succeed in those environments. Others become entrepreneurs or find gainful employment in major corporations, which value the ability to think and make connections. Continuous education is necessary for anyone who wishes to succeed and progress in a career — same for trades. But it’s not true that liberal arts graduates are barely employable. Are there some? Sure — there are always outliers. Just like there are crappy plumbers who can’t hold a job.

2) The notion that teachers “advocate” a point of view on controversial subjects is similarly unsupported. That’s some straight up bullshit you have lapped up from propaganda outlets like the Federalist or Washington Examiner or any number of right wing publications masquerading as news. I have known literally hundreds of teachers in my life and none of them do this. It’s a complete and bizarre fantasy of conservatives that this happens — my guess many are confusing the lack of parroting about their own world view in the classroom with “indoctrination.” In other words, they’re complaining about the omission of right-wing dogma in schools. And again, there may be anecdotes here and there of outliers or nutty teachers who have, but in general, teachers are following a state-approved curriculum with accountability in the form of things like SOLs — there’s no time for “indoctrination.” The kids are learning reading, writing, arithmetic. They are also learning how to be citizens and basic society skills like empathy, equity, tolerance, etc. This is important because they might not be learning these concepts at home and society needs for them to know them in order to function. This is essential to that basic “civics” you mention.

We need *More* emphasis on global citizens, not less. We live in a globalized economy. The more holistically we can help our children think and disabuse them of the notion of things like American exceptionalism (teach the concept, but don’t indoctrinate them to the jingoism), the better.

DP here. I'm on your side, PP; however, the empathy, equity, and tolerance you refer to is exactly what these people consider to be indoctrination.
Also, even if teachers aren't formally teaching a specific politically-biased curriculum or "dogma," the liberal bias in this area permeates the school environment and - not infrequently - classroom discussion, to include teachers being very clear about their personal beliefs and positions on social and political issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I appreciate more focus on this. I was mad that they got rid of the SOL tests. It showed in what my children learned each year from the first to the last student who went through.

SOLs have not been eliminated. Fewer are required, but they still must pass certain #s of SOLs in the core subjects to graduate from high school. (IMO, not enough in social studies; but that's another matter).
Schools spend so much time assessing and re-assessing at the early grades, you can still see your student's progress from year to year. Eliminating some standardized testing frees up some time to actually teach - and not just teach to the test.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Achieve pushes “competency-based pathways.”

I say we need more critical thinking in schools, more holistic approaches.

Conservatives hate that idea because they won’t win future elections if voters think critically. So they push things like “competency based pathways.”

What you characterize as "critical thinking" is understood by many to mean the indoctrination of younger students with a particular set of political views by teachers who do not seek to explore multiple perspectives. "Comptency-based pathways" at least connotes learning things that will help graduates earn a living wage.

People like Youngkin and FL governor DeSantis seem to have done well enough with their indoctrinating educations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Achieve pushes “competency-based pathways.”

I say we need more critical thinking in schools, more holistic approaches.

Conservatives hate that idea because they won’t win future elections if voters think critically. So they push things like “competency based pathways.”

What you characterize as "critical thinking" is understood by many to mean the indoctrination of younger students with a particular set of political views by teachers who do not seek to explore multiple perspectives. "Comptency-based pathways" at least connotes learning things that will help graduates earn a living wage.

Yes, I am aware of the twisted narrative.

The difference is like the difference between teaching liberal arts in college or attending trade school. The most successful people in society today have a liberal arts/critical thinking background. It’s actually the opposite of indoctrination because it teaches students to challenge authority, which includes what is being taught.

The “just learn skills” crowd only wants students to know how to change a light fixture or repair a car or program a computer. It doesn’t want anyone seeing the forest for the trees. Because then people might second-guess voting for conservative politicians who promote policies that are bad for them. It makes them more prone to acquiescence.

This has been in the works for 30+ years in public education. What we’re seeing now is next level, however.

That's a lot to unpack.

It's not like students who just have liberal arts degrees graduate and set the world on fire. Many can barely find decent employment, and the higher-paid liberal arts graduates often are those who've gone on to attend graduate or professional schools, which may not be a financial option for many students.

As for whether "critical thinking" is being encouraged, it's notable that the School Board has been exploring, if it has not already adopted, revisions to an existing "controversial issues" policy that required teachers to consider presenting competing perspectives, which would be consistent with encouraging students to develop their own views, to instead allow teachers to advocate in classrooms for a particular point of view. That would be fine if students already had the so-called "critical thinking" skills to challenge their teachers, but in practice it may lead to race and class-centered indoctrination.

Finally, as for the suggestion that "competency-based pathways" boil down to "just learn skills," that would be unfortunate if it were all that it entailed. At least some conservatives want to ensure all students are receiving an education in what used to be called "civics" that entails gaining an understanding of the basics about, for example, the three branches of the federal government (executive, legislative, and judicial) and a federal system (under which certain powers are exercised by the federal government, while others are reserved to the states). That type of education can make for an informed citizenry and electorate, not one that only learns vocational training.

Certainly it would be preferable to some of what currently happens in FCPS, where multiple schools (including some where students might benefit the most from additional vocational pathways) instead have International Baccalaureate programs that purport to develop "global citizens," but are poorly subscribed, treat the United States as just one of many countries around the world, fail to cover basic "civics," and graduate few students on track to receive an IB diploma.

To “unpack” your response, one has to dispute the premises you lay out.

1) The notion that “it’s not like those who just have a liberal arts degree have set the world on fire” or cannot find decent employment is simply unsupported by the facts. In fact, it’s a lazy trope. Yes, many go on to get professional degrees or certifications but the liberal arts background equipped them to do so and succeed in those environments. Others become entrepreneurs or find gainful employment in major corporations, which value the ability to think and make connections. Continuous education is necessary for anyone who wishes to succeed and progress in a career — same for trades. But it’s not true that liberal arts graduates are barely employable. Are there some? Sure — there are always outliers. Just like there are crappy plumbers who can’t hold a job.

2) The notion that teachers “advocate” a point of view on controversial subjects is similarly unsupported. That’s some straight up bullshit you have lapped up from propaganda outlets like the Federalist or Washington Examiner or any number of right wing publications masquerading as news. I have known literally hundreds of teachers in my life and none of them do this. It’s a complete and bizarre fantasy of conservatives that this happens — my guess many are confusing the lack of parroting about their own world view in the classroom with “indoctrination.” In other words, they’re complaining about the omission of right-wing dogma in schools. And again, there may be anecdotes here and there of outliers or nutty teachers who have, but in general, teachers are following a state-approved curriculum with accountability in the form of things like SOLs — there’s no time for “indoctrination.” The kids are learning reading, writing, arithmetic. They are also learning how to be citizens and basic society skills like empathy, equity, tolerance, etc. This is important because they might not be learning these concepts at home and society needs for them to know them in order to function. This is essential to that basic “civics” you mention.

We need *More* emphasis on global citizens, not less. We live in a globalized economy. The more holistically we can help our children think and disabuse them of the notion of things like American exceptionalism (teach the concept, but don’t indoctrinate them to the jingoism), the better.

New poster here.

Can anyone explain what exactly "critical thinking" is? How do the schools teach it? How do you transfer the critical thinking skills taught in a controlled environment (classroom) to use it in other subjects and in the world?

Critical thinking & problem solving are thrown around a lot nowadays, but many schools don't even know what critical thinking is, left along teaching it. My kid's principal avoided telling me what he thinks critical/logical/analytical thinking is, or giving me an example of a problem to problem solve or to think critically of.

Regarding teachers discussing/debating controversial topics in classes, it is simply impossible as human beings to be completely neutral on topics they are biased or passionate about. Can anybody guarantee to provide a list of equal good & bad things done for this country by Obama (if you are the extreme right,) or by Trump (if you are the extreme left)? When you are biased on either sides, it becomes what other people called 'indoctrination'.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Achieve pushes “competency-based pathways.”

I say we need more critical thinking in schools, more holistic approaches.

Conservatives hate that idea because they won’t win future elections if voters think critically. So they push things like “competency based pathways.”

What you characterize as "critical thinking" is understood by many to mean the indoctrination of younger students with a particular set of political views by teachers who do not seek to explore multiple perspectives. "Comptency-based pathways" at least connotes learning things that will help graduates earn a living wage.

People like Youngkin and FL governor DeSantis seem to have done well enough with their indoctrinating educations.

Yeah but they did it while being white/rich. Now try that being a person of color and poor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Achieve pushes “competency-based pathways.”

I say we need more critical thinking in schools, more holistic approaches.

Conservatives hate that idea because they won’t win future elections if voters think critically. So they push things like “competency based pathways.”

What you characterize as "critical thinking" is understood by many to mean the indoctrination of younger students with a particular set of political views by teachers who do not seek to explore multiple perspectives. "Comptency-based pathways" at least connotes learning things that will help graduates earn a living wage.

Yes, I am aware of the twisted narrative.

The difference is like the difference between teaching liberal arts in college or attending trade school. The most successful people in society today have a liberal arts/critical thinking background. It’s actually the opposite of indoctrination because it teaches students to challenge authority, which includes what is being taught.

The “just learn skills” crowd only wants students to know how to change a light fixture or repair a car or program a computer. It doesn’t want anyone seeing the forest for the trees. Because then people might second-guess voting for conservative politicians who promote policies that are bad for them. It makes them more prone to acquiescence.

This has been in the works for 30+ years in public education. What we’re seeing now is next level, however.

That's a lot to unpack.

It's not like students who just have liberal arts degrees graduate and set the world on fire. Many can barely find decent employment, and the higher-paid liberal arts graduates often are those who've gone on to attend graduate or professional schools, which may not be a financial option for many students.

As for whether "critical thinking" is being encouraged, it's notable that the School Board has been exploring, if it has not already adopted, revisions to an existing "controversial issues" policy that required teachers to consider presenting competing perspectives, which would be consistent with encouraging students to develop their own views, to instead allow teachers to advocate in classrooms for a particular point of view. That would be fine if students already had the so-called "critical thinking" skills to challenge their teachers, but in practice it may lead to race and class-centered indoctrination.

Finally, as for the suggestion that "competency-based pathways" boil down to "just learn skills," that would be unfortunate if it were all that it entailed. At least some conservatives want to ensure all students are receiving an education in what used to be called "civics" that entails gaining an understanding of the basics about, for example, the three branches of the federal government (executive, legislative, and judicial) and a federal system (under which certain powers are exercised by the federal government, while others are reserved to the states). That type of education can make for an informed citizenry and electorate, not one that only learns vocational training.

Certainly it would be preferable to some of what currently happens in FCPS, where multiple schools (including some where students might benefit the most from additional vocational pathways) instead have International Baccalaureate programs that purport to develop "global citizens," but are poorly subscribed, treat the United States as just one of many countries around the world, fail to cover basic "civics," and graduate few students on track to receive an IB diploma.

To “unpack” your response, one has to dispute the premises you lay out.

1) The notion that “it’s not like those who just have a liberal arts degree have set the world on fire” or cannot find decent employment is simply unsupported by the facts. In fact, it’s a lazy trope. Yes, many go on to get professional degrees or certifications but the liberal arts background equipped them to do so and succeed in those environments. Others become entrepreneurs or find gainful employment in major corporations, which value the ability to think and make connections. Continuous education is necessary for anyone who wishes to succeed and progress in a career — same for trades. But it’s not true that liberal arts graduates are barely employable. Are there some? Sure — there are always outliers. Just like there are crappy plumbers who can’t hold a job.

2) The notion that teachers “advocate” a point of view on controversial subjects is similarly unsupported. That’s some straight up bullshit you have lapped up from propaganda outlets like the Federalist or Washington Examiner or any number of right wing publications masquerading as news. I have known literally hundreds of teachers in my life and none of them do this. It’s a complete and bizarre fantasy of conservatives that this happens — my guess many are confusing the lack of parroting about their own world view in the classroom with “indoctrination.” In other words, they’re complaining about the omission of right-wing dogma in schools. And again, there may be anecdotes here and there of outliers or nutty teachers who have, but in general, teachers are following a state-approved curriculum with accountability in the form of things like SOLs — there’s no time for “indoctrination.” The kids are learning reading, writing, arithmetic. They are also learning how to be citizens and basic society skills like empathy, equity, tolerance, etc. This is important because they might not be learning these concepts at home and society needs for them to know them in order to function. This is essential to that basic “civics” you mention.

We need *More* emphasis on global citizens, not less. We live in a globalized economy. The more holistically we can help our children think and disabuse them of the notion of things like American exceptionalism (teach the concept, but don’t indoctrinate them to the jingoism), the better.

New poster here.

Can anyone explain what exactly "critical thinking" is? How do the schools teach it? How do you transfer the critical thinking skills taught in a controlled environment (classroom) to use it in other subjects and in the world?

Critical thinking & problem solving are thrown around a lot nowadays, but many schools don't even know what critical thinking is, left along teaching it. My kid's principal avoided telling me what he thinks critical/logical/analytical thinking is, or giving me an example of a problem to problem solve or to think critically of.

Regarding teachers discussing/debating controversial topics in classes, it is simply impossible as human beings to be completely neutral on topics they are biased or passionate about. Can anybody guarantee to provide a list of equal good & bad things done for this country by Obama (if you are the extreme right,) or by Trump (if you are the extreme left)? When you are biased on either sides, it becomes what other people called 'indoctrination'.

I’ll bite.

Statement: The sky is blue.

Critical thinking: Where is/which part of the sky blue? Is it always blue? What makes the sky blue? can anything make it bluer? Do contrails from airplanes take away the color? Is the sky bluer at different elevations?

Basically- Don’t take anything for granted, ask questions about why something is. Take a new perspective and ask questions from that point of view. Did anything change? Explain the factors that make you think something.

Conservatives who want their kids to take the Bible at it’s word, don’t always take kindly to it because then their kids might question their faith.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Achieve pushes “competency-based pathways.”

I say we need more critical thinking in schools, more holistic approaches.

Conservatives hate that idea because they won’t win future elections if voters think critically. So they push things like “competency based pathways.”

What you characterize as "critical thinking" is understood by many to mean the indoctrination of younger students with a particular set of political views by teachers who do not seek to explore multiple perspectives. "Comptency-based pathways" at least connotes learning things that will help graduates earn a living wage.

Yes, I am aware of the twisted narrative.

The difference is like the difference between teaching liberal arts in college or attending trade school. The most successful people in society today have a liberal arts/critical thinking background. It’s actually the opposite of indoctrination because it teaches students to challenge authority, which includes what is being taught.

The “just learn skills” crowd only wants students to know how to change a light fixture or repair a car or program a computer. It doesn’t want anyone seeing the forest for the trees. Because then people might second-guess voting for conservative politicians who promote policies that are bad for them. It makes them more prone to acquiescence.

This has been in the works for 30+ years in public education. What we’re seeing now is next level, however.

That's a lot to unpack.

It's not like students who just have liberal arts degrees graduate and set the world on fire. Many can barely find decent employment, and the higher-paid liberal arts graduates often are those who've gone on to attend graduate or professional schools, which may not be a financial option for many students.

As for whether "critical thinking" is being encouraged, it's notable that the School Board has been exploring, if it has not already adopted, revisions to an existing "controversial issues" policy that required teachers to consider presenting competing perspectives, which would be consistent with encouraging students to develop their own views, to instead allow teachers to advocate in classrooms for a particular point of view. That would be fine if students already had the so-called "critical thinking" skills to challenge their teachers, but in practice it may lead to race and class-centered indoctrination.

Finally, as for the suggestion that "competency-based pathways" boil down to "just learn skills," that would be unfortunate if it were all that it entailed. At least some conservatives want to ensure all students are receiving an education in what used to be called "civics" that entails gaining an understanding of the basics about, for example, the three branches of the federal government (executive, legislative, and judicial) and a federal system (under which certain powers are exercised by the federal government, while others are reserved to the states). That type of education can make for an informed citizenry and electorate, not one that only learns vocational training.

Certainly it would be preferable to some of what currently happens in FCPS, where multiple schools (including some where students might benefit the most from additional vocational pathways) instead have International Baccalaureate programs that purport to develop "global citizens," but are poorly subscribed, treat the United States as just one of many countries around the world, fail to cover basic "civics," and graduate few students on track to receive an IB diploma.

To “unpack” your response, one has to dispute the premises you lay out.

1) The notion that “it’s not like those who just have a liberal arts degree have set the world on fire” or cannot find decent employment is simply unsupported by the facts. In fact, it’s a lazy trope. Yes, many go on to get professional degrees or certifications but the liberal arts background equipped them to do so and succeed in those environments. Others become entrepreneurs or find gainful employment in major corporations, which value the ability to think and make connections. Continuous education is necessary for anyone who wishes to succeed and progress in a career — same for trades. But it’s not true that liberal arts graduates are barely employable. Are there some? Sure — there are always outliers. Just like there are crappy plumbers who can’t hold a job.

2) The notion that teachers “advocate” a point of view on controversial subjects is similarly unsupported. That’s some straight up bullshit you have lapped up from propaganda outlets like the Federalist or Washington Examiner or any number of right wing publications masquerading as news. I have known literally hundreds of teachers in my life and none of them do this. It’s a complete and bizarre fantasy of conservatives that this happens — my guess many are confusing the lack of parroting about their own world view in the classroom with “indoctrination.” In other words, they’re complaining about the omission of right-wing dogma in schools. And again, there may be anecdotes here and there of outliers or nutty teachers who have, but in general, teachers are following a state-approved curriculum with accountability in the form of things like SOLs — there’s no time for “indoctrination.” The kids are learning reading, writing, arithmetic. They are also learning how to be citizens and basic society skills like empathy, equity, tolerance, etc. This is important because they might not be learning these concepts at home and society needs for them to know them in order to function. This is essential to that basic “civics” you mention.

We need *More* emphasis on global citizens, not less. We live in a globalized economy. The more holistically we can help our children think and disabuse them of the notion of things like American exceptionalism (teach the concept, but don’t indoctrinate them to the jingoism), the better.

New poster here.

Can anyone explain what exactly "critical thinking" is? How do the schools teach it? How do you transfer the critical thinking skills taught in a controlled environment (classroom) to use it in other subjects and in the world?

Critical thinking & problem solving are thrown around a lot nowadays, but many schools don't even know what critical thinking is, left along teaching it. My kid's principal avoided telling me what he thinks critical/logical/analytical thinking is, or giving me an example of a problem to problem solve or to think critically of.

Regarding teachers discussing/debating controversial topics in classes, it is simply impossible as human beings to be completely neutral on topics they are biased or passionate about. Can anybody guarantee to provide a list of equal good & bad things done for this country by Obama (if you are the extreme right,) or by Trump (if you are the extreme left)? When you are biased on either sides, it becomes what other people called 'indoctrination'.

I think you hit the nail on the head. The extreme left and extreme right basically lack critical thinking skills. They are only able to understand and regurgitate what they hear, with extreme bias. Critical thinking cannot really be taught, but is an intellectual skill that one is born with at a given level. It means you have the ability to ingest information and facts, then analyze that for yourself. I think the extreme left is made up of book smart people, who are able to understand issues and repeat them, but lack the true skill of high level critical thinking. But like I said, it is not something that is taught or obtained. You either have it or you don't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Achieve pushes “competency-based pathways.”

I say we need more critical thinking in schools, more holistic approaches.

Conservatives hate that idea because they won’t win future elections if voters think critically. So they push things like “competency based pathways.”

What you characterize as "critical thinking" is understood by many to mean the indoctrination of younger students with a particular set of political views by teachers who do not seek to explore multiple perspectives. "Comptency-based pathways" at least connotes learning things that will help graduates earn a living wage.

Yes, I am aware of the twisted narrative.

The difference is like the difference between teaching liberal arts in college or attending trade school. The most successful people in society today have a liberal arts/critical thinking background. It’s actually the opposite of indoctrination because it teaches students to challenge authority, which includes what is being taught.

The “just learn skills” crowd only wants students to know how to change a light fixture or repair a car or program a computer. It doesn’t want anyone seeing the forest for the trees. Because then people might second-guess voting for conservative politicians who promote policies that are bad for them. It makes them more prone to acquiescence.

This has been in the works for 30+ years in public education. What we’re seeing now is next level, however.

That's a lot to unpack.

It's not like students who just have liberal arts degrees graduate and set the world on fire. Many can barely find decent employment, and the higher-paid liberal arts graduates often are those who've gone on to attend graduate or professional schools, which may not be a financial option for many students.

As for whether "critical thinking" is being encouraged, it's notable that the School Board has been exploring, if it has not already adopted, revisions to an existing "controversial issues" policy that required teachers to consider presenting competing perspectives, which would be consistent with encouraging students to develop their own views, to instead allow teachers to advocate in classrooms for a particular point of view. That would be fine if students already had the so-called "critical thinking" skills to challenge their teachers, but in practice it may lead to race and class-centered indoctrination.

Finally, as for the suggestion that "competency-based pathways" boil down to "just learn skills," that would be unfortunate if it were all that it entailed. At least some conservatives want to ensure all students are receiving an education in what used to be called "civics" that entails gaining an understanding of the basics about, for example, the three branches of the federal government (executive, legislative, and judicial) and a federal system (under which certain powers are exercised by the federal government, while others are reserved to the states). That type of education can make for an informed citizenry and electorate, not one that only learns vocational training.

Certainly it would be preferable to some of what currently happens in FCPS, where multiple schools (including some where students might benefit the most from additional vocational pathways) instead have International Baccalaureate programs that purport to develop "global citizens," but are poorly subscribed, treat the United States as just one of many countries around the world, fail to cover basic "civics," and graduate few students on track to receive an IB diploma.

To “unpack” your response, one has to dispute the premises you lay out.

1) The notion that “it’s not like those who just have a liberal arts degree have set the world on fire” or cannot find decent employment is simply unsupported by the facts. In fact, it’s a lazy trope. Yes, many go on to get professional degrees or certifications but the liberal arts background equipped them to do so and succeed in those environments. Others become entrepreneurs or find gainful employment in major corporations, which value the ability to think and make connections. Continuous education is necessary for anyone who wishes to succeed and progress in a career — same for trades. But it’s not true that liberal arts graduates are barely employable. Are there some? Sure — there are always outliers. Just like there are crappy plumbers who can’t hold a job.

2) The notion that teachers “advocate” a point of view on controversial subjects is similarly unsupported. That’s some straight up bullshit you have lapped up from propaganda outlets like the Federalist or Washington Examiner or any number of right wing publications masquerading as news. I have known literally hundreds of teachers in my life and none of them do this. It’s a complete and bizarre fantasy of conservatives that this happens — my guess many are confusing the lack of parroting about their own world view in the classroom with “indoctrination.” In other words, they’re complaining about the omission of right-wing dogma in schools. And again, there may be anecdotes here and there of outliers or nutty teachers who have, but in general, teachers are following a state-approved curriculum with accountability in the form of things like SOLs — there’s no time for “indoctrination.” The kids are learning reading, writing, arithmetic. They are also learning how to be citizens and basic society skills like empathy, equity, tolerance, etc. This is important because they might not be learning these concepts at home and society needs for them to know them in order to function. This is essential to that basic “civics” you mention.

We need *More* emphasis on global citizens, not less. We live in a globalized economy. The more holistically we can help our children think and disabuse them of the notion of things like American exceptionalism (teach the concept, but don’t indoctrinate them to the jingoism), the better.

DP here. I'm on your side, PP; however, the empathy, equity, and tolerance you refer to is exactly what these people consider to be indoctrination.
Also, even if teachers aren't formally teaching a specific politically-biased curriculum or "dogma," the liberal bias in this area permeates the school environment and - not infrequently - classroom discussion, to include teachers being very clear about their personal beliefs and positions on social and political issues.

+1. PP, do you have kids in MS or HS in northern VA?