Loudoun School Board meeting

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Go ask your kids what the five tenets of CRT are. Ask them to put Kimberle Crenshaw’s definition of intersectionality into their own words and then define how it affects legal proceedings. Oh they can’t do that? They didn’t learn CRT.

Have they learned CRT if they say that only dominant racial groups are capable of racism?

[Anonymous]

The meeting is shown here. The mom who spoke about her daughter with special needs speaks at about the 1:05:32 mark. She's wearing red.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnU1xzqjZPw

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Go ask your kids what the five tenets of CRT are. Ask them to put Kimberle Crenshaw’s definition of intersectionality into their own words and then define how it affects legal proceedings. Oh they can’t do that? They didn’t learn CRT.

Have they learned CRT if they say that only dominant racial groups are capable of racism?

Your kids did not come home and tell you they learned that at school. Stop using your kids as pawns.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not just the school board. Principals are getting phone calls from people who don't even live in the state, over critical race theory. Which they don't teach. Because a bunch of crazies have watched Faux News and think that CRT is a thing in Loudoun. (spoiler: it isn't.)

Then if it's not CRT, why are both sides so upset? I think you're wrong.

The DJ on 99.5 was going out there for a show and some lady called in and made some vague unsettling remarks that he’d better not show up or something to that effect ... made me realize how LoCo LOCo has gotten since my relatives lived there. Crazy town.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People may be confusing it with Culturally Responsive Teaching, which Loudoun DOES use, and which is NOT the same as Critical Race Theory, which unfortunately has the same initials.

The Fox news side is upset because they don't like being told that racism has shaped our institutions and that we should figure out how to remove that influence.

The other side is upset because when we try to remove racism, bullying, anti-trans sentiment etc. from schools in order to make kids comfortable, racists and homophobes and transphobes WHO DON'T HAVE KIDS IN THE SYSTEM start riots at school board meetings.

Please enlighten us on the difference in the two teaching methods.

As long as these people live in Loudon County, and pay their exorbitant property taxes to fund the schools, they have every right to speak out at school board meetings, whether or not they have kids in the public school system at the present time.

Critical Race Theory is a theoretical perspective used in graduate school to analyze how power structures shape institutions and result in unfair practices for a particular race. It shapes legal scholarship, research in other graduate level courses. It is NOT a teaching method. Culturally Responsive Teaching is a practice where you ensure your pedagogy works for all your students who are coming from different cultural backgrounds--it really is often what people just consider good pedagogy--that is, you don't presume that students have all the same experiences and instead treat them as individuals. You encourage students to activate their own prior knowledge (e.g., if you're teaching about traditions, you would ask "think about a holiday that is important to your family" rather than "think about what you do on Christmas"). You try to make sure you use examples that reflect the histories of the people you teach. You build relationships with students so you know them more. Look it up yourself--it's hard to picture getting outraged about it as a reasonable person regardless of whether you are more liberal or conservative.

There are a lot of misconceptions/deceptions in the current outrage.

Any idea, does the idea that focusing on the correct answer in math classes and showing one's work represents "white supremacist culture" have its roots in Culturally Responsive Teaching? (I've seen this as part of an Oregon school system teaching module, not Loudoun).

citation please?

[Anonymous]

The last gasp of privileged mostly white parents, apparently, as they feel their grip on power and privilege eroding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The last gasp of privileged mostly white parents, apparently, as they feel their grip on power and privilege eroding.

Just stop. Those speaking out are from all races..... not "privileged mostly white."
It has nothing to do with their "grip on power."
It has everything to do with the crap their children are being taught.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People may be confusing it with Culturally Responsive Teaching, which Loudoun DOES use, and which is NOT the same as Critical Race Theory, which unfortunately has the same initials.

The Fox news side is upset because they don't like being told that racism has shaped our institutions and that we should figure out how to remove that influence.

The other side is upset because when we try to remove racism, bullying, anti-trans sentiment etc. from schools in order to make kids comfortable, racists and homophobes and transphobes WHO DON'T HAVE KIDS IN THE SYSTEM start riots at school board meetings.

Please enlighten us on the difference in the two teaching methods.

As long as these people live in Loudon County, and pay their exorbitant property taxes to fund the schools, they have every right to speak out at school board meetings, whether or not they have kids in the public school system at the present time.

Critical Race Theory is a theoretical perspective used in graduate school to analyze how power structures shape institutions and result in unfair practices for a particular race. It shapes legal scholarship, research in other graduate level courses. It is NOT a teaching method. Culturally Responsive Teaching is a practice where you ensure your pedagogy works for all your students who are coming from different cultural backgrounds--it really is often what people just consider good pedagogy--that is, you don't presume that students have all the same experiences and instead treat them as individuals. You encourage students to activate their own prior knowledge (e.g., if you're teaching about traditions, you would ask "think about a holiday that is important to your family" rather than "think about what you do on Christmas"). You try to make sure you use examples that reflect the histories of the people you teach. You build relationships with students so you know them more. Look it up yourself--it's hard to picture getting outraged about it as a reasonable person regardless of whether you are more liberal or conservative.

There are a lot of misconceptions/deceptions in the current outrage.

Uhhhh, it’s not just used in “graduate school.” It, uhhhh, could, uhhhhh, also be used in “undergraduate school.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People may be confusing it with Culturally Responsive Teaching, which Loudoun DOES use, and which is NOT the same as Critical Race Theory, which unfortunately has the same initials.

The Fox news side is upset because they don't like being told that racism has shaped our institutions and that we should figure out how to remove that influence.

The other side is upset because when we try to remove racism, bullying, anti-trans sentiment etc. from schools in order to make kids comfortable, racists and homophobes and transphobes WHO DON'T HAVE KIDS IN THE SYSTEM start riots at school board meetings.

Please enlighten us on the difference in the two teaching methods.

As long as these people live in Loudon County, and pay their exorbitant property taxes to fund the schools, they have every right to speak out at school board meetings, whether or not they have kids in the public school system at the present time.

Critical Race Theory is a theoretical perspective used in graduate school to analyze how power structures shape institutions and result in unfair practices for a particular race. It shapes legal scholarship, research in other graduate level courses. It is NOT a teaching method. Culturally Responsive Teaching is a practice where you ensure your pedagogy works for all your students who are coming from different cultural backgrounds--it really is often what people just consider good pedagogy--that is, you don't presume that students have all the same experiences and instead treat them as individuals. You encourage students to activate their own prior knowledge (e.g., if you're teaching about traditions, you would ask "think about a holiday that is important to your family" rather than "think about what you do on Christmas"). You try to make sure you use examples that reflect the histories of the people you teach. You build relationships with students so you know them more. Look it up yourself--it's hard to picture getting outraged about it as a reasonable person regardless of whether you are more liberal or conservative.

There are a lot of misconceptions/deceptions in the current outrage.

Uhhhh, it’s not just used in “graduate school.” It, uhhhh, could, uhhhhh, also be used in “undergraduate school.”

It’s a law school elective. But sure, ok, lets say occasionally a random undergrad professor teaches it. That STILL isn’t k-12.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The last gasp of privileged mostly white parents, apparently, as they feel their grip on power and privilege eroding.

Just stop. Those speaking out are from all races..... not "privileged mostly white."
It has nothing to do with their "grip on power."
It has everything to do with the crap their children are being taught.

which part of crt is "crap"? What exactly about crt is so off putting?

-DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People may be confusing it with Culturally Responsive Teaching, which Loudoun DOES use, and which is NOT the same as Critical Race Theory, which unfortunately has the same initials.

The Fox news side is upset because they don't like being told that racism has shaped our institutions and that we should figure out how to remove that influence.

The other side is upset because when we try to remove racism, bullying, anti-trans sentiment etc. from schools in order to make kids comfortable, racists and homophobes and transphobes WHO DON'T HAVE KIDS IN THE SYSTEM start riots at school board meetings.

Please enlighten us on the difference in the two teaching methods.

As long as these people live in Loudon County, and pay their exorbitant property taxes to fund the schools, they have every right to speak out at school board meetings, whether or not they have kids in the public school system at the present time.

Critical Race Theory is a theoretical perspective used in graduate school to analyze how power structures shape institutions and result in unfair practices for a particular race. It shapes legal scholarship, research in other graduate level courses. It is NOT a teaching method. Culturally Responsive Teaching is a practice where you ensure your pedagogy works for all your students who are coming from different cultural backgrounds--it really is often what people just consider good pedagogy--that is, you don't presume that students have all the same experiences and instead treat them as individuals. You encourage students to activate their own prior knowledge (e.g., if you're teaching about traditions, you would ask "think about a holiday that is important to your family" rather than "think about what you do on Christmas"). You try to make sure you use examples that reflect the histories of the people you teach. You build relationships with students so you know them more. Look it up yourself--it's hard to picture getting outraged about it as a reasonable person regardless of whether you are more liberal or conservative.

There are a lot of misconceptions/deceptions in the current outrage.

Any idea, does the idea that focusing on the correct answer in math classes and showing one's work represents "white supremacist culture" have its roots in Culturally Responsive Teaching? (I've seen this as part of an Oregon school system teaching module, not Loudoun).

citation please?

The teaching module is here:
https://equitablemath.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/11/1_STRIDE1.pdf

Page 56 for February lessons says "White supremacy culture shows up in the classroom when students are required to show their work." For April, it says that, "Upholding the idea that there are always right and wrong answers perpetuate objectivity as well as fear of open conflict." Teachers are encouraged to "center ethnomathematics" to " identify and challenge the ways that math is used to uphold capitalist, imperialist, and racist views." (p. 10).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People may be confusing it with Culturally Responsive Teaching, which Loudoun DOES use, and which is NOT the same as Critical Race Theory, which unfortunately has the same initials.

The Fox news side is upset because they don't like being told that racism has shaped our institutions and that we should figure out how to remove that influence.

The other side is upset because when we try to remove racism, bullying, anti-trans sentiment etc. from schools in order to make kids comfortable, racists and homophobes and transphobes WHO DON'T HAVE KIDS IN THE SYSTEM start riots at school board meetings.

Please enlighten us on the difference in the two teaching methods.

As long as these people live in Loudon County, and pay their exorbitant property taxes to fund the schools, they have every right to speak out at school board meetings, whether or not they have kids in the public school system at the present time.

Critical Race Theory is a theoretical perspective used in graduate school to analyze how power structures shape institutions and result in unfair practices for a particular race. It shapes legal scholarship, research in other graduate level courses. It is NOT a teaching method. Culturally Responsive Teaching is a practice where you ensure your pedagogy works for all your students who are coming from different cultural backgrounds--it really is often what people just consider good pedagogy--that is, you don't presume that students have all the same experiences and instead treat them as individuals. You encourage students to activate their own prior knowledge (e.g., if you're teaching about traditions, you would ask "think about a holiday that is important to your family" rather than "think about what you do on Christmas"). You try to make sure you use examples that reflect the histories of the people you teach. You build relationships with students so you know them more. Look it up yourself--it's hard to picture getting outraged about it as a reasonable person regardless of whether you are more liberal or conservative.

There are a lot of misconceptions/deceptions in the current outrage.

Uhhhh, it’s not just used in “graduate school.” It, uhhhh, could, uhhhhh, also be used in “undergraduate school.”

.

Sure, some undergrads learn a bit of theory--but typically a primary difference between grad school and undergrad is the degree to which you learn to think with an explicit theoretical lens. Undergrads often take 1-2 "theory" courses where they learn a variety of theoretical perspectives in their field at an introductory level. It's in graduate school where you learn to use a theoretical lens like CRT more deeply to investigate a problem of interest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People may be confusing it with Culturally Responsive Teaching, which Loudoun DOES use, and which is NOT the same as Critical Race Theory, which unfortunately has the same initials.

The Fox news side is upset because they don't like being told that racism has shaped our institutions and that we should figure out how to remove that influence.

The other side is upset because when we try to remove racism, bullying, anti-trans sentiment etc. from schools in order to make kids comfortable, racists and homophobes and transphobes WHO DON'T HAVE KIDS IN THE SYSTEM start riots at school board meetings.

Please enlighten us on the difference in the two teaching methods.

As long as these people live in Loudon County, and pay their exorbitant property taxes to fund the schools, they have every right to speak out at school board meetings, whether or not they have kids in the public school system at the present time.

Critical Race Theory is a theoretical perspective used in graduate school to analyze how power structures shape institutions and result in unfair practices for a particular race. It shapes legal scholarship, research in other graduate level courses. It is NOT a teaching method. Culturally Responsive Teaching is a practice where you ensure your pedagogy works for all your students who are coming from different cultural backgrounds--it really is often what people just consider good pedagogy--that is, you don't presume that students have all the same experiences and instead treat them as individuals. You encourage students to activate their own prior knowledge (e.g., if you're teaching about traditions, you would ask "think about a holiday that is important to your family" rather than "think about what you do on Christmas"). You try to make sure you use examples that reflect the histories of the people you teach. You build relationships with students so you know them more. Look it up yourself--it's hard to picture getting outraged about it as a reasonable person regardless of whether you are more liberal or conservative.

There are a lot of misconceptions/deceptions in the current outrage.

Any idea, does the idea that focusing on the correct answer in math classes and showing one's work represents "white supremacist culture" have its roots in Culturally Responsive Teaching? (I've seen this as part of an Oregon school system teaching module, not Loudoun).

citation please?

The teaching module is here:
https://equitablemath.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/11/1_STRIDE1.pdf

Page 56 for February lessons says "White supremacy culture shows up in the classroom when students are required to show their work." For April, it says that, "Upholding the idea that there are always right and wrong answers perpetuate objectivity as well as fear of open conflict." Teachers are encouraged to "center ethnomathematics" to " identify and challenge the ways that math is used to uphold capitalist, imperialist, and racist views." (p. 10).

No, a quick review of what you just sent says the teacher should reflect on why they are asking to show their work in "standardized prescribed ways" not that students shouldn't show their work. It is well-documented that there are multiple correct ways to solve math problem and different cultural traditions emphasize different approaches. A lot of Culturally Responsive Teaching asks teachers to reflect on whether the way they were taught to solve a math problem represents the "correct" way or just "one" way--and if the latter, to allow students to show different ways of approaching the problem. My MS is in applied math and I wholeheartedly support this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The teaching module is here:
https://equitablemath.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/11/1_STRIDE1.pdf

Page 56 for February lessons says "White supremacy culture shows up in the classroom when students are required to show their work." For April, it says that, "Upholding the idea that there are always right and wrong answers perpetuate objectivity as well as fear of open conflict." Teachers are encouraged to "center ethnomathematics" to " identify and challenge the ways that math is used to uphold capitalist, imperialist, and racist views." (p. 10).

No, a quick review of what you just sent says the teacher should reflect on why they are asking to show their work in "standardized prescribed ways" not that students shouldn't show their work. It is well-documented that there are multiple correct ways to solve math problem and different cultural traditions emphasize different approaches. A lot of Culturally Responsive Teaching asks teachers to reflect on whether the way they were taught to solve a math problem represents the "correct" way or just "one" way--and if the latter, to allow students to show different ways of approaching the problem. My MS is in applied math and I wholeheartedly support this.

How is this white supremacy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The teaching module is here:
https://equitablemath.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/11/1_STRIDE1.pdf

Page 56 for February lessons says "White supremacy culture shows up in the classroom when students are required to show their work." For April, it says that, "Upholding the idea that there are always right and wrong answers perpetuate objectivity as well as fear of open conflict." Teachers are encouraged to "center ethnomathematics" to " identify and challenge the ways that math is used to uphold capitalist, imperialist, and racist views." (p. 10).

No, a quick review of what you just sent says the teacher should reflect on why they are asking to show their work in "standardized prescribed ways" not that students shouldn't show their work. It is well-documented that there are multiple correct ways to solve math problem and different cultural traditions emphasize different approaches. A lot of Culturally Responsive Teaching asks teachers to reflect on whether the way they were taught to solve a math problem represents the "correct" way or just "one" way--and if the latter, to allow students to show different ways of approaching the problem. My MS is in applied math and I wholeheartedly support this.

How is this white supremacy?

The actual quote is "White supremacy culture shows up in the classroom when students are required to show their work in standard prescribed ways." I would guess the basis behind it is that insisting on one standard, prescribed way to get to an answer is rooted in the dominant culture's tradition, which in the US has traditionally been white culture--openness to varied ways demonstrates that there are multiple appropriate ways to solve a problem--so not saying that the dominant culture's way is correct. I think the wording is a bit more heavy-handed than I would lean, but the sentiment is sensible to me.
(For me, this is especially so since dominant US traditional ways of teaching math are sub-par to many other countries' approaches--but that's another argument!)