Consolidated VA Elections Thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm a liberal Dem who hates Trump, knows that CRT is being taught in our schools and, can't wait to see how Youkin deals with it.

If you know CRT is being taught, it would be interesting if you could point to, you know, evidence that CRT is being taught.

Playing linguistic gotcha games around the precise definition of CRT to gaslight parents is a losing strategy. Find a new one.

Lying about what is actually happening in classrooms seems to work though.

“I saw Mary yesterday. She was wearing a red sweater.”
“No she was not! Liar! It was MAROON.”

EXACTLY

Forget about labels.

What specifically do you think is being taught in schools that should stop?

I voted D. BUT I know why others voted R this time. They don’t want CRT in schools whether it’s there now or not. And I can see why they thought it was a risk with Ds.

Thanks for putting it so clearly. I agree with you 100%.

It is astonishing how everyone else around here (NOVA) is in complete denial and how they cling to their ridiculously narrow definition of “CRT.”

We all know and can plainly see that CRT-ideas are, in fact, taught in VA public schools - especially here in NOVA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm a liberal Dem who hates Trump, knows that CRT is being taught in our schools and, can't wait to see how Youkin deals with it.

If you know CRT is being taught, it would be interesting if you could point to, you know, evidence that CRT is being taught.

Playing linguistic gotcha games around the precise definition of CRT to gaslight parents is a losing strategy. Find a new one.

Lying about what is actually happening in classrooms seems to work though.

“I saw Mary yesterday. She was wearing a red sweater.”
“No she was not! Liar! It was MAROON.”

EXACTLY

Forget about labels.

What specifically do you think is being taught in schools that should stop?

I voted D. BUT I know why others voted R this time. They don’t want CRT in schools whether it’s there now or not. And I can see why they thought it was a risk with Ds.

Thanks for putting it so clearly. I agree with you 100%.

It is astonishing how everyone else around here (NOVA) is in complete denial and how they cling to their ridiculously narrow definition of “CRT.”

We all know and can plainly see that CRT-ideas are, in fact, taught in VA public schools - especially here in NOVA.

Ok. So you are against “CRT ideas”. Got it.

So you don’t want schools to teach anything about racism or equity? At all or just ES? Hearing some different thoughts on these threads.

Or does “CRT ideas” mean something else to you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a D but one who doesn’t want to get rid of advanced but nevertheless voted for McA. I remember the VPMI fiasco and I’m too smart to be gaslighted. I know they were considering it and changed their mind with the backlash and that it was dumb to say this was a made up issue.

Headline of the online NYT this morning:

California Tries to Close the Gap in Math, but Sets Off a Backlash

Proposed guidelines in the state would de-emphasize calculus, reject the idea that some children are naturally gifted and build a connection to social justice. Critics say math shouldn’t be political.

The California guidelines, which are not binding, could overhaul the way many school districts approach math instruction. The draft rejected the idea of naturally gifted children, recommended against shifting certain students into accelerated courses in middle school and tried to promote high-level math courses that could serve as alternatives to calculus, like data science or statistics.

You people will never understand but that was why some people voted R. Because it is a risk with the Ds. Don’t deny that by saying it’s not happening and gaslighting. At least be genuine and say it was considered and discarded and the Ds are really really not considering it again and it’s not a risk with them.

Omfg. You can be precise and keep saying it's not CRT, but what many parents are reacting against is every single thing being focused on racism. Of course that's going to become more of a TP than what might be good ideas (data science, stats as options, etc)

So you don’t want “every single thing” being focused on racism.

What is an acceptable level for you? When & how should racism be covered?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a D but one who doesn’t want to get rid of advanced but nevertheless voted for McA. I remember the VPMI fiasco and I’m too smart to be gaslighted. I know they were considering it and changed their mind with the backlash and that it was dumb to say this was a made up issue.

Headline of the online NYT this morning:

California Tries to Close the Gap in Math, but Sets Off a Backlash

Proposed guidelines in the state would de-emphasize calculus, reject the idea that some children are naturally gifted and build a connection to social justice. Critics say math shouldn’t be political.

The California guidelines, which are not binding, could overhaul the way many school districts approach math instruction. The draft rejected the idea of naturally gifted children, recommended against shifting certain students into accelerated courses in middle school and tried to promote high-level math courses that could serve as alternatives to calculus, like data science or statistics.

You people will never understand but that was why some people voted R. Because it is a risk with the Ds. Don’t deny that by saying it’s not happening and gaslighting. At least be genuine and say it was considered and discarded and the Ds are really really not considering it again and it’s not a risk with them.

Who said they weren’t considering some amount of tracking? They were. It was definitely discussed. That doesn’t mean they were “banning advanced math / acceleration”. They always included AP/IB as options, which are advanced math options.

The whole point was that there wasn’t an actual plan at that point - they were just discussing a variety of topics related to updating the math curriculum. They also discussed adding other tracks, blending concepts, etc. Detracking wasn’t even the main topic - it didn’t even make the infographic. Wayback machine has screenshot if you want to verify.

And even long after it was squashed, people are still saying the VMPI is trying to take away advanced math. Like a conspiracy theory.

I think the people who voted R wanted to make sure if the Ds in power - they didn’t reconsider. And that was / is a realistic risk with Ds.

This. It is disingenuous to suggest that revisiting the issue was not a possibility had the Dems run the table. Just like “defund the police”, the Dems keep floating ideas that the majority of people find to be too far left, and then have to scramble claiming oh we didn’t mean THAT, when there is a backlash to it. Let’s be real, if there hadn’t been such backlash to these ideas, they would have pushed forward with them because there is a substantial flank of the Democratic Party that believes in them.

No one said that detracking was never discussed.

You can continue to play the semantics game with what is “happening” or discussed” but the point remains that it was “discussed” because Dems wanted it to “happen” and many parents wanted to ensure that it wouldn’t “happen” so they voted Republican.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm a liberal Dem who hates Trump, knows that CRT is being taught in our schools and, can't wait to see how Youkin deals with it.

If you know CRT is being taught, it would be interesting if you could point to, you know, evidence that CRT is being taught.

HERE YOU GO:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/03/opinion/virginia-democrats-republicans.html

Nope. This op-ed is crap.

It’s not the Ds fault that Rs are pushing lies about what is being taught in school.

That my 10 year old son who was taken out of a trash can in a Russian village and nearly died from malnutrition and still has health and emotional issues was tokd to stand up in class and labeled as a privileged white make whose ancestors were responsible for enslaving people. Thing is, his ancestors were actually slaves in Russia.
This attitude is why you can’t see the truth about what happened.

Forget about labels. Please articulate what specifically was being taught in classrooms that you think should stop.

WTF? You need to take a seat already. Doubtful that CRT (the theory) is taught to school children. Whether CRT is used as the framework for constructing curricular activities, making choices about what materials are available to students, or selecting guests to speak to students or teachers though is moot as far as this thread goes. TMac lost.

FWIW i recall being taught about gender stereotyping without anyone ever using that term or anything like it in the 70s/80s via filmstrips, books and records. The most popular one that I recall was Free to Be You and Me. I think Marlo Thomas was heavily involved in the project. I loved everything in the book and on the record which taught things like that it was OK for a boy to have doll or that women (or anyone) didnt necessarily like housecleaning despite all the happy looking women doing so on TV commercials (and it was always women seen cleaning on those commercials!).

Right - so you can't even articulate what it is that you want to stop.

Don't get mad for Ds because you don't like a phantom.

I am the most recent poster you are responding too, and I never said who I voted for (Blanding). Keep up your schtick though if you want to see another R win. Your association with the Ds has more to do with people walking away from TMac this election than “CRT”. Or maybe you’re a Trump operative trying to incentivize the R base?

NP. From The Atlantic article; this says it all (ignore it at your own political peril):

But the one option that is both intellectually dishonest and electorally disastrous is to insist on a verbal trick unworthy of a middle-school debate team: to keep claiming that widespread concern over these ideas is misguided because the term by which they have publicly come to be known technically applies to an academic research program rather than the lessons that real children are being taught in real schools. And yet, this is precisely what McAuliffe and so many others attempted to do—with disastrous results—over the closing months of his campaign.

It’s gaslighting.

So what are the issues? What types of diversity / inclusion / equity programs are acceptable? Any?

How can schools talk about racism?

Cultural inclusions. Celebrate Diwali etc. Too bad FCPS messed that up. Make sure all education programs are open to everyone. Focus money on programs to help disadvantaged children. Have programs where people can go to talk about any racial problem they are having. Teach the importance of a culturally diverse country. Teach the laws of the US. Teach history as history not present from all angles and cultures. You know the way we did before CRT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a D but one who doesn’t want to get rid of advanced but nevertheless voted for McA. I remember the VPMI fiasco and I’m too smart to be gaslighted. I know they were considering it and changed their mind with the backlash and that it was dumb to say this was a made up issue.

Headline of the online NYT this morning:

California Tries to Close the Gap in Math, but Sets Off a Backlash

Proposed guidelines in the state would de-emphasize calculus, reject the idea that some children are naturally gifted and build a connection to social justice. Critics say math shouldn’t be political.

The California guidelines, which are not binding, could overhaul the way many school districts approach math instruction. The draft rejected the idea of naturally gifted children, recommended against shifting certain students into accelerated courses in middle school and tried to promote high-level math courses that could serve as alternatives to calculus, like data science or statistics.

You people will never understand but that was why some people voted R. Because it is a risk with the Ds. Don’t deny that by saying it’s not happening and gaslighting. At least be genuine and say it was considered and discarded and the Ds are really really not considering it again and it’s not a risk with them.

Who said they weren’t considering some amount of tracking? They were. It was definitely discussed. That doesn’t mean they were “banning advanced math / acceleration”. They always included AP/IB as options, which are advanced math options.

The whole point was that there wasn’t an actual plan at that point - they were just discussing a variety of topics related to updating the math curriculum. They also discussed adding other tracks, blending concepts, etc. Detracking wasn’t even the main topic - it didn’t even make the infographic. Wayback machine has screenshot if you want to verify.

And even long after it was squashed, people are still saying the VMPI is trying to take away advanced math. Like a conspiracy theory.

I think the people who voted R wanted to make sure if the Ds in power - they didn’t reconsider. And that was / is a realistic risk with Ds.

This. It is disingenuous to suggest that revisiting the issue was not a possibility had the Dems run the table. Just like “defund the police”, the Dems keep floating ideas that the majority of people find to be too far left, and then have to scramble claiming oh we didn’t mean THAT, when there is a backlash to it. Let’s be real, if there hadn’t been such backlash to these ideas, they would have pushed forward with them because there is a substantial flank of the Democratic Party that believes in them.

No one said that detracking was never discussed.

You can continue to play the semantics game with what is “happening” or discussed” but the point remains that it was “discussed” because Dems wanted it to “happen” and many parents wanted to ensure that it wouldn’t “happen” so they voted Republican.

If you are going to continue to be misleading then we will continue to “play semantics”.

“Dems” didn’t want this to happen. This isn’t on the party platform. There aren’t Ds running around Virginia with “detracking” license plates on their car.

Yes, some people who are likely Dems thought it was a good idea and brought it up for discussion, along with other topics. They didn’t try to force it on anyone. Heck, they didn’t even include it on their website or infographic. Who said they thought it was a bad idea? Lots of Ds. Who ultimately took it off the table? A Dem (assuming Lane is a D).

And they were certainly never “banning advanced math”.

You won. It worked. You can stop the relentless BS now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm a liberal Dem who hates Trump, knows that CRT is being taught in our schools and, can't wait to see how Youkin deals with it.

If you know CRT is being taught, it would be interesting if you could point to, you know, evidence that CRT is being taught.

HERE YOU GO:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/03/opinion/virginia-democrats-republicans.html

Nope. This op-ed is crap.

It’s not the Ds fault that Rs are pushing lies about what is being taught in school.

That my 10 year old son who was taken out of a trash can in a Russian village and nearly died from malnutrition and still has health and emotional issues was tokd to stand up in class and labeled as a privileged white make whose ancestors were responsible for enslaving people. Thing is, his ancestors were actually slaves in Russia.
This attitude is why you can’t see the truth about what happened.

Forget about labels. Please articulate what specifically was being taught in classrooms that you think should stop.

WTF? You need to take a seat already. Doubtful that CRT (the theory) is taught to school children. Whether CRT is used as the framework for constructing curricular activities, making choices about what materials are available to students, or selecting guests to speak to students or teachers though is moot as far as this thread goes. TMac lost.

FWIW i recall being taught about gender stereotyping without anyone ever using that term or anything like it in the 70s/80s via filmstrips, books and records. The most popular one that I recall was Free to Be You and Me. I think Marlo Thomas was heavily involved in the project. I loved everything in the book and on the record which taught things like that it was OK for a boy to have doll or that women (or anyone) didnt necessarily like housecleaning despite all the happy looking women doing so on TV commercials (and it was always women seen cleaning on those commercials!).

Right - so you can't even articulate what it is that you want to stop.

Don't get mad for Ds because you don't like a phantom.

I am the most recent poster you are responding too, and I never said who I voted for (Blanding). Keep up your schtick though if you want to see another R win. Your association with the Ds has more to do with people walking away from TMac this election than “CRT”. Or maybe you’re a Trump operative trying to incentivize the R base?

NP. From The Atlantic article; this says it all (ignore it at your own political peril):

But the one option that is both intellectually dishonest and electorally disastrous is to insist on a verbal trick unworthy of a middle-school debate team: to keep claiming that widespread concern over these ideas is misguided because the term by which they have publicly come to be known technically applies to an academic research program rather than the lessons that real children are being taught in real schools. And yet, this is precisely what McAuliffe and so many others attempted to do—with disastrous results—over the closing months of his campaign.

It’s gaslighting.

So what are the issues? What types of diversity / inclusion / equity programs are acceptable? Any?

How can schools talk about racism?

Cultural inclusions. Celebrate Diwali etc. Too bad FCPS messed that up. Make sure all education programs are open to everyone. Focus money on programs to help disadvantaged children. Have programs where people can go to talk about any racial problem they are having. Teach the importance of a culturally diverse country. Teach the laws of the US. Teach history as history not present from all angles and cultures. You know the way we did before CRT.

And what about racism? How should that be discussed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a D but one who doesn’t want to get rid of advanced but nevertheless voted for McA. I remember the VPMI fiasco and I’m too smart to be gaslighted. I know they were considering it and changed their mind with the backlash and that it was dumb to say this was a made up issue.

Headline of the online NYT this morning:

California Tries to Close the Gap in Math, but Sets Off a Backlash

Proposed guidelines in the state would de-emphasize calculus, reject the idea that some children are naturally gifted and build a connection to social justice. Critics say math shouldn’t be political.

The California guidelines, which are not binding, could overhaul the way many school districts approach math instruction. The draft rejected the idea of naturally gifted children, recommended against shifting certain students into accelerated courses in middle school and tried to promote high-level math courses that could serve as alternatives to calculus, like data science or statistics.

You people will never understand but that was why some people voted R. Because it is a risk with the Ds. Don’t deny that by saying it’s not happening and gaslighting. At least be genuine and say it was considered and discarded and the Ds are really really not considering it again and it’s not a risk with them.

Who said they weren’t considering some amount of tracking? They were. It was definitely discussed. That doesn’t mean they were “banning advanced math / acceleration”. They always included AP/IB as options, which are advanced math options.

The whole point was that there wasn’t an actual plan at that point - they were just discussing a variety of topics related to updating the math curriculum. They also discussed adding other tracks, blending concepts, etc. Detracking wasn’t even the main topic - it didn’t even make the infographic. Wayback machine has screenshot if you want to verify.

And even long after it was squashed, people are still saying the VMPI is trying to take away advanced math. Like a conspiracy theory.

I think the people who voted R wanted to make sure if the Ds in power - they didn’t reconsider. And that was / is a realistic risk with Ds.

This. It is disingenuous to suggest that revisiting the issue was not a possibility had the Dems run the table. Just like “defund the police”, the Dems keep floating ideas that the majority of people find to be too far left, and then have to scramble claiming oh we didn’t mean THAT, when there is a backlash to it. Let’s be real, if there hadn’t been such backlash to these ideas, they would have pushed forward with them because there is a substantial flank of the Democratic Party that believes in them.

No one said that detracking was never discussed.

You can continue to play the semantics game with what is “happening” or discussed” but the point remains that it was “discussed” because Dems wanted it to “happen” and many parents wanted to ensure that it wouldn’t “happen” so they voted Republican.

If you are going to continue to be misleading then we will continue to “play semantics”.

“Dems” didn’t want this to happen. This isn’t on the party platform. There aren’t Ds running around Virginia with “detracking” license plates on their car.

Yes, some people who are likely Dems thought it was a good idea and brought it up for discussion, along with other topics. They didn’t try to force it on anyone. Heck, they didn’t even include it on their website or infographic. Who said they thought it was a bad idea? Lots of Ds. Who ultimately took it off the table? A Dem (assuming Lane is a D).

And they were certainly never “banning advanced math”.

You won. It worked. You can stop the relentless BS now.

This works both ways. You want to scream TRUMP at every Republican and make every asinine and abhorrent thing that has ever come out of his mouth a part of the Republican Party platform. They didn’t try to force this on anyone because the backlash was swift, but make no mistake had the backlash not been swift they would have moved the idea along, and if they felt they were in more friendly political territory in the future they would bring it to the table again. This is an inherent problem with both parties, they each have a wing that is completely out of touch with what the average American cares about and supports. In Virginia’s case, Youngkin was able to keep that flank of the party at a better distance than McAuliffe did and focused more on things that VA moderates care about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm a liberal Dem who hates Trump, knows that CRT is being taught in our schools and, can't wait to see how Youkin deals with it.

If you know CRT is being taught, it would be interesting if you could point to, you know, evidence that CRT is being taught.

HERE YOU GO:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/03/opinion/virginia-democrats-republicans.html

Nope. This op-ed is crap.

It’s not the Ds fault that Rs are pushing lies about what is being taught in school.

That my 10 year old son who was taken out of a trash can in a Russian village and nearly died from malnutrition and still has health and emotional issues was tokd to stand up in class and labeled as a privileged white make whose ancestors were responsible for enslaving people. Thing is, his ancestors were actually slaves in Russia.
This attitude is why you can’t see the truth about what happened.

Forget about labels. Please articulate what specifically was being taught in classrooms that you think should stop.

WTF? You need to take a seat already. Doubtful that CRT (the theory) is taught to school children. Whether CRT is used as the framework for constructing curricular activities, making choices about what materials are available to students, or selecting guests to speak to students or teachers though is moot as far as this thread goes. TMac lost.

FWIW i recall being taught about gender stereotyping without anyone ever using that term or anything like it in the 70s/80s via filmstrips, books and records. The most popular one that I recall was Free to Be You and Me. I think Marlo Thomas was heavily involved in the project. I loved everything in the book and on the record which taught things like that it was OK for a boy to have doll or that women (or anyone) didnt necessarily like housecleaning despite all the happy looking women doing so on TV commercials (and it was always women seen cleaning on those commercials!).

Right - so you can't even articulate what it is that you want to stop.

Don't get mad for Ds because you don't like a phantom.

I am the most recent poster you are responding too, and I never said who I voted for (Blanding). Keep up your schtick though if you want to see another R win. Your association with the Ds has more to do with people walking away from TMac this election than “CRT”. Or maybe you’re a Trump operative trying to incentivize the R base?

NP. From The Atlantic article; this says it all (ignore it at your own political peril):

But the one option that is both intellectually dishonest and electorally disastrous is to insist on a verbal trick unworthy of a middle-school debate team: to keep claiming that widespread concern over these ideas is misguided because the term by which they have publicly come to be known technically applies to an academic research program rather than the lessons that real children are being taught in real schools. And yet, this is precisely what McAuliffe and so many others attempted to do—with disastrous results—over the closing months of his campaign.

It’s gaslighting.

So what are the issues? What types of diversity / inclusion / equity programs are acceptable? Any?

How can schools talk about racism?

Cultural inclusions. Celebrate Diwali etc. Too bad FCPS messed that up. Make sure all education programs are open to everyone. Focus money on programs to help disadvantaged children. Have programs where people can go to talk about any racial problem they are having. Teach the importance of a culturally diverse country. Teach the laws of the US. Teach history as history not present from all angles and cultures. You know the way we did before CRT.

And what about racism? How should that be discussed?

It was addressed in the comment.

[Anonymous]

[img]https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1MBg8WEH_pSb1nkzOaYXixybLILbEsaZzJ93gdq1SfKA/edit#slide=id.gb86b44b00c_0_383


Saying this is not influenced by CRT-principles is exactly what the Atlantic article was referring to.

[Anonymous]

And this link as well:

https://content.govdelivery.com/attachments/VADOE/2021/08/25/file_attachments/1915638/Culturally%20Responsive%20and%20Inclusive%20Teaching_VDOE_webpage.pdf

The #1 takeaway is "Teaching is a Political Act." The, now deleted, video was the official VDOE video.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm a liberal Dem who hates Trump, knows that CRT is being taught in our schools and, can't wait to see how Youkin deals with it.

If you know CRT is being taught, it would be interesting if you could point to, you know, evidence that CRT is being taught.

HERE YOU GO:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/03/opinion/virginia-democrats-republicans.html

Nope. This op-ed is crap.

It’s not the Ds fault that Rs are pushing lies about what is being taught in school.

That my 10 year old son who was taken out of a trash can in a Russian village and nearly died from malnutrition and still has health and emotional issues was tokd to stand up in class and labeled as a privileged white make whose ancestors were responsible for enslaving people. Thing is, his ancestors were actually slaves in Russia.
This attitude is why you can’t see the truth about what happened.

Forget about labels. Please articulate what specifically was being taught in classrooms that you think should stop.

WTF? You need to take a seat already. Doubtful that CRT (the theory) is taught to school children. Whether CRT is used as the framework for constructing curricular activities, making choices about what materials are available to students, or selecting guests to speak to students or teachers though is moot as far as this thread goes. TMac lost.

FWIW i recall being taught about gender stereotyping without anyone ever using that term or anything like it in the 70s/80s via filmstrips, books and records. The most popular one that I recall was Free to Be You and Me. I think Marlo Thomas was heavily involved in the project. I loved everything in the book and on the record which taught things like that it was OK for a boy to have doll or that women (or anyone) didnt necessarily like housecleaning despite all the happy looking women doing so on TV commercials (and it was always women seen cleaning on those commercials!).

Right - so you can't even articulate what it is that you want to stop.

Don't get mad for Ds because you don't like a phantom.

I am the most recent poster you are responding too, and I never said who I voted for (Blanding). Keep up your schtick though if you want to see another R win. Your association with the Ds has more to do with people walking away from TMac this election than “CRT”. Or maybe you’re a Trump operative trying to incentivize the R base?

NP. From The Atlantic article; this says it all (ignore it at your own political peril):

But the one option that is both intellectually dishonest and electorally disastrous is to insist on a verbal trick unworthy of a middle-school debate team: to keep claiming that widespread concern over these ideas is misguided because the term by which they have publicly come to be known technically applies to an academic research program rather than the lessons that real children are being taught in real schools. And yet, this is precisely what McAuliffe and so many others attempted to do—with disastrous results—over the closing months of his campaign.

It’s gaslighting.

So what are the issues? What types of diversity / inclusion / equity programs are acceptable? Any?

How can schools talk about racism?

Cultural inclusions. Celebrate Diwali etc. Too bad FCPS messed that up. Make sure all education programs are open to everyone. Focus money on programs to help disadvantaged children. Have programs where people can go to talk about any racial problem they are having. Teach the importance of a culturally diverse country. Teach the laws of the US. Teach history as history not present from all angles and cultures. You know the way we did before CRT.

And what about racism? How should that be discussed?

It was addressed in the comment.

"Have programs where people can go to talk about any racial problem they are having."

Was this it? So you mean don't talk about racism at all at any point in K-12?

What about current-day civil rights movement - should we not cover that at all? Anything about redlining?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a D but one who doesn’t want to get rid of advanced but nevertheless voted for McA. I remember the VPMI fiasco and I’m too smart to be gaslighted. I know they were considering it and changed their mind with the backlash and that it was dumb to say this was a made up issue.

Headline of the online NYT this morning:

California Tries to Close the Gap in Math, but Sets Off a Backlash

Proposed guidelines in the state would de-emphasize calculus, reject the idea that some children are naturally gifted and build a connection to social justice. Critics say math shouldn’t be political.

The California guidelines, which are not binding, could overhaul the way many school districts approach math instruction. The draft rejected the idea of naturally gifted children, recommended against shifting certain students into accelerated courses in middle school and tried to promote high-level math courses that could serve as alternatives to calculus, like data science or statistics.

You people will never understand but that was why some people voted R. Because it is a risk with the Ds. Don’t deny that by saying it’s not happening and gaslighting. At least be genuine and say it was considered and discarded and the Ds are really really not considering it again and it’s not a risk with them.

Who said they weren’t considering some amount of tracking? They were. It was definitely discussed. That doesn’t mean they were “banning advanced math / acceleration”. They always included AP/IB as options, which are advanced math options.

The whole point was that there wasn’t an actual plan at that point - they were just discussing a variety of topics related to updating the math curriculum. They also discussed adding other tracks, blending concepts, etc. Detracking wasn’t even the main topic - it didn’t even make the infographic. Wayback machine has screenshot if you want to verify.

And even long after it was squashed, people are still saying the VMPI is trying to take away advanced math. Like a conspiracy theory.

I think the people who voted R wanted to make sure if the Ds in power - they didn’t reconsider. And that was / is a realistic risk with Ds.

This. It is disingenuous to suggest that revisiting the issue was not a possibility had the Dems run the table. Just like “defund the police”, the Dems keep floating ideas that the majority of people find to be too far left, and then have to scramble claiming oh we didn’t mean THAT, when there is a backlash to it. Let’s be real, if there hadn’t been such backlash to these ideas, they would have pushed forward with them because there is a substantial flank of the Democratic Party that believes in them.

No one said that detracking was never discussed.

You can continue to play the semantics game with what is “happening” or discussed” but the point remains that it was “discussed” because Dems wanted it to “happen” and many parents wanted to ensure that it wouldn’t “happen” so they voted Republican.

If you are going to continue to be misleading then we will continue to “play semantics”.

“Dems” didn’t want this to happen. This isn’t on the party platform. There aren’t Ds running around Virginia with “detracking” license plates on their car.

Yes, some people who are likely Dems thought it was a good idea and brought it up for discussion, along with other topics. They didn’t try to force it on anyone. Heck, they didn’t even include it on their website or infographic. Who said they thought it was a bad idea? Lots of Ds. Who ultimately took it off the table? A Dem (assuming Lane is a D).

And they were certainly never “banning advanced math”.

You won. It worked. You can stop the relentless BS now.

This works both ways. You want to scream TRUMP at every Republican and make every asinine and abhorrent thing that has ever come out of his mouth a part of the Republican Party platform. They didn’t try to force this on anyone because the backlash was swift, but make no mistake had the backlash not been swift they would have moved the idea along, and if they felt they were in more friendly political territory in the future they would bring it to the table again. This is an inherent problem with both parties, they each have a wing that is completely out of touch with what the average American cares about and supports. In Virginia’s case, Youngkin was able to keep that flank of the party at a better distance than McAuliffe did and focused more on things that VA moderates care about.

Well, this has nothing to do about detracking math and isn't at all comparable, but I'll bite anyway...

People don't scream "Trump" at every Republican. Only those who have supported him and The Big Lie (e.g., making "election integrity" a top priority) or welcomed an endorsement from him. Or made fast friends with 1/6 nutters like Amanda Chase.

Some Republicans have denounced Trump and some even made the tiniest efforts to hold him accountable. Nobody screams "Trump" at them.

Sorry - you can't have it both ways. If a candidate is going to pander to the insane MAGA base then he is tainted orange.


Back to math detracking - they held multiple information sessions. They asked people for feedback. It was given. And they responded. And yet you continue to vilify them months later. I just don't get it. They aren't evil people looking to hurt people or profit from this. They are math teachers who are trying to look at recent trends in education as they update the curriculum, as required by law. It's not some crazy plot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Yep. And all the nimrods on DCUM who insist that if it isn't explicitly labeled C.R.T., then it couldn't possibly be teachings derived from CRT. The literals are at it again, making fools of themselves. Gaslight, gaslight, gaslight.

Culturally Responsive Teaching, culturally sensitive learning, they use different phrases to hide what they are implementing in this equity based curriculum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yep. And all the nimrods on DCUM who insist that if it isn't explicitly labeled C.R.T., then it couldn't possibly be teachings derived from CRT. The literals are at it again, making fools of themselves. Gaslight, gaslight, gaslight.

Culturally Responsive Teaching, culturally sensitive learning, they use different phrases to hide what they are implementing in this equity based curriculum.

I don't understand what they are so afraid of... why are they hiding behind these grade school semantic arguments?

This sort of teaching is what they want. They should own it.