How “activist” is Sheridan?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a recent graduate of Sheridan (within the past 5 years). The school focuses *heavily* on social justice and activism. I attended Sheridan from Kindergarten until Eighth grade, and even in that time, I noticed changes.

In History/Civics courses, we were not allowed to learn about American history. We learned about every other culture under the sun, but never America. I have no issue with a balanced curriculum that includes a heavy dose of traditionally overlooked cultures, but it was odd for America to be omitted. There was no mention of the American Revolution or the Colonies. There was no talk of America’s contributions to World History. The basics of our government were not covered until the end of 8th grade.

The same was true in the Art and Music departments. We never talked about European composers or Painters.

When I started, we were allowed to take either French or Spanish. Around Middle School, that changed. The school began only offering Spanish classes, purportedly in the pursuit of ‘diversity’. I believe this decision was reversed a year or two later. At the time, they spoke of how Spanish was the language of more traditionally underserved cultures around the world.

One year, our Shakespeare unit was struck from the curriculum in favor of one that I seem to recall was called “social justice”. We watched news coverage of recent events and were lectured on the significance.

Those are just a few concrete examples.

I wanted to also mention the less concrete aspect. At Sheridan, there is “one true opinion.” And you’re expected to buy into it, wholeheartedly. Students are taught debatable opinions as gospel. In an environment like that, intellectual exploration is impossible. Sheridan prides itself on encouraging deep critical thinking, but this practice really cuts against all of the flowery language they stick in brochures.

Parent of Sheridan kids who were there when you were there. There was no prohibition on learning US History and in fact both of my kids learned US History while there. Just a few events I remembered being covered include the battle of Lexington and Concord, the Trail of Tears, Slavery, Westward Expansion, the history and development of Washington, DC, and more. They also learned about the three branches of government, how a bill becomes a law, and voting. At their new schools their teachers have commented on how well informed they are and their ability to see things from different perspectives.

My kids sang and performed songs by Bob Dylan, Cole Porter, George Gershwin,, etc. They were introduced to the music of Charlie Parker. Artists examined included Van Gogh, Pollock, Calder, etc.

The switch to Spanish was made when my high school student was in 1st or 2nd grade and was not made for diversity reasons from what I recall. We were upset by the change and followed the issue closely. It was a switch that was made to focus on one language instead of two with the intent that students would develop more proficiency in a language by the time they graduated. My kids did well with the change and both were placed in more advanced Spanish classes in high school. Spanish was selected because more people speak it in the US.

I’m not saying everything about Sheridan was perfect, but I had to explain that what this grad said was not what my kids experienced when they were at Sheridan in the past 5 years.

Both of my kids read Shakespeare in high school and were able to understand it despite not having rad it in middle school. Both of them had a much easier time analyzing texts in high school from a diverse range of authors than many of their classmates who were encountering the idea of danger of a single story for the first time.

This sounds like a Sheridan parent, the PP wrote like a Sheridan Student but some of the examples read wrong. In art the children learn about artists from all over the world. My child has not started US history yet but we were told that it will be taught.

NP here and a former Sheridan parent from the years the student PP was enrolled and graduated. I would make different word choices than the Student did ('allowed', 'prohibited') but the recounting of the facts absolutely tracks with our experience. You either learn Shakespeare, or you don't. The curriculum either includes US history in any given year, or it does not. The school musical is either 90% songs from Africa and South America vs. 10% from the US, or it's not.

The abrupt decision to jettison French, in retrospect, was probably driven by finances more than any other factor. HOWEVER, that move was presented to the parent body at the time as part of a larger, school-wide embracement of diversity and equity. [[ie, Spanish is overwhelmingly spoken by POC worldwide, whereas French is the language of white privileged people who order expensive wine from a sommelier. ]] I think that messaging is relevant to this thread.

As well, there were staffing changes related to the school's then-new equity/justice focus that were laudable in intent but ultimately had a negative effect on the curriculum and programming. Some very effective staff were terminated so that others could be hired into newly created positions. Some programs were slashed in order to assure funds for new programming. Our view of these sweeping decisions is not at all universal; clearly they were popular with other families, as evidenced by the fact that Sheridan doubled-down on these types of actions in subsequent years.

To be very clear, we're thrilled with the overall education Sheridan provided. Many of the veteran teachers pushed DCs to analyze and think critically and to write with evidence. But, the student PP's experience does align with our family's -- the tacit, erroneous assumption that the kids are all in agreement on how difficult, multi-faceted social and justice issues should be approached. For example, this poster was everywhere in the school at one point, sending the implicit message that this is a universal take on the subject. In fact, scholars in the field actually don't agree among themselves on these definitions.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/136820825@N05/26798396924

Did anyone ever point out that Haiti and Francophone Africa aren't exactly the bastions of white privilege as a counter argument to scrapping French??

Another progressive school history unit: hailing the Haitian revolution.
No saying negatives or negatives about current situation without blaming someone or something else. Same for S Africa situation.

[Anonymous]

Instead of learning about colonialism it is slavery.
Instead of setting government, it is tear one down.
Instead of classic books, it is small subsegments of society’s new books.
And math, get a tutor. Same for spelling. Oh lord how my kids cannot spell after years of progressive schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
On the point that you want your child to come to their beliefs "naturally". There is no such thing as "natural." Your child will come to their beliefs based on a whole subset of factors. What you are saying is that you don't want your kid to be too disproportionately left-wing, which is totally your right as a parent, but your kid is still being influenced by a whole subset of society.

ALL OF THIS!!!!

Bingo. Black parent here. I am liberal and supportive of much of the work independent schools are doing to give students an educational foundation that is much broader and more true to history than what has been the norm in this country.

If you think leaving the curriculums as they were historically is the best course of action, then you do not actually think anything was wrong with the way things were done in the past. You would like for things to stay the same because they were not problematic in any way for you. Additionally, if you are uncomfortable with your child learning these things, please spend some time exploring why you are uncomfortable with these things. If any part of your rationale for wanting to avoid activism is that you fear that your children will be traumatized and learn to hate themselves for being white (which is the common refrain from white parents right now about why they are against this sort of instruction), then just say out loud on the record "I don't care that nonwhite children are currently raised to hate themselves for being nonwhite and are traumatized daily by our white supremacist culture and curriculum. I would prefer to continue with status quo because that benefits my children." Because, truly, if learning about these sorts of things is harmful for your children, it is because you KNOW the reality is that non white children are harmed by how we've done things so far. Just own it and stop trying to pretend it is anything else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a recent graduate of Sheridan (within the past 5 years). The school focuses *heavily* on social justice and activism. I attended Sheridan from Kindergarten until Eighth grade, and even in that time, I noticed changes.

In History/Civics courses, we were not allowed to learn about American history. We learned about every other culture under the sun, but never America. I have no issue with a balanced curriculum that includes a heavy dose of traditionally overlooked cultures, but it was odd for America to be omitted. There was no mention of the American Revolution or the Colonies. There was no talk of America’s contributions to World History. The basics of our government were not covered until the end of 8th grade.

The same was true in the Art and Music departments. We never talked about European composers or Painters.

When I started, we were allowed to take either French or Spanish. Around Middle School, that changed. The school began only offering Spanish classes, purportedly in the pursuit of ‘diversity’. I believe this decision was reversed a year or two later. At the time, they spoke of how Spanish was the language of more traditionally underserved cultures around the world.

One year, our Shakespeare unit was struck from the curriculum in favor of one that I seem to recall was called “social justice”. We watched news coverage of recent events and were lectured on the significance.

Those are just a few concrete examples.

I wanted to also mention the less concrete aspect. At Sheridan, there is “one true opinion.” And you’re expected to buy into it, wholeheartedly. Students are taught debatable opinions as gospel. In an environment like that, intellectual exploration is impossible. Sheridan prides itself on encouraging deep critical thinking, but this practice really cuts against all of the flowery language they stick in brochures.

Parent of Sheridan kids who were there when you were there. There was no prohibition on learning US History and in fact both of my kids learned US History while there. Just a few events I remembered being covered include the battle of Lexington and Concord, the Trail of Tears, Slavery, Westward Expansion, the history and development of Washington, DC, and more. They also learned about the three branches of government, how a bill becomes a law, and voting. At their new schools their teachers have commented on how well informed they are and their ability to see things from different perspectives.

My kids sang and performed songs by Bob Dylan, Cole Porter, George Gershwin,, etc. They were introduced to the music of Charlie Parker. Artists examined included Van Gogh, Pollock, Calder, etc.

The switch to Spanish was made when my high school student was in 1st or 2nd grade and was not made for diversity reasons from what I recall. We were upset by the change and followed the issue closely. It was a switch that was made to focus on one language instead of two with the intent that students would develop more proficiency in a language by the time they graduated. My kids did well with the change and both were placed in more advanced Spanish classes in high school. Spanish was selected because more people speak it in the US.

I’m not saying everything about Sheridan was perfect, but I had to explain that what this grad said was not what my kids experienced when they were at Sheridan in the past 5 years.

Both of my kids read Shakespeare in high school and were able to understand it despite not having rad it in middle school. Both of them had a much easier time analyzing texts in high school from a diverse range of authors than many of their classmates who were encountering the idea of danger of a single story for the first time.

This sounds like a Sheridan parent, the PP wrote like a Sheridan Student but some of the examples read wrong. In art the children learn about artists from all over the world. My child has not started US history yet but we were told that it will be taught.

NP here and a former Sheridan parent from the years the student PP was enrolled and graduated. I would make different word choices than the Student did ('allowed', 'prohibited') but the recounting of the facts absolutely tracks with our experience. You either learn Shakespeare, or you don't. The curriculum either includes US history in any given year, or it does not. The school musical is either 90% songs from Africa and South America vs. 10% from the US, or it's not.

The abrupt decision to jettison French, in retrospect, was probably driven by finances more than any other factor. HOWEVER, that move was presented to the parent body at the time as part of a larger, school-wide embracement of diversity and equity. [[ie, Spanish is overwhelmingly spoken by POC worldwide, whereas French is the language of white privileged people who order expensive wine from a sommelier. ]] I think that messaging is relevant to this thread.

As well, there were staffing changes related to the school's then-new equity/justice focus that were laudable in intent but ultimately had a negative effect on the curriculum and programming. Some very effective staff were terminated so that others could be hired into newly created positions. Some programs were slashed in order to assure funds for new programming. Our view of these sweeping decisions is not at all universal; clearly they were popular with other families, as evidenced by the fact that Sheridan doubled-down on these types of actions in subsequent years.

To be very clear, we're thrilled with the overall education Sheridan provided. Many of the veteran teachers pushed DCs to analyze and think critically and to write with evidence. But, the student PP's experience does align with our family's -- the tacit, erroneous assumption that the kids are all in agreement on how difficult, multi-faceted social and justice issues should be approached. For example, this poster was everywhere in the school at one point, sending the implicit message that this is a universal take on the subject. In fact, scholars in the field actually don't agree among themselves on these definitions.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/136820825@N05/26798396924

Did anyone ever point out that Haiti and Francophone Africa aren't exactly the bastions of white privilege as a counter argument to scrapping French??

Another progressive school history unit: hailing the Haitian revolution.
No saying negatives or negatives about current situation without blaming someone or something else. Same for S Africa situation.

You do realize this is typical Tucker Carlson/Fox News style whataboutism.

All of Haiti's problems today can be directly laid at the feet of France. And South Africa's problems of today can also be traced directly to the white, European colonizers. One can try to twist things into rhetorical knots about the failings of the current and past governments of Haiti or South Africa, but the truth remains that all of today's issues stem from the fruit of this poisoned tree of slavery, colonialism and white supremacy. The only people who want to debate about that are people who harbor racist, supremacist beliefs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That’s Ok guys. At GdS you don’t learn civics or Us history in middle school. Instead you go camping for 3 days and draft a new constitution and ridicule the founding fathers and whole country for being unenlightened for todays times. Don’t bother with history or context of what they were dealing with.

Unfortunately for you, the GDS curriculum is easy to Google:

"Fifth grade social studies concentrates on American History with particular emphasis on freedom and justice. The course covers the events leading up to the American Revolution, as well as civics, slavery, the abolition movement, the Civil War, and the American Civil Rights Movement. Students explore the triumph of the human spirit in moments of adversity and injustice throughout history. Through primary sources, guest speakers, film/videos, weekly magazines, and literature, students examine these issues. Readings, discussions, projects, oral and written reports, simulations, guest speakers, and on-site explorations enable students to become familiar with and experience the historical significance of this region. Teachers and librarians help reinforce library and research skills. Geography is integrated with the lessons in history, literature, and world events. At the conclusion of each unit, evaluations, activities, and projects allow students to demonstrate knowledge and discuss the historical concepts associated with the topic."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a recent graduate of Sheridan (within the past 5 years). The school focuses *heavily* on social justice and activism. I attended Sheridan from Kindergarten until Eighth grade, and even in that time, I noticed changes.

In History/Civics courses, we were not allowed to learn about American history. We learned about every other culture under the sun, but never America. I have no issue with a balanced curriculum that includes a heavy dose of traditionally overlooked cultures, but it was odd for America to be omitted. There was no mention of the American Revolution or the Colonies. There was no talk of America’s contributions to World History. The basics of our government were not covered until the end of 8th grade.

The same was true in the Art and Music departments. We never talked about European composers or Painters.

When I started, we were allowed to take either French or Spanish. Around Middle School, that changed. The school began only offering Spanish classes, purportedly in the pursuit of ‘diversity’. I believe this decision was reversed a year or two later. At the time, they spoke of how Spanish was the language of more traditionally underserved cultures around the world.

One year, our Shakespeare unit was struck from the curriculum in favor of one that I seem to recall was called “social justice”. We watched news coverage of recent events and were lectured on the significance.

Those are just a few concrete examples.

I wanted to also mention the less concrete aspect. At Sheridan, there is “one true opinion.” And you’re expected to buy into it, wholeheartedly. Students are taught debatable opinions as gospel. In an environment like that, intellectual exploration is impossible. Sheridan prides itself on encouraging deep critical thinking, but this practice really cuts against all of the flowery language they stick in brochures.

Parent of Sheridan kids who were there when you were there. There was no prohibition on learning US History and in fact both of my kids learned US History while there. Just a few events I remembered being covered include the battle of Lexington and Concord, the Trail of Tears, Slavery, Westward Expansion, the history and development of Washington, DC, and more. They also learned about the three branches of government, how a bill becomes a law, and voting. At their new schools their teachers have commented on how well informed they are and their ability to see things from different perspectives.

My kids sang and performed songs by Bob Dylan, Cole Porter, George Gershwin,, etc. They were introduced to the music of Charlie Parker. Artists examined included Van Gogh, Pollock, Calder, etc.

The switch to Spanish was made when my high school student was in 1st or 2nd grade and was not made for diversity reasons from what I recall. We were upset by the change and followed the issue closely. It was a switch that was made to focus on one language instead of two with the intent that students would develop more proficiency in a language by the time they graduated. My kids did well with the change and both were placed in more advanced Spanish classes in high school. Spanish was selected because more people speak it in the US.

I’m not saying everything about Sheridan was perfect, but I had to explain that what this grad said was not what my kids experienced when they were at Sheridan in the past 5 years.

Both of my kids read Shakespeare in high school and were able to understand it despite not having rad it in middle school. Both of them had a much easier time analyzing texts in high school from a diverse range of authors than many of their classmates who were encountering the idea of danger of a single story for the first time.

This sounds like a Sheridan parent, the PP wrote like a Sheridan Student but some of the examples read wrong. In art the children learn about artists from all over the world. My child has not started US history yet but we were told that it will be taught.

NP here and a former Sheridan parent from the years the student PP was enrolled and graduated. I would make different word choices than the Student did ('allowed', 'prohibited') but the recounting of the facts absolutely tracks with our experience. You either learn Shakespeare, or you don't. The curriculum either includes US history in any given year, or it does not. The school musical is either 90% songs from Africa and South America vs. 10% from the US, or it's not.

The abrupt decision to jettison French, in retrospect, was probably driven by finances more than any other factor. HOWEVER, that move was presented to the parent body at the time as part of a larger, school-wide embracement of diversity and equity. [[ie, Spanish is overwhelmingly spoken by POC worldwide, whereas French is the language of white privileged people who order expensive wine from a sommelier. ]] I think that messaging is relevant to this thread.

As well, there were staffing changes related to the school's then-new equity/justice focus that were laudable in intent but ultimately had a negative effect on the curriculum and programming. Some very effective staff were terminated so that others could be hired into newly created positions. Some programs were slashed in order to assure funds for new programming. Our view of these sweeping decisions is not at all universal; clearly they were popular with other families, as evidenced by the fact that Sheridan doubled-down on these types of actions in subsequent years.

To be very clear, we're thrilled with the overall education Sheridan provided. Many of the veteran teachers pushed DCs to analyze and think critically and to write with evidence. But, the student PP's experience does align with our family's -- the tacit, erroneous assumption that the kids are all in agreement on how difficult, multi-faceted social and justice issues should be approached. For example, this poster was everywhere in the school at one point, sending the implicit message that this is a universal take on the subject. In fact, scholars in the field actually don't agree among themselves on these definitions.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/136820825@N05/26798396924

Did anyone ever point out that Haiti and Francophone Africa aren't exactly the bastions of white privilege as a counter argument to scrapping French??

Another progressive school history unit: hailing the Haitian revolution.
No saying negatives or negatives about current situation without blaming someone or something else. Same for S Africa situation.

You do realize this is typical Tucker Carlson/Fox News style whataboutism.

All of Haiti's problems today can be directly laid at the feet of France. And South Africa's problems of today can also be traced directly to the white, European colonizers. One can try to twist things into rhetorical knots about the failings of the current and past governments of Haiti or South Africa, but the truth remains that all of today's issues stem from the fruit of this poisoned tree of slavery, colonialism and white supremacy. The only people who want to debate about that are people who harbor racist, supremacist beliefs.

How many decades have they been independent? Isn't most of their GDP from USAID?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That’s Ok guys. At GdS you don’t learn civics or Us history in middle school. Instead you go camping for 3 days and draft a new constitution and ridicule the founding fathers and whole country for being unenlightened for todays times. Don’t bother with history or context of what they were dealing with.

Unfortunately for you, the GDS curriculum is easy to Google:

"Fifth grade social studies concentrates on American History with particular emphasis on freedom and justice. The course covers the events leading up to the American Revolution, as well as civics, slavery, the abolition movement, the Civil War, and the American Civil Rights Movement. Students explore the triumph of the human spirit in moments of adversity and injustice throughout history. Through primary sources, guest speakers, film/videos, weekly magazines, and literature, students examine these issues. Readings, discussions, projects, oral and written reports, simulations, guest speakers, and on-site explorations enable students to become familiar with and experience the historical significance of this region. Teachers and librarians help reinforce library and research skills. Geography is integrated with the lessons in history, literature, and world events. At the conclusion of each unit, evaluations, activities, and projects allow students to demonstrate knowledge and discuss the historical concepts associated with the topic."

thanks for confirming their revisionalist approach to teaching history.

[Anonymous]

Please enlighten us, how specifically is that “revisionist”?

[Anonymous]

I'm a PP and former Sheridan parent, who agreed with the student's post from page 1. Several subsequent posters have accused me of feeling threatened by a curriculum that includes "non-white" history or culture.

C'mon. Is that really what I said? You _really_ think we'd spend a few hundred thousand on Sheridan if we held the MAGA isolationist "&%$-hole country" view that you're attributing to me in order to make your larger point?

It's a question of degree. Parents can heartily endorse age-appropriate study of world history and cultures and also want their children to learn more about the country they actually live in. That doesn't make them nationalists or supremacists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm a PP and former Sheridan parent, who agreed with the student's post from page 1. Several subsequent posters have accused me of feeling threatened by a curriculum that includes "non-white" history or culture.

C'mon. Is that really what I said? You _really_ think we'd spend a few hundred thousand on Sheridan if we held the MAGA isolationist "&%$-hole country" view that you're attributing to me in order to make your larger point?

It's a question of degree. Parents can heartily endorse age-appropriate study of world history and cultures and also want their children to learn more about the country they actually live in. That doesn't make them nationalists or supremacists.

Sheridan parent who takes issue with the implication that the school isn’t or wasn’t teaching the kids more about the country they actually live in. My kids did learn that and they didn’t just learn the white washed version of American history. My kids are also great spellers and have excellent grammer. Maybe they pick up on that type of thing easily, I don’t know. I wasn’t thrilled with everything that Sheridan did, but based on my kids performance in high school, including in advanced and honors classes, Sheridan did well in history and the humanities. Where I would fault them was at being able to meet the needs of students who were really strong in math and could handle more accelerated math. My kids wound up in advanced honors and accelerated math in high school, but only because they pursued more challenging work outside school. When they were at Sheridan we were told that differentiation wasn’t provided because it wasn’t needed. The comment was “all the kids are strong in math.” This wasn’t true and fortunately my kids were able to handle moving ahead. Most of their classmates were a year or two behind. If your kid isn’t interested in pursuing math or STEM in college it may not be a big deal for your child. However, if your kid is interested in math or STEM, being behind can hurt them when they are applying with kids who have an A in Calculus A/B or B/C (including by Junior year), and have taken multivariate calculus, differential equations, etc. My understanding is that changes were being made to the math curriculum and so the issues we encountered may no longer exist. I also am not a fan of forcing fast acceleration. Our experience is that they weren’t able to meet the needs of kids who were interested in and could handle moving faster. In fairness, schools with more students probably have more kids interested in doing that so it is easier to differentiate. With twice as many kids you can have 4 groups of 10-13 kids versus two groups of 10-13 kids and differentiation is a bit easier.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do you think values get turned into laws? Activism.

Why the disdain for those advocating for better policies to ensure justice and equity?

I think the OPs point is that in elementary school a child needs a focus on strong writing and math and a broad view of history and science. We need a solidly educated community for activist to have any standing once they reach the later years. If they can't write well and don't have critical thinking skills and the ability to have an opinion of their own they are good to no one.
I believe strongly in SJ but agree with OP that it is a concern if focus on that crowds out important curriculum needed in the younger years in order to be a well educated person as a young adult.

Sheridan is a lovely place but we did leave in elementary because a small school can only do so much. They have a new head of diversity which will help further their progressive pedagogy very much in line with GDS but this means expanding on science, math and even technology is limited. We enjoyed our time and found the academics in our local public stronger. Ask to meet families at the school or find some through your network to get an inside look.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a recent graduate of Sheridan (within the past 5 years). The school focuses *heavily* on social justice and activism. I attended Sheridan from Kindergarten until Eighth grade, and even in that time, I noticed changes.

In History/Civics courses, we were not allowed to learn about American history. We learned about every other culture under the sun, but never America. I have no issue with a balanced curriculum that includes a heavy dose of traditionally overlooked cultures, but it was odd for America to be omitted. There was no mention of the American Revolution or the Colonies. There was no talk of America’s contributions to World History. The basics of our government were not covered until the end of 8th grade.

The same was true in the Art and Music departments. We never talked about European composers or Painters.

When I started, we were allowed to take either French or Spanish. Around Middle School, that changed. The school began only offering Spanish classes, purportedly in the pursuit of ‘diversity’. I believe this decision was reversed a year or two later. At the time, they spoke of how Spanish was the language of more traditionally underserved cultures around the world.

One year, our Shakespeare unit was struck from the curriculum in favor of one that I seem to recall was called “social justice”. We watched news coverage of recent events and were lectured on the significance.

Those are just a few concrete examples.

I wanted to also mention the less concrete aspect. At Sheridan, there is “one true opinion.” And you’re expected to buy into it, wholeheartedly. Students are taught debatable opinions as gospel. In an environment like that, intellectual exploration is impossible. Sheridan prides itself on encouraging deep critical thinking, but this practice really cuts against all of the flowery language they stick in brochures.

Parent of Sheridan kids who were there when you were there. There was no prohibition on learning US History and in fact both of my kids learned US History while there. Just a few events I remembered being covered include the battle of Lexington and Concord, the Trail of Tears, Slavery, Westward Expansion, the history and development of Washington, DC, and more. They also learned about the three branches of government, how a bill becomes a law, and voting. At their new schools their teachers have commented on how well informed they are and their ability to see things from different perspectives.

My kids sang and performed songs by Bob Dylan, Cole Porter, George Gershwin,, etc. They were introduced to the music of Charlie Parker. Artists examined included Van Gogh, Pollock, Calder, etc.

The switch to Spanish was made when my high school student was in 1st or 2nd grade and was not made for diversity reasons from what I recall. We were upset by the change and followed the issue closely. It was a switch that was made to focus on one language instead of two with the intent that students would develop more proficiency in a language by the time they graduated. My kids did well with the change and both were placed in more advanced Spanish classes in high school. Spanish was selected because more people speak it in the US.

I’m not saying everything about Sheridan was perfect, but I had to explain that what this grad said was not what my kids experienced when they were at Sheridan in the past 5 years.

Both of my kids read Shakespeare in high school and were able to understand it despite not having rad it in middle school. Both of them had a much easier time analyzing texts in high school from a diverse range of authors than many of their classmates who were encountering the idea of danger of a single story for the first time.

This sounds like a Sheridan parent, the PP wrote like a Sheridan Student but some of the examples read wrong. In art the children learn about artists from all over the world. My child has not started US history yet but we were told that it will be taught.

NP here and a former Sheridan parent from the years the student PP was enrolled and graduated. I would make different word choices than the Student did ('allowed', 'prohibited') but the recounting of the facts absolutely tracks with our experience. You either learn Shakespeare, or you don't. The curriculum either includes US history in any given year, or it does not. The school musical is either 90% songs from Africa and South America vs. 10% from the US, or it's not.

The abrupt decision to jettison French, in retrospect, was probably driven by finances more than any other factor. HOWEVER, that move was presented to the parent body at the time as part of a larger, school-wide embracement of diversity and equity. [[ie, Spanish is overwhelmingly spoken by POC worldwide, whereas French is the language of white privileged people who order expensive wine from a sommelier. ]] I think that messaging is relevant to this thread.

As well, there were staffing changes related to the school's then-new equity/justice focus that were laudable in intent but ultimately had a negative effect on the curriculum and programming. Some very effective staff were terminated so that others could be hired into newly created positions. Some programs were slashed in order to assure funds for new programming. Our view of these sweeping decisions is not at all universal; clearly they were popular with other families, as evidenced by the fact that Sheridan doubled-down on these types of actions in subsequent years.

To be very clear, we're thrilled with the overall education Sheridan provided. Many of the veteran teachers pushed DCs to analyze and think critically and to write with evidence. But, the student PP's experience does align with our family's -- the tacit, erroneous assumption that the kids are all in agreement on how difficult, multi-faceted social and justice issues should be approached. For example, this poster was everywhere in the school at one point, sending the implicit message that this is a universal take on the subject. In fact, scholars in the field actually don't agree among themselves on these definitions.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/136820825@N05/26798396924

Did anyone ever point out that Haiti and Francophone Africa aren't exactly the bastions of white privilege as a counter argument to scrapping French??

Another progressive school history unit: hailing the Haitian revolution.
No saying negatives or negatives about current situation without blaming someone or something else. Same for S Africa situation.

You do realize this is typical Tucker Carlson/Fox News style whataboutism.

All of Haiti's problems today can be directly laid at the feet of France. And South Africa's problems of today can also be traced directly to the white, European colonizers. One can try to twist things into rhetorical knots about the failings of the current and past governments of Haiti or South Africa, but the truth remains that all of today's issues stem from the fruit of this poisoned tree of slavery, colonialism and white supremacy. The only people who want to debate about that are people who harbor racist, supremacist beliefs.

How many decades have they been independent? Isn't most of their GDP from USAID?

It doesn’t matter how many decades they’ve been independent when the French government enslaved them in debt and the rest of the west wouldn’t trade with them if they didn’t agree to France’s draconian terms. There was never any hope for Haiti to be prosperous or self sufficient after that. As I said earlier, all you’re doing is revealing your racist viewpoints, and at best, ignorance of the history of Haiti.

Maybe read about it some and then come back with some humility on the subject?

https://amp.miamiherald.com/opinion/op-ed/article252809873.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Thanks so much for the feedback and tips, it’s been valuable to me. After thinking it over, I’m less concerned about curriculum (both because I think it’s interesting and valid to focus outside the canon and also because I can fill in any perceived gaps) at Sheridan, gds or elsewhere. The issue about groupthink and intolerance of dissenting (or even slightly different) opinions is what worries me most. Of course this is also the hardest element to ascertain from the outside.

It’s not that I’m concerned that DS will end up a left-wing radical. That would be fine if it’s truly where his heart, research and lived experience leads. It’s more that I worry he would end up with a set of “beliefs” that are not necessarily truly his own. And that if his own opinions differ from the latest progressive ideal, he will not want to deal with the fallout of expressing his real POV. (That’s the experience of the recent college grads I mentioned upthread)

Using myself as an example... I support full reproductive rights but have a “safe, legal and rare” perspective rather than #shoutyourabortion, which is more in vogue. I consider myself a feminist but despise porn and am grateful the tide is turning away from pure sex positivity. The details of what I believe don’t matter. I’m just curious if this kind of nuance is tolerated at so-called social justice schools.

When I went to school in the 80s (public), I truly had no idea what my teachers thought about political issues. My parents were dems but didn’t indoctrinate me on specific issues. My stance on death penalty, reparations, guns, trade…even the ethics of private schools (ha!) all changed as I grew up, met people, traveled, read, etc. My views have stabilized but aren’t in lockstep with any candidate or movement. I feel lucky to have had that freedom snd want the same for DS. Does that mean public school or somewhere like Sidwell/ maret that are more in the “middle”? And, yes, I understand that schools aren’t the only input for kids…but I know I really looked up to my teachers snd believe they are influential. Sorry for the saga!

OP, you are not alone. I've been wondering about the same issues and share some of your concerns. Thank you for your question.

I was going to write the same. I really appreciate lots of the responses here but mostly your perspective. I wish I knew you in real life and could continue the conversation!

[Anonymous]

How much debt does Haiti owe France today or 10 years ago or 20 or 30 years ago?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How much debt does Haiti owe France today or 10 years ago or 20 or 30 years ago?

The debt was finally repaid in 1947, but the damage there is done. There is no way to climb out of that kind of setback. It is estimated that France should repay Haiti anywhere from $21 to $28 billion today to repair.