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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

Yes, I am aware of the twisted narrative.

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

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

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

That's a lot to unpack.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes. 2 in HS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not exactly relevant. Nevertheless, are you suggesting that if you're poor and of color you should be encouraged/directed/guided into trade training rather than a 4-year college degree? That's precisely what these republicans want to do, thus maintaining the racial and socioeconomic divides. Many non-white and non-rich folks have become very successful with the broader education these white men are hypocritically disparaging. It's harder for some than for others. That's life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

Yes, I am aware of the twisted narrative.

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

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

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

That's a lot to unpack.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New poster here.

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

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

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

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

Strongly disagree. Yeah, some people lack the skill or aren't as good at it - just like any skill. But you absolutely can teach and develop critical thinking abilities. But what I disagree with more is your characterization of the extreme left being book smart/sans critical thinking. It's actually the far right who are less adept at critical thinking, aren't able to/unwilling to appreciate different experiences and viewpoints. The far left folks may all agree and parrot each other trying to out-left each other; but their positions (mostly) incorporate the understanding that one size does not fit all and different people have different beliefs and needs. They don't all agree with each other because they can't think for themselves. They agree because they have developed the critical thinking skills, empathy, compassion, and tolerance for others (mostly). Furthermore, it's the conservative sheep (those people used to call rednecks and such) who lack both book smarts and critical thinking skills. If they valued education more, they'd probably have better critical thinking abilities and be more likely to think for themselves before coming to their same shared conclusions.

[Anonymous]

Poster at 13:02.

All people did was generalizing the opposite political parties. Nobody told me how the schools can teach critical thinking and how to apply that skill across the board. I'm aware of Socratic questioning method. But how do you teach the students what questions to ask, especially when they don't have the background knowledge? How do you teach them which statements to question (theory) and which one not to (law/background knowledge)? What are the goals are they seeking from those questions? To find the truth? What if there is no truth? How do you teach them to search & to evaluate the evidences, peer-review researches or their data on topics you are not familiar with? How do you teach them the tools of logic reasoning and how to use those tools?

Is there a program that teaches those? Do you mind sharing the programs you or your schools use?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

Yes, I am aware of the twisted narrative.

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

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

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

That's a lot to unpack.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don’t much care if they “consider” it to be “indoctrination.” It isn’t. They don’t like it because it is contrary to the indoctrination they have imposed on their own children, typically through church and sheltered upbringing. The kindest thing you can say about them is they mean well and struggle with cognitive dissonance. But teaching children to be tolerant of others, including those who are different, is hardly a radical idea; it is fundamental to the success of our civil society. It goes hand in glove with the mechanics of civics they want taught (and is taught).

These people don’t know what actual indoctrination looks like. Or rather, they can’t recognize it when it dictates their own lives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

Yes, I am aware of the twisted narrative.

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

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

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

That's a lot to unpack.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am the pp. i have two children in HS who went through publics in Arlington and Loudoun schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

Yes, I am aware of the twisted narrative.

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

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

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

That's a lot to unpack.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don’t much care if they “consider” it to be “indoctrination.” It isn’t. They don’t like it because it is contrary to the indoctrination they have imposed on their own children, typically through church and sheltered upbringing. The kindest thing you can say about them is they mean well and struggle with cognitive dissonance. But teaching children to be tolerant of others, including those who are different, is hardly a radical idea; it is fundamental to the success of our civil society. It goes hand in glove with the mechanics of civics they want taught (and is taught).

These people don’t know what actual indoctrination looks like. Or rather, they can’t recognize it when it dictates their own lives.

Like I said, I'm on your side. I agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

Yes, I am aware of the twisted narrative.

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

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

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

That's a lot to unpack.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New poster here.

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

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

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

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

Strongly disagree. Yeah, some people lack the skill or aren't as good at it - just like any skill. But you absolutely can teach and develop critical thinking abilities. But what I disagree with more is your characterization of the extreme left being book smart/sans critical thinking. It's actually the far right who are less adept at critical thinking, aren't able to/unwilling to appreciate different experiences and viewpoints. The far left folks may all agree and parrot each other trying to out-left each other; but their positions (mostly) incorporate the understanding that one size does not fit all and different people have different beliefs and needs. They don't all agree with each other because they can't think for themselves. They agree because they have developed the critical thinking skills, empathy, compassion, and tolerance for others (mostly). Furthermore, it's the conservative sheep (those people used to call rednecks and such) who lack both book smarts and critical thinking skills. If they valued education more, they'd probably have better critical thinking abilities and be more likely to think for themselves before coming to their same shared conclusions.

Nope there are so many people on the left that regurgitate the NYT, NPR or pod save America. One example white liberals think racisim is worse than actually it is and think its a bigger problem that actual minority populations. It's worse because they are educated but they still lack critical thinking skills.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

Yes, I am aware of the twisted narrative.

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

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

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

That's a lot to unpack.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New poster here.

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

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

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

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

Strongly disagree. Yeah, some people lack the skill or aren't as good at it - just like any skill. But you absolutely can teach and develop critical thinking abilities. But what I disagree with more is your characterization of the extreme left being book smart/sans critical thinking. It's actually the far right who are less adept at critical thinking, aren't able to/unwilling to appreciate different experiences and viewpoints. The far left folks may all agree and parrot each other trying to out-left each other; but their positions (mostly) incorporate the understanding that one size does not fit all and different people have different beliefs and needs. They don't all agree with each other because they can't think for themselves. They agree because they have developed the critical thinking skills, empathy, compassion, and tolerance for others (mostly). Furthermore, it's the conservative sheep (those people used to call rednecks and such) who lack both book smarts and critical thinking skills. If they valued education more, they'd probably have better critical thinking abilities and be more likely to think for themselves before coming to their same shared conclusions.

Nope there are so many people on the left that regurgitate the NYT, NPR or pod save America. One example white liberals think racisim is worse than actually it is and think its a bigger problem that actual minority populations. It's worse because they are educated but they still lack critical thinking skills.

This isn’t actually a thing. ^^^^

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

Yes, I am aware of the twisted narrative.

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

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

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

That's a lot to unpack.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes. 2 in HS.

DP.

So, “liberal indoctrination” means teaching kids “how to be citizens” and “basic society skills like empathy, equity, tolerance, etc.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

Yes, I am aware of the twisted narrative.

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

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

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

That's a lot to unpack.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes. 2 in HS.

DP.

So, “liberal indoctrination” means teaching kids “how to be citizens” and “basic society skills like empathy, equity, tolerance, etc.”

I mean, to the histrionic idiots who think Tucker Carlson is a truth teller, I suppose they think this. The rest of us understand this is just basic education and no different than any time else in history.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not exactly relevant. Nevertheless, are you suggesting that if you're poor and of color you should be encouraged/directed/guided into trade training rather than a 4-year college degree? That's precisely what these republicans want to do, thus maintaining the racial and socioeconomic divides. Many non-white and non-rich folks have become very successful with the broader education these white men are hypocritically disparaging. It's harder for some than for others. That's life.

Please provide a citation for anyone stating that people of color should go to trade school while white people should go to college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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


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

Typical liberal liar

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

I would hardly say that Georgetown Prep is "woke." There's a huge douchebag quotient there. You should see the way they players and spectators act at sporting events. They're destructive and rude. Such an embarrassment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

When you can shell out $40k/year per kid...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

Yes, I am aware of the twisted narrative.

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

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

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

That's a lot to unpack.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes. 2 in HS.

DP.

So, “liberal indoctrination” means teaching kids “how to be citizens” and “basic society skills like empathy, equity, tolerance, etc.”

Liberal indoctrination would mean failing to teach kids about the branches of government under the Constitution and their respective roles, or about individual rights, and instead lambasting the United States as a "settler colonialist" society whose defining characteristic is racism and that can only be salvaged through future discrimination in favor of "oppressed" races and classes.

"Equity" is not a "basic society skill," so much as a political agenda. Equality under the law, on the other hand, is a fundamental right.