GDS HS English Classes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:GDS is a college-prepatory school. Believe it or not, courses like these help to prepare GDS students to succeed in college. Unlike their peers are less progressive schools, GDS students won't be shell shocked by these perspectives and cutting-edge scholarship, as well as the highly interdisciplinary nature of the humanities and social sciences, when they start college. As someone who went to a very traditional high school, and then went to a top SLAC for college, I was in over my head compared to classmates who had the kind of HS curriculum that GDS is offering.

“Cutting edge ‘scholarship’s?

That’s what you’re calling one-sided political content and agendas now?

Good grief. No wonder everyone’s applying to colleges in the UK and Canada.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parent here. Have been mostly happy w GDS HS english and related faculty.

This fall, one of the HS grades as started out by studying the following topics:

Queer Studies, CRT, Marxist Theory, Intersectionality, Structuralism Theory

Serious old person question - why are these taught in ENGLISH rather than in a special elective class? Isn't english for the study of literature. I get it - literature is a window into humanity....but really? I also get it - it's GDS but this is a core class all students must take.

And there was even an op-ed in student paper last week from a student very unhappy with the single-minded bias faculty show and the lack of oxygen they provide for dissenting views.

OP here. Yes that’s junior English and it’s still taught like that. I’m talking about the new senior English in which CRT and intersectionality are the lenses through which literature will be analyzed. This is new since last year.



I went to GDS. This sounds like the 11th grade English course that I took (albeit, this was many years ago), so no, not OP is a troll. That class was very focused on rhetoric and argument in addition to the study of various critical lenses through which literature can be examined. I remember once I had to do a paper that involved taking two of the aforementioned critical lenses and close reading a short story or essay, the goal being that different critical frameworks yield different analyses and interpretations (so, not at all the 'indoctrination', but an encouragement of different thinking). And for the people griping that English needs to focus on the "classics" this same English 11 course started with Greek rhetorical appeals (ethos, logos, pathos) and Aristotle's poetics.


The only reasonable critique of teaching these things that I can fathom is that they're boring and maybe a bit advanced for some students (and I take issue with that claim, personally). English, especially a class which is focused on rhetoric and argument, is absolutely the place to learn about, well, different approaches to reading a text. And I don't remember that DD was taught that one of these approaches is more right than another -- it's simply useful and important to know they exist.

I found this class to be challenging, but it did make me a better writer and I still use what I learned today, as an adult.

So, OP, you're really just talking about one part of one senior English class? Just trying to stir up trouble, aren't you?

My DC found the GDS English teachers to be phenomenal, and he was much better prepared than my public school kids for the writing challenges of college. These are all various lenses through which literature can be analyzed, and what is the problem with your kid learning about them in high school - doesn't that make them better prepared for college?

OP here. I'm not trying to stir things up. I find using these frames to teach literature to be complete garbage for a required curriculum course. If you make it an elective, fine. But the class is mandatory for all high school seniors and they are saying these are the frames they will read texts with.

The problem is that the regressive element of GDS refuses to allow any viewpoint but theirs. the english faculty is ground zero for this stuff. I'm all for making optional electives but to mandate this as required curriculum is a complete turn off some kids like mine. And they feel entirely powerless to say a damn thing given the culture of the school.

I've voted liberal my entire life. I actively chose GDS for my kid because of its values. A decade ago it was exactly my speed. Even 5 years ago. But these last 3 years, GDS has gone extreme. It has.

It's talked about in whispers by many parents. And yet they are all afraid to mention to faculty or to Russell. When one family tried, they were shutdown. I know that for a fact. It's even talked about by some of the older faculty who grumble about it. Some left the school and privately have cited the inability to disagree w/ peers on political views as their number 1 reason to go to other local private schools. that's a wild change from a decade or even 5 years ago at GDS.

I'm not making this up.

The issue here is that there will be a backlash to this. In some of these kids. This environment is and will push more kids to becoming conservatives. Nothing wrong with that but the school refuses to see downstream consequences. In fact, there was a recent episode of a Vice news program on Showtime just on this backlash from kids in liberal families who went to liberal high schools now opting to become new conservatives - https://www.sho.com/vice/season/3/episode/16/isis-jailbreak-and-right-wing-stars

GDS is just a reflection of the T30 colleges that they aspire to send kids to, I suppose. Except in college, kids can choose electives for topics and frameworks like this. GDS is saying these frameworks are required learning for core curriculum in senior level HS english required class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GDS is a college-prepatory school. Believe it or not, courses like these help to prepare GDS students to succeed in college. Unlike their peers are less progressive schools, GDS students won't be shell shocked by these perspectives and cutting-edge scholarship, as well as the highly interdisciplinary nature of the humanities and social sciences, when they start college. As someone who went to a very traditional high school, and then went to a top SLAC for college, I was in over my head compared to classmates who had the kind of HS curriculum that GDS is offering.

“Cutting edge ‘scholarship’s?

That’s what you’re calling one-sided political content and agendas now?

Good grief. No wonder everyone’s applying to colleges in the UK and Canada.

You are exactly right. I've heard that this year at GDS there is a record level of interest in OUS colleges/Universities. None of this BS there, I sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:one-sided political content and agendas

LOL, "one-sided." Why do you think these theories developed in the first place?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:one-sided political content and agendas

LOL, "one-sided." Why do you think these theories developed in the first place?

Victimization and no personal agency? Good question, what does that accomplish? There misguided theories and should not be annual and daily mantra in a k-13 school.

[Anonymous]

It's pretty obvious you have no clue about the history of how these theories developed. Most likely because you never took a class that covered them in any way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:one-sided political content and agendas

LOL, "one-sided." Why do you think these theories developed in the first place?

Political morals vacuum
Far left and Far right getting all news /social media time
Power
Money
Indoctrination

Same as it ever was… power and greed

[Anonymous]

Aka Human Nature!

Colleges and now k-12 are the perfect Trojan horse conduit!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's pretty obvious you have no clue about the history of how these theories developed. Most likely because you never took a class that covered them in any way.

I’ve seen and heard Kendi, including at GDS last year talk. He’s slick and talks over any questions or concerns or counter points to his theories.

They are theories. Not historic facts. His 24/7 lens and personal viewpoint of why anything happened. And it’s making him very wealthy.

[Anonymous]

Yikes, one person's viewpoints do not make an academic theory. Are you this dense?

[Anonymous]

I'm sorry but thinking that learning about *structuralism* is somehow "left-wing indoctrination" is nuts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They are primed for the woke elite universities.

I'm liberal and accepting, but there is a time and place. English should be focused on the Classic works. A little new sprinkled in here and there, but holy crap none of that belongs in English class.

Oh please you are not liberal or educated.

"woke" tells us that.

[Anonymous]

Oh look the trolls are out

Same people that voted for Youngkin's CRT lies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh look the trolls are out

Same people that voted for Youngkin's CRT lies.

OP here This comment is why we can't discuss this. Immediate saying that everyone mentioning the issue is a Youngkin supporter. Come on. I despise Glenn. He's an opportunist who poll tested this shit for 12 mos. He doesnt at all believe any of this and sent his own kids to private schools. He's not my flavor.

Your comment is the precise problem - there is zero room for 15 to 18 year olds at GDS to even discuss these frameworks without folks saying that those mentioning that these theories don't belong in a classroom arent fascists or proto-fascists.

Kid was telling me yesterday that in one class some kid spent 5 min of a class where topic was the historical analysis of rise of Nazis discussing why Trump is a Nazi and as dangerous as Hitler was.. I despise Trump. He's a lunatic and dangerous. He's not Hitler.

Why does every argument get extreme-ized?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's pretty obvious you have no clue about the history of how these theories developed. Most likely because you never took a class that covered them in any way.

I’ve seen and heard Kendi, including at GDS last year talk. He’s slick and talks over any questions or concerns or counter points to his theories.

They are theories. Not historic facts. His 24/7 lens and personal viewpoint of why anything happened. And it’s making him very wealthy.

+1. He's a master grifter.