Purpose of 2nd grade segregation chat..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm don't understand why our school is telling DS that If it wasn't for MLK he wouldn't be able to play with some of his classmates. Isn't this topic a little too deep for that age not to mention not being true...

I'm quoting the original post because I think people have been making some rather large assumptions about the level of "personalization" that occurred during this discussion.

I think that a teacher could say, if schools hadn't been desegregated, you all would have been in separate schools, or would not have been able to eat lunch together. That's not calling out the hypothetical "Susie" that people started using as an example. That's also not making Susie a victim now.

What it might do is make "Sally" (let's say she's white) hear her teacher, and then make the logical conclusion. "Hey, that's means I wouldn't be able to eat with my friend Susie.

It's really hard for people sometimes to get engaged in the idea of injustice when it is in the abstract. In the last few years, we've seen countless examples of right-wing politicians adjusting their beliefs on gay marriage. Why? Because they have a friend or family member that is gay.

Of course educators need to be age-appropriate, but everyone arguing against making this "personal" is wrong. Making it "personal" it often the only thing that's going to make people care.

We had an experience when a teacher began talking about Germany/Hitler/WWII in class. She basically mentioned that Hitler was only favorable toward blond/blue eyed/gentile people. Interestingly, my son attends a very diverse school and was the only child in class who fit that description. He said everyone in class turned to look at him. At first, I was put out, but it evolved into a lesson on empathy. We spent some time at home talking about the war, and how some adults did (and still do) hold a ridiculous idea that they are better than other people because of race, religion, ethnicity, etc. DS understood first hand, if only for awhile, what it was like to be on the outside. We talk about that uncomfortable, bad feeling sometimes and how we would never make someone else feel that way.
No, I don't think the teacher meant to make my son feel bad and she certainly had difficulty communicating with young students on a difficult topic. It didn't turn out to be a terrible thing- by "personalizing" it (even unintentionally) she made it very real for my DS. He does know what racism is and is growing to be compassionate and aware.

[Anonymous]

My DS is in Kindergarten.
We talked about how there was a time when he would not have been able to play with some of his friends. In fact we told him it was likely he would not even know those friends b/c they would be in different schools.

We talked about how that would make him feel and how it didn't make sense. It was a deep conversation but we tried to make it age appropriate a possible. Apparently he learned about Rosa Parks in school, (who he confused with Betsy Ross .

Almost any topic can be discussed with kids as long as you keep it age appropriate. For example as parents our birds and bees conversations evolve as our kids get older. What I tell me 6 year old about where babies come from is not at all on the same level as we will discuss in 6 years and then again in maybe another 6 years.

[Anonymous]

This was in K as well. I found myself really bothered by it. We are a multiracial family (not only immediate but our extended family as well) and originally from a major city --diversity is par for the course. To teach my child that a black family would not have been welcome in the neighborhood 50 years ago (a book they read) is completely incompatible with our ideals. Young children don't see race as adults do and our far too young to grasp that kind of history. I feel this curriculum created a problem rather than solved one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are trying to make kids aware of race. And they are trying to teach kids to notice diversity. They want the kids to respect the diversity of the school and classroom and their neighborhoods.

Why should they be aware of race? Why can't they come to their own terms about traits they see in peers without it being forced on them. I don't think it's about diversity as the many cultural events at school highlights the customs of the student population. The way I see it, it appears that now DC is thinking of other kids differently than before when this would've never occurred to DC and not in a positive way.

DC did say the teacher specially said the part about not being able to play with others which again is not really true.

I agree with this. The schools focus so much on race that they are essentially teaching our kids to view people by the color of their skin. Before school, my kids did not point out people by race. Plus school only focus on AA and white and not the complexity of the human racial makeup. The other day my 5 year old pointed out a person and mater of factly said "he's AA"...the gentleman happened to be from India. He was taught that dark skin is AA but the school forgot to point out that other racial groups have dark skin too.

We are a multicultural family and focus on culture and what makes "people" a joy to be around. One can do this and teach the evolution of human physical characteristics with out pin pointing. The school has good intentions but they are teaching our kids to notice race when in fact most kids don't care what a person looks like.

I agree with this poster. When we came to this country we were coming from an international school in Europe that had Indians, Africans, Koreans, Chinese, us, and students from many European countries. We arrived in DC when my kids were 4 and 6. They would describe their classmates as "peach skinned", "brown-skinned", "light brown skinned", "red haired", etc.

Fast forward 3 years later and they only say black and white.

They were shocked when they first heard that there was a time when people were separated by "white" and "black", and it has changed their outlook, and I don't think it's in a good way either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This was in K as well. I found myself really bothered by it. We are a multiracial family (not only immediate but our extended family as well) and originally from a major city --diversity is par for the course. To teach my child that a black family would not have been welcome in the neighborhood 50 years ago (a book they read) is completely incompatible with our ideals. Young children don't see race as adults do and our far too young to grasp that kind of history. I feel this curriculum created a problem rather than solved one.

I completely agree with you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are trying to make kids aware of race. And they are trying to teach kids to notice diversity. They want the kids to respect the diversity of the school and classroom and their neighborhoods.

Why should they be aware of race? Why can't they come to their own terms about traits they see in peers without it being forced on them. I don't think it's about diversity as the many cultural events at school highlights the customs of the student population. The way I see it, it appears that now DC is thinking of other kids differently than before when this would've never occurred to DC and not in a positive way.

DC did say the teacher specially said the part about not being able to play with others which again is not really true.

I agree with this. The schools focus so much on race that they are essentially teaching our kids to view people by the color of their skin. Before school, my kids did not point out people by race. Plus school only focus on AA and white and not the complexity of the human racial makeup. The other day my 5 year old pointed out a person and mater of factly said "he's AA"...the gentleman happened to be from India. He was taught that dark skin is AA but the school forgot to point out that other racial groups have dark skin too.

We are a multicultural family and focus on culture and what makes "people" a joy to be around. One can do this and teach the evolution of human physical characteristics with out pin pointing. The school has good intentions but they are teaching our kids to notice race when in fact most kids don't care what a person looks like.

I agree with this poster. When we came to this country we were coming from an international school in Europe that had Indians, Africans, Koreans, Chinese, us, and students from many European countries. We arrived in DC when my kids were 4 and 6. They would describe their classmates as "peach skinned", "brown-skinned", "light brown skinned", "red haired", etc.

Fast forward 3 years later and they only say black and white.

They were shocked when they first heard that there was a time when people were separated by "white" and "black", and it has changed their outlook, and I don't think it's in a good way either.

Sadly this happens. As a toddler we traveled abroad and I saw a lot of different people, maybe different skin colors wasn't a thing for me. Entering an American school in elementary, one of my first best friends was what the kid "with the really cool hair" - he had a big afro. His awesome hair was the only notable or different thing to me as a kid. Wasn't until later when another kid asked me about "the colored kid" and I had no idea what he was talking about... What, striped yellow and green? A kid with blue polkadots? Whaddyamean "colored?"

We start off so innocent, and get taught...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are trying to make kids aware of race. And they are trying to teach kids to notice diversity. They want the kids to respect the diversity of the school and classroom and their neighborhoods.

Why should they be aware of race? Why can't they come to their own terms about traits they see in peers without it being forced on them. I don't think it's about diversity as the many cultural events at school highlights the customs of the student population. The way I see it, it appears that now DC is thinking of other kids differently than before when this would've never occurred to DC and not in a positive way.

DC did say the teacher specially said the part about not being able to play with others which again is not really true.

I agree with this. The schools focus so much on race that they are essentially teaching our kids to view people by the color of their skin. Before school, my kids did not point out people by race. Plus school only focus on AA and white and not the complexity of the human racial makeup. The other day my 5 year old pointed out a person and mater of factly said "he's AA"...the gentleman happened to be from India. He was taught that dark skin is AA but the school forgot to point out that other racial groups have dark skin too.

We are a multicultural family and focus on culture and what makes "people" a joy to be around. One can do this and teach the evolution of human physical characteristics with out pin pointing. The school has good intentions but they are teaching our kids to notice race when in fact most kids don't care what a person looks like.

I agree with this poster. When we came to this country we were coming from an international school in Europe that had Indians, Africans, Koreans, Chinese, us, and students from many European countries. We arrived in DC when my kids were 4 and 6. They would describe their classmates as "peach skinned", "brown-skinned", "light brown skinned", "red haired", etc.

Fast forward 3 years later and they only say black and white.

They were shocked when they first heard that there was a time when people were separated by "white" and "black", and it has changed their outlook, and I don't think it's in a good way either.

Agree aswell. Coming to live in DC via Europe and California, we find a quite unhealthy and counterproductive emphasis on race and color in DC public schools (well, at least ours). And very myopic. Surely MLK is not the only important and positive historical figure to talk about. If we focus so much on black and white when they are kids, is it a surprise they pay attention to black and white when they grow up?

[Anonymous]

Surely MLK is not the only important and positive historical figure to talk about.

It appears to me that what started years ago as Black pride has turned into Black victim and white guilt. Those are not positive steps and will not help develop harmony.

No one alive in the US today was a slave--and fewer lived with Jim Crow than before. No one alive in the US owned a slave. It's time to move on. As long as people look at themselves as victims, it is going to be very hard to build strong relationships with other races.

That does not mean that we do not teach the kids about slavery and Jim Crow. They should know about them and certainly should appreciate the horrors of them. But, it should be taught as a positive step that we have moved so far beyond that.