Loudoun School Board meeting

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The teaching module is here:
https://equitablemath.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/11/1_STRIDE1.pdf

Page 56 for February lessons says "White supremacy culture shows up in the classroom when students are required to show their work." For April, it says that, "Upholding the idea that there are always right and wrong answers perpetuate objectivity as well as fear of open conflict." Teachers are encouraged to "center ethnomathematics" to " identify and challenge the ways that math is used to uphold capitalist, imperialist, and racist views." (p. 10).

No, a quick review of what you just sent says the teacher should reflect on why they are asking to show their work in "standardized prescribed ways" not that students shouldn't show their work. It is well-documented that there are multiple correct ways to solve math problem and different cultural traditions emphasize different approaches. A lot of Culturally Responsive Teaching asks teachers to reflect on whether the way they were taught to solve a math problem represents the "correct" way or just "one" way--and if the latter, to allow students to show different ways of approaching the problem. My MS is in applied math and I wholeheartedly support this.

How is this white supremacy?

The actual quote is "White supremacy culture shows up in the classroom when students are required to show their work in standard prescribed ways." I would guess the basis behind it is that insisting on one standard, prescribed way to get to an answer is rooted in the dominant culture's tradition, which in the US has traditionally been white culture--openness to varied ways demonstrates that there are multiple appropriate ways to solve a problem--so not saying that the dominant culture's way is correct. I think the wording is a bit more heavy-handed than I would lean, but the sentiment is sensible to me.
(For me, this is especially so since dominant US traditional ways of teaching math are sub-par to many other countries' approaches--but that's another argument!)

Wouldn’t you acknowledge that this is a CRT critique of math pedagogy?

It could be. But this would not be an indication that kids are being "taught CRT" in K-12 education. Rather it is a program for teachers (who go to graduate school!)where they are being asked to reflect on how systemic racism may influence their teaching. Teachers then in K-12 make decisions based on this reflection on things like whether to require "standardized and prescribed ways" of students' showing their work or to allow varied ways of showing their work on math problems. Looking through the resource PP (not sure if it's you) shared, the outcome of all of this was teacher reflection on their experiences--not prescribed curriculum.

Do you think teachers should not reflect on how systemic racism might be embedded in schools and traditional curricular practices? The racist history of US schooling is pretty well-documented--that's not something that got eradicated with Brown vs. Board of Education. Do you think teachers who teach diverse communities should not think about how whether/how their current ways of teaching connect with those from different cultural backgrounds? Do you believe there's one "right" way to teach math? I'm not a teacher, but I have volunteered as a math tutor for GED programs and this resource actually would have been really valuable to me as I tried to connect to and build on students' diverse math knowledge--adult students who had really inventive ways of figuring out sports stats, money, deals etc. but needed help translating that into the often rigid formats presented and required by the GED (some of which made no sense to me as someone with a graduate degree in math, but who completed my high school math education outside of the US--further supporting that math is cultural!).

Well, that’s a little slippery isn’t it? If kids are being taught concepts such as “systemic racism,” “white supremacy culture,” “white privilege,” etc., it seems fair to me that they are being “taught” CRT even though they aren’t reading the primary CRT literature. Lol. But we can agree to use a different formulation in this discussion if you prefer.

A lot of the discussion about CRT is a bait and switch from my perspective, because people are cagey about what things like “systemic racism” and “white supremacy” really mean. I think everyone would agree that there was systemic racism in the Jim Crow south, but that’s not what we’re talking about at the moment in Loudoun, I hope you’d agree with at least that. So whether there is indeed “systemic racism” going on in Loudoun County schools—and more importantly, who gets to decide—is precisely the issue here. Your language misleads here, the issue is not whether “systemic racism might be embedded in schools,” the only way I’ve ever heard of these concepts being presented is that systemic racism IS embedded in schools and if you disagree its not whether you “might” be right — it is that anyone who disagrees is showing white fragility at best and is actively racist at worst. In any event, that issue is too important to leave to the voters or the parents. Some parents disagree, of course, which is what we are seeing here.

If we're going with the math pedagogy example here, K-12 kids aren't being taught systemic racism, white supremacy culture etc. TEACHERS who study this are thinking about whether their practices reflect it and then adjust their practices. What kids are taught then is: "there's a lot of correct ways to solve a math problem" and "Use examples from your lives where you use math" rather than a canned word problem.

And in that scenario, if there were measurable differences in performance across racial groups, whatever pedagogy is being used is “systemically racist” by definition and must be changed, correct?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The teaching module is here:
https://equitablemath.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/11/1_STRIDE1.pdf

Page 56 for February lessons says "White supremacy culture shows up in the classroom when students are required to show their work." For April, it says that, "Upholding the idea that there are always right and wrong answers perpetuate objectivity as well as fear of open conflict." Teachers are encouraged to "center ethnomathematics" to " identify and challenge the ways that math is used to uphold capitalist, imperialist, and racist views." (p. 10).

No, a quick review of what you just sent says the teacher should reflect on why they are asking to show their work in "standardized prescribed ways" not that students shouldn't show their work. It is well-documented that there are multiple correct ways to solve math problem and different cultural traditions emphasize different approaches. A lot of Culturally Responsive Teaching asks teachers to reflect on whether the way they were taught to solve a math problem represents the "correct" way or just "one" way--and if the latter, to allow students to show different ways of approaching the problem. My MS is in applied math and I wholeheartedly support this.

How is this white supremacy?

The actual quote is "White supremacy culture shows up in the classroom when students are required to show their work in standard prescribed ways." I would guess the basis behind it is that insisting on one standard, prescribed way to get to an answer is rooted in the dominant culture's tradition, which in the US has traditionally been white culture--openness to varied ways demonstrates that there are multiple appropriate ways to solve a problem--so not saying that the dominant culture's way is correct. I think the wording is a bit more heavy-handed than I would lean, but the sentiment is sensible to me.
(For me, this is especially so since dominant US traditional ways of teaching math are sub-par to many other countries' approaches--but that's another argument!)

Wouldn’t you acknowledge that this is a CRT critique of math pedagogy?

It could be. But this would not be an indication that kids are being "taught CRT" in K-12 education. Rather it is a program for teachers (who go to graduate school!)where they are being asked to reflect on how systemic racism may influence their teaching. Teachers then in K-12 make decisions based on this reflection on things like whether to require "standardized and prescribed ways" of students' showing their work or to allow varied ways of showing their work on math problems. Looking through the resource PP (not sure if it's you) shared, the outcome of all of this was teacher reflection on their experiences--not prescribed curriculum.

Do you think teachers should not reflect on how systemic racism might be embedded in schools and traditional curricular practices? The racist history of US schooling is pretty well-documented--that's not something that got eradicated with Brown vs. Board of Education. Do you think teachers who teach diverse communities should not think about how whether/how their current ways of teaching connect with those from different cultural backgrounds? Do you believe there's one "right" way to teach math? I'm not a teacher, but I have volunteered as a math tutor for GED programs and this resource actually would have been really valuable to me as I tried to connect to and build on students' diverse math knowledge--adult students who had really inventive ways of figuring out sports stats, money, deals etc. but needed help translating that into the often rigid formats presented and required by the GED (some of which made no sense to me as someone with a graduate degree in math, but who completed my high school math education outside of the US--further supporting that math is cultural!).

Well, that’s a little slippery isn’t it? If kids are being taught concepts such as “systemic racism,” “white supremacy culture,” “white privilege,” etc., it seems fair to me that they are being “taught” CRT even though they aren’t reading the primary CRT literature. Lol. But we can agree to use a different formulation in this discussion if you prefer.

A lot of the discussion about CRT is a bait and switch from my perspective, because people are cagey about what things like “systemic racism” and “white supremacy” really mean. I think everyone would agree that there was systemic racism in the Jim Crow south, but that’s not what we’re talking about at the moment in Loudoun, I hope you’d agree with at least that. So whether there is indeed “systemic racism” going on in Loudoun County schools—and more importantly, who gets to decide—is precisely the issue here. Your language misleads here, the issue is not whether “systemic racism might be embedded in schools,” the only way I’ve ever heard of these concepts being presented is that systemic racism IS embedded in schools and if you disagree its not whether you “might” be right — it is that anyone who disagrees is showing white fragility at best and is actively racist at worst. In any event, that issue is too important to leave to the voters or the parents. Some parents disagree, of course, which is what we are seeing here.

If we're going with the math pedagogy example here, K-12 kids aren't being taught systemic racism, white supremacy culture etc. TEACHERS who study this are thinking about whether their practices reflect it and then adjust their practices. What kids are taught then is: "there's a lot of correct ways to solve a math problem" and "Use examples from your lives where you use math" rather than a canned word problem.

And in that scenario, if there were measurable differences in performance across racial groups, whatever pedagogy is being used is “systemically racist” by definition and must be changed, correct?

No, measurable differences in performance are due to a complex series of factors rooted in many different spheres of life. Teachers are just asked to reflect on ways that their pedagogy might be exacerbating the problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So much of this thread is just people defending LCPS by pleading the alternative, that

1) they aren't teaching this stuff, people are overreacting, but also
2) so what if they did? would it be so bad? I think people who disagree with it are just dumb bigots.

It can't be both folks.

It’s ALWAYS both. “That will never happen and when it does you bigots will deserve it” is the standard argument here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The last gasp of privileged mostly white parents, apparently, as they feel their grip on power and privilege eroding.

Just stop. Those speaking out are from all races..... not "privileged mostly white."
It has nothing to do with their "grip on power."
It has everything to do with the crap their children are being taught.

which part of crt is "crap"? What exactly about crt is so off putting?

-DP

DP - race essentialism is off putting.

Different DP:

To be more direct, CRT teaches children to hate each other based on their skin color.

Should we ignore this country's racist past, and not each our kids about things like the Chinese Exclusion Acts, Japanese American Internment camps, segregation and redlining?

My kids (not white) have learned all this, but it doesn't make them hate white people. They recognize that their white friends aren't the ones who developed those systemic racist policies.

It's like saying we shouldn't teach American children about Pearl Harbor in case that makes them all hate Japanese people.

I was taught about all of those things 30 years ago. I wasn't taught enough about Reconstruction or the ways in which white Southerners used terrorism to re-subjugate black people after Reconstruction. But I don't think teaching about these things has too many people in an uproar. It's more the idea that existing as a white person in a country with institutions rooted in a past that included these events necessarily makes the person racist if he or she is not actively trying to alter these institutions.

Of course you were. I was taught these things in high school also, 20 years ago. They're using a motte-and-bailey argument.

1) Open with the bailey: "all institutions which are not explicitly antiracist are participating in white supremacist culture, and all people by virtue of their skin color are either oppressor or oppressed. If you disagree you are a racist who should be shouted down."
2) People object.
3) Retreat to the motte: "All I'm saying is people should learn about Jim Crow!"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The last gasp of privileged mostly white parents, apparently, as they feel their grip on power and privilege eroding.

Just stop. Those speaking out are from all races..... not "privileged mostly white."
It has nothing to do with their "grip on power."
It has everything to do with the crap their children are being taught.

which part of crt is "crap"? What exactly about crt is so off putting?

-DP

DP - race essentialism is off putting.

Different DP:

To be more direct, CRT teaches children to hate each other based on their skin color.

Should we ignore this country's racist past, and not each our kids about things like the Chinese Exclusion Acts, Japanese American Internment camps, segregation and redlining?

My kids (not white) have learned all this, but it doesn't make them hate white people. They recognize that their white friends aren't the ones who developed those systemic racist policies.

It's like saying we shouldn't teach American children about Pearl Harbor in case that makes them all hate Japanese people.

I was taught about all of those things 30 years ago. I wasn't taught enough about Reconstruction or the ways in which white Southerners used terrorism to re-subjugate black people after Reconstruction. But I don't think teaching about these things has too many people in an uproar. It's more the idea that existing as a white person in a country with institutions rooted in a past that included these events necessarily makes the person racist if he or she is not actively trying to alter these institutions.

Of course you were. I was taught these things in high school also, 20 years ago. They're using a motte-and-bailey argument.

1) Open with the bailey: "all institutions which are not explicitly antiracist are participating in white supremacist culture, and all people by virtue of their skin color are either oppressor or oppressed. If you disagree you are a racist who should be shouted down."
2) People object.
3) Retreat to the motte: "All I'm saying is people should learn about Jim Crow!"

Do you believe that institutions that have a documented history of racist practices are likely to be racist unless they are explicitly striving to be anti-racist?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The last gasp of privileged mostly white parents, apparently, as they feel their grip on power and privilege eroding.

Just stop. Those speaking out are from all races..... not "privileged mostly white."
It has nothing to do with their "grip on power."
It has everything to do with the crap their children are being taught.

which part of crt is "crap"? What exactly about crt is so off putting?

-DP

DP - race essentialism is off putting.

Different DP:

To be more direct, CRT teaches children to hate each other based on their skin color.

Should we ignore this country's racist past, and not each our kids about things like the Chinese Exclusion Acts, Japanese American Internment camps, segregation and redlining?

My kids (not white) have learned all this, but it doesn't make them hate white people. They recognize that their white friends aren't the ones who developed those systemic racist policies.

It's like saying we shouldn't teach American children about Pearl Harbor in case that makes them all hate Japanese people.

I was taught about all of those things 30 years ago. I wasn't taught enough about Reconstruction or the ways in which white Southerners used terrorism to re-subjugate black people after Reconstruction. But I don't think teaching about these things has too many people in an uproar. It's more the idea that existing as a white person in a country with institutions rooted in a past that included these events necessarily makes the person racist if he or she is not actively trying to alter these institutions.

Of course you were. I was taught these things in high school also, 20 years ago. They're using a motte-and-bailey argument.

1) Open with the bailey: "all institutions which are not explicitly antiracist are participating in white supremacist culture, and all people by virtue of their skin color are either oppressor or oppressed. If you disagree you are a racist who should be shouted down."
2) People object.
3) Retreat to the motte: "All I'm saying is people should learn about Jim Crow!"

Do you believe that institutions that have a documented history of racist practices are likely to be racist unless they are explicitly striving to be anti-racist?

NP. Nope. Because I don't accept your definition of "racist" or "anti-racist."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

1) Open with the bailey: "all institutions which are not explicitly antiracist are participating in white supremacist culture, and all people by virtue of their skin color are either oppressor or oppressed. If you disagree you are a racist who should be shouted down."
2) People object.
3) Retreat to the motte: "All I'm saying is people should learn about Jim Crow!"

This made me LOL. It encapsulates a back & forth that I've definitely seen.

[Anonymous]

The KKK was at the school board meeting in Loudoun. I didn’t know

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The last gasp of privileged mostly white parents, apparently, as they feel their grip on power and privilege eroding.

Just stop. Those speaking out are from all races..... not "privileged mostly white."
It has nothing to do with their "grip on power."
It has everything to do with the crap their children are being taught.

which part of crt is "crap"? What exactly about crt is so off putting?

-DP

DP - race essentialism is off putting.

Different DP:

To be more direct, CRT teaches children to hate each other based on their skin color.

Should we ignore this country's racist past, and not each our kids about things like the Chinese Exclusion Acts, Japanese American Internment camps, segregation and redlining?

My kids (not white) have learned all this, but it doesn't make them hate white people. They recognize that their white friends aren't the ones who developed those systemic racist policies.

It's like saying we shouldn't teach American children about Pearl Harbor in case that makes them all hate Japanese people.

I was taught about all of those things 30 years ago. I wasn't taught enough about Reconstruction or the ways in which white Southerners used terrorism to re-subjugate black people after Reconstruction. But I don't think teaching about these things has too many people in an uproar. It's more the idea that existing as a white person in a country with institutions rooted in a past that included these events necessarily makes the person racist if he or she is not actively trying to alter these institutions.

Of course you were. I was taught these things in high school also, 20 years ago. They're using a motte-and-bailey argument.

1) Open with the bailey: "all institutions which are not explicitly antiracist are participating in white supremacist culture, and all people by virtue of their skin color are either oppressor or oppressed. If you disagree you are a racist who should be shouted down."
2) People object.
3) Retreat to the motte: "All I'm saying is people should learn about Jim Crow!"

Do you believe that institutions that have a documented history of racist practices are likely to be racist unless they are explicitly striving to be anti-racist?

NP. Nope. Because I don't accept your definition of "racist" or "anti-racist."

Ok, if studies showed that school systems in the US were more likely to punish black kids and give more serious punishments than white kids for the same offenses, would you consider that to be evidence of systemic racism in our educational system?

If studies of employment hiring agencies/housing authorities etc. are shown to rate the exact same application lower if the name on the resume is black or hispanic sounding versus white sounding, would you consider that to be evidence of systemic racism in employment and housing practices?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The KKK was at the school board meeting in Loudoun. I didn’t know

Really? Or are you just guessing, given the arguments?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

1) Open with the bailey: "all institutions which are not explicitly antiracist are participating in white supremacist culture, and all people by virtue of their skin color are either oppressor or oppressed. If you disagree you are a racist who should be shouted down."
2) People object.
3) Retreat to the motte: "All I'm saying is people should learn about Jim Crow!"

This made me LOL. It encapsulates a back & forth that I've definitely seen.

+1

It is like DCUM on a daily basis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The KKK was at the school board meeting in Loudoun. I didn’t know

No, they just mentioned the fliers that were found in Fairfax County.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The last gasp of privileged mostly white parents, apparently, as they feel their grip on power and privilege eroding.

Just stop. Those speaking out are from all races..... not "privileged mostly white."
It has nothing to do with their "grip on power."
It has everything to do with the crap their children are being taught.

which part of crt is "crap"? What exactly about crt is so off putting?

-DP

DP - race essentialism is off putting.

Different DP:

To be more direct, CRT teaches children to hate each other based on their skin color.

Should we ignore this country's racist past, and not each our kids about things like the Chinese Exclusion Acts, Japanese American Internment camps, segregation and redlining?

My kids (not white) have learned all this, but it doesn't make them hate white people. They recognize that their white friends aren't the ones who developed those systemic racist policies.

It's like saying we shouldn't teach American children about Pearl Harbor in case that makes them all hate Japanese people.

I was taught about all of those things 30 years ago. I wasn't taught enough about Reconstruction or the ways in which white Southerners used terrorism to re-subjugate black people after Reconstruction. But I don't think teaching about these things has too many people in an uproar. It's more the idea that existing as a white person in a country with institutions rooted in a past that included these events necessarily makes the person racist if he or she is not actively trying to alter these institutions.

Of course you were. I was taught these things in high school also, 20 years ago. They're using a motte-and-bailey argument.

1) Open with the bailey: "all institutions which are not explicitly antiracist are participating in white supremacist culture, and all people by virtue of their skin color are either oppressor or oppressed. If you disagree you are a racist who should be shouted down."
2) People object.
3) Retreat to the motte: "All I'm saying is people should learn about Jim Crow!"

Do you believe that institutions that have a documented history of racist practices are likely to be racist unless they are explicitly striving to be anti-racist?

NP. Nope. Because I don't accept your definition of "racist" or "anti-racist."

Ok, if studies showed that school systems in the US were more likely to punish black kids and give more serious punishments than white kids for the same offenses, would you consider that to be evidence of systemic racism in our educational system?

If studies of employment hiring agencies/housing authorities etc. are shown to rate the exact same application lower if the name on the resume is black or hispanic sounding versus white sounding, would you consider that to be evidence of systemic racism in employment and housing practices?

DP. I have seen the studies the show that, yes. That doesn't mean that the curriculum needs to change. That's apples and oranges.

The result, btw, is that schools variously come down harder on white students and/or treat brown and black students with kid gloves and look the other way. Since these responses could be considered anti-racist, maybe this is appropriate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not just the school board. Principals are getting phone calls from people who don't even live in the state, over critical race theory. Which they don't teach. Because a bunch of crazies have watched Faux News and think that CRT is a thing in Loudoun. (spoiler: it isn't.)

Then if it's not CRT, why are both sides so upset? I think you're wrong.

The Right is upset because the usual suspects are whipping them into a frenzy. “The evil socialist government school wants to make your kids anti-white and turn them trans unless you keep watching my show!”

The non-right is upset because they’re tired of dealing with the above.

x1 million

We are tired of your sh1t, MAGA trash.

Go home. Sit TF down. We are still cleaning up your mess from your POS POTUS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

1) Open with the bailey: "all institutions which are not explicitly antiracist are participating in white supremacist culture, and all people by virtue of their skin color are either oppressor or oppressed. If you disagree you are a racist who should be shouted down."
2) People object.
3) Retreat to the motte: "All I'm saying is people should learn about Jim Crow!"

This made me LOL. It encapsulates a back & forth that I've definitely seen.

Is that what is called gaslighting?