Why does DCPS rank 49th in the country, behind poor states like Kentucky, Tennessee and WV?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was fairly shocked to see just how much time and resources at our majority minority school are devoted to “anti racism” curriculum. I mean, 90% of the kids are well below grade level. Shouldn’t every minute of every day be spent on math/reading? It’s bizarre.

My kids attend a DCPS Title 1 school and spend zero hours/time on anti-racism curriculum. You’re a troll.

NP. You are naive and obviously don’t know what your kid is learning. Anti-racism is definitely embedded in the curriculum, no doubt. Also as you get to higher grades in middle and high school, it tends to dominate.

You might be surprised to learn that anti-racism efforts are more robust in Ward 3 schools than anywhere else in the city. Yes, anti-racism is embedded in the curriculum, however it's not explicitly taught as a learning standard. While you might have learned 30 years ago the white supremacy perspective on slavery, current curriculum takes a more holistic approach without leaving out the voices and experiences of those who were enslaved. See how fast we can get to an anti-racism lesson without saying "Today's learning objective will be that all students will be able to define anti-racism." In many schools in Ward 3 Black History month is celebrated with much more effort than many other schools. Why do you suppose that might be?

Please tell me the "White Supremacist version of history" that was taught in DC.

Not "White Supremacist version of history" rather perspective on slavery, as an example. Any historical textbook that didn't include the perspective and/or experiences of an enslaved person, or Native American is by definition bias. Any lesson, for that matter. Consider Christopher Columbus in a more comprehensive historical context and the comparison of curriculum 50 years to those used in classroom nows. Find me a textbook from 1970 that is inclusive to all voices on the subject of Christopher Columbus and him finding America.

You'd have to go pretty far back to find a textbook that didn't include the perspective of slaves and indigenous people. It may not have been gotten its full share of coverage, but it was there.

I went to public elementary school in the Deep South in the 1970s, and I certainly learned that slavery was miserable for the slaves and that indigenous people were treated badly.

You obviously have no clue. I am not white and graduated HS in 2013, texts were still from a white perspective. Simply knowing slaves were miserable or the like is not critical nor in depth. Perspective taking is more than just ‘oh well that sounds bad’

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As others have noted, it is the wrong comparison. Compare cities to cities not to states.

As others have noted, even when you compare cities to cities, DC still has poor results.

This thing about comparable data not being available is a flimsy excuse.

What is being compared? Or is there a link?

When I look at NAEP results for cities, DC is in the middle of the pack for math and a bit higher for reading.

https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/profiles/districtprofile?chort=1&sub=MAT&sj=XQ&sfj=NL&st=MN&year=2022R3

You are interpreting the data wrong. DC is 6-10 points WORST than your baseline large city performance. Look at the shades of colors and what they stand for and how far off points wise from that.

Forgot to add, looking at 8th grade which is better representation than 4th

Thank you. I was looking at 4th.

NAEP Students at or Above Proficient for Large Cities:
- 4th Reading DC 7 out of 27
- 4th Math DC 11 out of 27
- 8th Reading 16 out of 27
- 8th Math 20 out of 27

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was fairly shocked to see just how much time and resources at our majority minority school are devoted to “anti racism” curriculum. I mean, 90% of the kids are well below grade level. Shouldn’t every minute of every day be spent on math/reading? It’s bizarre.

My kids attend a DCPS Title 1 school and spend zero hours/time on anti-racism curriculum. You’re a troll.

NP. You are naive and obviously don’t know what your kid is learning. Anti-racism is definitely embedded in the curriculum, no doubt. Also as you get to higher grades in middle and high school, it tends to dominate.

You might be surprised to learn that anti-racism efforts are more robust in Ward 3 schools than anywhere else in the city. Yes, anti-racism is embedded in the curriculum, however it's not explicitly taught as a learning standard. While you might have learned 30 years ago the white supremacy perspective on slavery, current curriculum takes a more holistic approach without leaving out the voices and experiences of those who were enslaved. See how fast we can get to an anti-racism lesson without saying "Today's learning objective will be that all students will be able to define anti-racism." In many schools in Ward 3 Black History month is celebrated with much more effort than many other schools. Why do you suppose that might be?

Please tell me the "White Supremacist version of history" that was taught in DC.

Not "White Supremacist version of history" rather perspective on slavery, as an example. Any historical textbook that didn't include the perspective and/or experiences of an enslaved person, or Native American is by definition bias. Any lesson, for that matter. Consider Christopher Columbus in a more comprehensive historical context and the comparison of curriculum 50 years to those used in classroom nows. Find me a textbook from 1970 that is inclusive to all voices on the subject of Christopher Columbus and him finding America.

You'd have to go pretty far back to find a textbook that didn't include the perspective of slaves and indigenous people. It may not have been gotten its full share of coverage, but it was there.

I went to public elementary school in the Deep South in the 1970s, and I certainly learned that slavery was miserable for the slaves and that indigenous people were treated badly.

You obviously have no clue. I am not white and graduated HS in 2013, texts were still from a white perspective. Simply knowing slaves were miserable or the like is not critical nor in depth. Perspective taking is more than just ‘oh well that sounds bad’

Actually, I would have far more clue of what elementary students were learning in the 1970s than you do.

I don't argue that the perspective was properly balanced; i noted that in my post above. But it was not devoid of different perspectives as you want to believe.

Textbooks then, as now, leave out a lot. And what went in then was more a lot about white males and took a romanticized view of the shiny greatness--rather than the complexity--of major historical figures. Nonetheless, textbooks still took a look at things from different angles, even if not sufficiently.

Meanwhile, textbooks aren't the only thing that teach students. One of my strongest memories from 5th grade is my teacher doing a read-aloud of a book about a family of Japanese-Americans imprisoned in WWII, like their peers, simply for being of Japanese descent.

Long story short, I don't think it is necessary or wise to overstate problems in history to correct them now. There is an abundance of data points deserving attention even when accurately presented.

And, yes, I share the view with posters above that DCPS is trying so hard to correct past imbalances that is now swinging the pendulum too far, so it is now focusing so much curriculum on racial equity that it is communicating a distorted picture.

[Anonymous]

Uh, well, maybe it was kind of insane to shut down schools for a year and a half during the pandemic?

[Anonymous]

Some groups, like Koreans, try really, really hard to do well in school. But most kids don’t give a f*ck.

[Anonymous]

DCPS has incredibly low standards. Expect nothing and that’s what you get.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was fairly shocked to see just how much time and resources at our majority minority school are devoted to “anti racism” curriculum. I mean, 90% of the kids are well below grade level. Shouldn’t every minute of every day be spent on math/reading? It’s bizarre.

My kids attend a DCPS Title 1 school and spend zero hours/time on anti-racism curriculum. You’re a troll.

NP. You are naive and obviously don’t know what your kid is learning. Anti-racism is definitely embedded in the curriculum, no doubt. Also as you get to higher grades in middle and high school, it tends to dominate.

You might be surprised to learn that anti-racism efforts are more robust in Ward 3 schools than anywhere else in the city. Yes, anti-racism is embedded in the curriculum, however it's not explicitly taught as a learning standard. While you might have learned 30 years ago the white supremacy perspective on slavery, current curriculum takes a more holistic approach without leaving out the voices and experiences of those who were enslaved. See how fast we can get to an anti-racism lesson without saying "Today's learning objective will be that all students will be able to define anti-racism." In many schools in Ward 3 Black History month is celebrated with much more effort than many other schools. Why do you suppose that might be?

Please tell me the "White Supremacist version of history" that was taught in DC.

Not "White Supremacist version of history" rather perspective on slavery, as an example. Any historical textbook that didn't include the perspective and/or experiences of an enslaved person, or Native American is by definition bias. Any lesson, for that matter. Consider Christopher Columbus in a more comprehensive historical context and the comparison of curriculum 50 years to those used in classroom nows. Find me a textbook from 1970 that is inclusive to all voices on the subject of Christopher Columbus and him finding America.

You'd have to go pretty far back to find a textbook that didn't include the perspective of slaves and indigenous people. It may not have been gotten its full share of coverage, but it was there.

I went to public elementary school in the Deep South in the 1970s, and I certainly learned that slavery was miserable for the slaves and that indigenous people were treated badly.

You obviously have no clue. I am not white and graduated HS in 2013, texts were still from a white perspective. Simply knowing slaves were miserable or the like is not critical nor in depth. Perspective taking is more than just ‘oh well that sounds bad’

Actually, I would have far more clue of what elementary students were learning in the 1970s than you do.

I don't argue that the perspective was properly balanced; i noted that in my post above. But it was not devoid of different perspectives as you want to believe.

Textbooks then, as now, leave out a lot. And what went in then was more a lot about white males and took a romanticized view of the shiny greatness--rather than the complexity--of major historical figures. Nonetheless, textbooks still took a look at things from different angles, even if not sufficiently.

Meanwhile, textbooks aren't the only thing that teach students. One of my strongest memories from 5th grade is my teacher doing a read-aloud of a book about a family of Japanese-Americans imprisoned in WWII, like their peers, simply for being of Japanese descent.

Long story short, I don't think it is necessary or wise to overstate problems in history to correct them now. There is an abundance of data points deserving attention even when accurately presented.

And, yes, I share the view with posters above that DCPS is trying so hard to correct past imbalances that is now swinging the pendulum too far, so it is now focusing so much curriculum on racial equity that it is communicating a distorted picture.

NP. My issue is that there is so much emphasis and time on anti-racism at the expense of all else that there is no or little time for basic fundamental knowledge.

[Anonymous]

Look at the crinet

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Look at the crinet

crime

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was fairly shocked to see just how much time and resources at our majority minority school are devoted to “anti racism” curriculum. I mean, 90% of the kids are well below grade level. Shouldn’t every minute of every day be spent on math/reading? It’s bizarre.

My kids attend a DCPS Title 1 school and spend zero hours/time on anti-racism curriculum. You’re a troll.

NP. You are naive and obviously don’t know what your kid is learning. Anti-racism is definitely embedded in the curriculum, no doubt. Also as you get to higher grades in middle and high school, it tends to dominate.

You might be surprised to learn that anti-racism efforts are more robust in Ward 3 schools than anywhere else in the city. Yes, anti-racism is embedded in the curriculum, however it's not explicitly taught as a learning standard. While you might have learned 30 years ago the white supremacy perspective on slavery, current curriculum takes a more holistic approach without leaving out the voices and experiences of those who were enslaved. See how fast we can get to an anti-racism lesson without saying "Today's learning objective will be that all students will be able to define anti-racism." In many schools in Ward 3 Black History month is celebrated with much more effort than many other schools. Why do you suppose that might be?

Please tell me the "White Supremacist version of history" that was taught in DC.

Not "White Supremacist version of history" rather perspective on slavery, as an example. Any historical textbook that didn't include the perspective and/or experiences of an enslaved person, or Native American is by definition bias. Any lesson, for that matter. Consider Christopher Columbus in a more comprehensive historical context and the comparison of curriculum 50 years to those used in classroom nows. Find me a textbook from 1970 that is inclusive to all voices on the subject of Christopher Columbus and him finding America.

You'd have to go pretty far back to find a textbook that didn't include the perspective of slaves and indigenous people. It may not have been gotten its full share of coverage, but it was there.

I went to public elementary school in the Deep South in the 1970s, and I certainly learned that slavery was miserable for the slaves and that indigenous people were treated badly.

You obviously have no clue. I am not white and graduated HS in 2013, texts were still from a white perspective. Simply knowing slaves were miserable or the like is not critical nor in depth. Perspective taking is more than just ‘oh well that sounds bad’

Actually, I would have far more clue of what elementary students were learning in the 1970s than you do.

I don't argue that the perspective was properly balanced; i noted that in my post above. But it was not devoid of different perspectives as you want to believe.

Textbooks then, as now, leave out a lot. And what went in then was more a lot about white males and took a romanticized view of the shiny greatness--rather than the complexity--of major historical figures. Nonetheless, textbooks still took a look at things from different angles, even if not sufficiently.

Meanwhile, textbooks aren't the only thing that teach students. One of my strongest memories from 5th grade is my teacher doing a read-aloud of a book about a family of Japanese-Americans imprisoned in WWII, like their peers, simply for being of Japanese descent.

Long story short, I don't think it is necessary or wise to overstate problems in history to correct them now. There is an abundance of data points deserving attention even when accurately presented.

And, yes, I share the view with posters above that DCPS is trying so hard to correct past imbalances that is now swinging the pendulum too far, so it is now focusing so much curriculum on racial equity that it is communicating a distorted picture.

NP. My issue is that there is so much emphasis and time on anti-racism at the expense of all else that there is no or little time for basic fundamental knowledge.

Can you give an example? Often parents criticize required readings and that they are not inclusive of white authors or characters. But I am wondering if there is a module or lesson that your child(ren) have learned that is explicitly anit-racist; as in part of the learning plan objectives and to focus on anti-racism as an outcome. Also, if you feel this way about the current curriculum, you are absolutely going to hate the new SS curriculum that is going to be rolled out in the coming years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was fairly shocked to see just how much time and resources at our majority minority school are devoted to “anti racism” curriculum. I mean, 90% of the kids are well below grade level. Shouldn’t every minute of every day be spent on math/reading? It’s bizarre.

My kids attend a DCPS Title 1 school and spend zero hours/time on anti-racism curriculum. You’re a troll.

NP. You are naive and obviously don’t know what your kid is learning. Anti-racism is definitely embedded in the curriculum, no doubt. Also as you get to higher grades in middle and high school, it tends to dominate.

You might be surprised to learn that anti-racism efforts are more robust in Ward 3 schools than anywhere else in the city. Yes, anti-racism is embedded in the curriculum, however it's not explicitly taught as a learning standard. While you might have learned 30 years ago the white supremacy perspective on slavery, current curriculum takes a more holistic approach without leaving out the voices and experiences of those who were enslaved. See how fast we can get to an anti-racism lesson without saying "Today's learning objective will be that all students will be able to define anti-racism." In many schools in Ward 3 Black History month is celebrated with much more effort than many other schools. Why do you suppose that might be?

Please tell me the "White Supremacist version of history" that was taught in DC.

Not "White Supremacist version of history" rather perspective on slavery, as an example. Any historical textbook that didn't include the perspective and/or experiences of an enslaved person, or Native American is by definition bias. Any lesson, for that matter. Consider Christopher Columbus in a more comprehensive historical context and the comparison of curriculum 50 years to those used in classroom nows. Find me a textbook from 1970 that is inclusive to all voices on the subject of Christopher Columbus and him finding America.

You'd have to go pretty far back to find a textbook that didn't include the perspective of slaves and indigenous people. It may not have been gotten its full share of coverage, but it was there.

I went to public elementary school in the Deep South in the 1970s, and I certainly learned that slavery was miserable for the slaves and that indigenous people were treated badly.

You obviously have no clue. I am not white and graduated HS in 2013, texts were still from a white perspective. Simply knowing slaves were miserable or the like is not critical nor in depth. Perspective taking is more than just ‘oh well that sounds bad’

Actually, I would have far more clue of what elementary students were learning in the 1970s than you do.

I don't argue that the perspective was properly balanced; i noted that in my post above. But it was not devoid of different perspectives as you want to believe.

Textbooks then, as now, leave out a lot. And what went in then was more a lot about white males and took a romanticized view of the shiny greatness--rather than the complexity--of major historical figures. Nonetheless, textbooks still took a look at things from different angles, even if not sufficiently.

Meanwhile, textbooks aren't the only thing that teach students. One of my strongest memories from 5th grade is my teacher doing a read-aloud of a book about a family of Japanese-Americans imprisoned in WWII, like their peers, simply for being of Japanese descent.

Long story short, I don't think it is necessary or wise to overstate problems in history to correct them now. There is an abundance of data points deserving attention even when accurately presented.

And, yes, I share the view with posters above that DCPS is trying so hard to correct past imbalances that is now swinging the pendulum too far, so it is now focusing so much curriculum on racial equity that it is communicating a distorted picture.

NP, but I can say that my education (in the 80s) taught that slavery was bad and the indigenous people were treated poorly, but they were still presented as an amorphous blob of humans, to be acted upon rather than to be heard from.

That's what has changed between my own childhood and that of my kids. My kids are learning to read primary texts, including narratives from enslaved people, and secondary texts by the descendents of enslaved people. It's much more powerful than just "Thomas Jefferson was a great man who struggled with his decision to continue to enslave people" or whatever pablum I received as a kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was fairly shocked to see just how much time and resources at our majority minority school are devoted to “anti racism” curriculum. I mean, 90% of the kids are well below grade level. Shouldn’t every minute of every day be spent on math/reading? It’s bizarre.

My kids attend a DCPS Title 1 school and spend zero hours/time on anti-racism curriculum. You’re a troll.

NP. You are naive and obviously don’t know what your kid is learning. Anti-racism is definitely embedded in the curriculum, no doubt. Also as you get to higher grades in middle and high school, it tends to dominate.

You might be surprised to learn that anti-racism efforts are more robust in Ward 3 schools than anywhere else in the city. Yes, anti-racism is embedded in the curriculum, however it's not explicitly taught as a learning standard. While you might have learned 30 years ago the white supremacy perspective on slavery, current curriculum takes a more holistic approach without leaving out the voices and experiences of those who were enslaved. See how fast we can get to an anti-racism lesson without saying "Today's learning objective will be that all students will be able to define anti-racism." In many schools in Ward 3 Black History month is celebrated with much more effort than many other schools. Why do you suppose that might be?

Please tell me the "White Supremacist version of history" that was taught in DC.

Not "White Supremacist version of history" rather perspective on slavery, as an example. Any historical textbook that didn't include the perspective and/or experiences of an enslaved person, or Native American is by definition bias. Any lesson, for that matter. Consider Christopher Columbus in a more comprehensive historical context and the comparison of curriculum 50 years to those used in classroom nows. Find me a textbook from 1970 that is inclusive to all voices on the subject of Christopher Columbus and him finding America.

You'd have to go pretty far back to find a textbook that didn't include the perspective of slaves and indigenous people. It may not have been gotten its full share of coverage, but it was there.

I went to public elementary school in the Deep South in the 1970s, and I certainly learned that slavery was miserable for the slaves and that indigenous people were treated badly.

You obviously have no clue. I am not white and graduated HS in 2013, texts were still from a white perspective. Simply knowing slaves were miserable or the like is not critical nor in depth. Perspective taking is more than just ‘oh well that sounds bad’

Actually, I would have far more clue of what elementary students were learning in the 1970s than you do.

I don't argue that the perspective was properly balanced; i noted that in my post above. But it was not devoid of different perspectives as you want to believe.

Textbooks then, as now, leave out a lot. And what went in then was more a lot about white males and took a romanticized view of the shiny greatness--rather than the complexity--of major historical figures. Nonetheless, textbooks still took a look at things from different angles, even if not sufficiently.

Meanwhile, textbooks aren't the only thing that teach students. One of my strongest memories from 5th grade is my teacher doing a read-aloud of a book about a family of Japanese-Americans imprisoned in WWII, like their peers, simply for being of Japanese descent.

Long story short, I don't think it is necessary or wise to overstate problems in history to correct them now. There is an abundance of data points deserving attention even when accurately presented.

And, yes, I share the view with posters above that DCPS is trying so hard to correct past imbalances that is now swinging the pendulum too far, so it is now focusing so much curriculum on racial equity that it is communicating a distorted picture.

NP, but I can say that my education (in the 80s) taught that slavery was bad and the indigenous people were treated poorly, but they were still presented as an amorphous blob of humans, to be acted upon rather than to be heard from.

That's what has changed between my own childhood and that of my kids. My kids are learning to read primary texts, including narratives from enslaved people, and secondary texts by the descendents of enslaved people. It's much more powerful than just "Thomas Jefferson was a great man who struggled with his decision to continue to enslave people" or whatever pablum I received as a kid.

A whole lot of straw men on this thread.

Google “The Slave Community.”

Came out in 1972

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was fairly shocked to see just how much time and resources at our majority minority school are devoted to “anti racism” curriculum. I mean, 90% of the kids are well below grade level. Shouldn’t every minute of every day be spent on math/reading? It’s bizarre.

My kids attend a DCPS Title 1 school and spend zero hours/time on anti-racism curriculum. You’re a troll.

NP. You are naive and obviously don’t know what your kid is learning. Anti-racism is definitely embedded in the curriculum, no doubt. Also as you get to higher grades in middle and high school, it tends to dominate.

You might be surprised to learn that anti-racism efforts are more robust in Ward 3 schools than anywhere else in the city. Yes, anti-racism is embedded in the curriculum, however it's not explicitly taught as a learning standard. While you might have learned 30 years ago the white supremacy perspective on slavery, current curriculum takes a more holistic approach without leaving out the voices and experiences of those who were enslaved. See how fast we can get to an anti-racism lesson without saying "Today's learning objective will be that all students will be able to define anti-racism." In many schools in Ward 3 Black History month is celebrated with much more effort than many other schools. Why do you suppose that might be?

Please tell me the "White Supremacist version of history" that was taught in DC.

Not "White Supremacist version of history" rather perspective on slavery, as an example. Any historical textbook that didn't include the perspective and/or experiences of an enslaved person, or Native American is by definition bias. Any lesson, for that matter. Consider Christopher Columbus in a more comprehensive historical context and the comparison of curriculum 50 years to those used in classroom nows. Find me a textbook from 1970 that is inclusive to all voices on the subject of Christopher Columbus and him finding America.

You'd have to go pretty far back to find a textbook that didn't include the perspective of slaves and indigenous people. It may not have been gotten its full share of coverage, but it was there.

I went to public elementary school in the Deep South in the 1970s, and I certainly learned that slavery was miserable for the slaves and that indigenous people were treated badly.

You obviously have no clue. I am not white and graduated HS in 2013, texts were still from a white perspective. Simply knowing slaves were miserable or the like is not critical nor in depth. Perspective taking is more than just ‘oh well that sounds bad’

Actually, I would have far more clue of what elementary students were learning in the 1970s than you do.

I don't argue that the perspective was properly balanced; i noted that in my post above. But it was not devoid of different perspectives as you want to believe.

Textbooks then, as now, leave out a lot. And what went in then was more a lot about white males and took a romanticized view of the shiny greatness--rather than the complexity--of major historical figures. Nonetheless, textbooks still took a look at things from different angles, even if not sufficiently.

Meanwhile, textbooks aren't the only thing that teach students. One of my strongest memories from 5th grade is my teacher doing a read-aloud of a book about a family of Japanese-Americans imprisoned in WWII, like their peers, simply for being of Japanese descent.

Long story short, I don't think it is necessary or wise to overstate problems in history to correct them now. There is an abundance of data points deserving attention even when accurately presented.

And, yes, I share the view with posters above that DCPS is trying so hard to correct past imbalances that is now swinging the pendulum too far, so it is now focusing so much curriculum on racial equity that it is communicating a distorted picture.

NP, but I can say that my education (in the 80s) taught that slavery was bad and the indigenous people were treated poorly, but they were still presented as an amorphous blob of humans, to be acted upon rather than to be heard from.

That's what has changed between my own childhood and that of my kids. My kids are learning to read primary texts, including narratives from enslaved people, and secondary texts by the descendents of enslaved people. It's much more powerful than just "Thomas Jefferson was a great man who struggled with his decision to continue to enslave people" or whatever pablum I received as a kid.

A whole lot of straw men on this thread.

Google “The Slave Community.”

Came out in 1972

Apparently everyone here is too young to remember Roots

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was fairly shocked to see just how much time and resources at our majority minority school are devoted to “anti racism” curriculum. I mean, 90% of the kids are well below grade level. Shouldn’t every minute of every day be spent on math/reading? It’s bizarre.

My kids attend a DCPS Title 1 school and spend zero hours/time on anti-racism curriculum. You’re a troll.

NP. You are naive and obviously don’t know what your kid is learning. Anti-racism is definitely embedded in the curriculum, no doubt. Also as you get to higher grades in middle and high school, it tends to dominate.

You might be surprised to learn that anti-racism efforts are more robust in Ward 3 schools than anywhere else in the city. Yes, anti-racism is embedded in the curriculum, however it's not explicitly taught as a learning standard. While you might have learned 30 years ago the white supremacy perspective on slavery, current curriculum takes a more holistic approach without leaving out the voices and experiences of those who were enslaved. See how fast we can get to an anti-racism lesson without saying "Today's learning objective will be that all students will be able to define anti-racism." In many schools in Ward 3 Black History month is celebrated with much more effort than many other schools. Why do you suppose that might be?

Please tell me the "White Supremacist version of history" that was taught in DC.

Not "White Supremacist version of history" rather perspective on slavery, as an example. Any historical textbook that didn't include the perspective and/or experiences of an enslaved person, or Native American is by definition bias. Any lesson, for that matter. Consider Christopher Columbus in a more comprehensive historical context and the comparison of curriculum 50 years to those used in classroom nows. Find me a textbook from 1970 that is inclusive to all voices on the subject of Christopher Columbus and him finding America.

You'd have to go pretty far back to find a textbook that didn't include the perspective of slaves and indigenous people. It may not have been gotten its full share of coverage, but it was there.

I went to public elementary school in the Deep South in the 1970s, and I certainly learned that slavery was miserable for the slaves and that indigenous people were treated badly.

Maybe. I went to public elementary school in the midwest in the 1970s and distinctly remember being confused by the concept of ownership of another human being and the illustrations in textbooks of enslaved people with happy smiles while in the cotton fields.

I went to Catholic school in the deep South in the 90s and I also feel confused by the entire debate about what should be taught about slavery, native Americans and generally American history. I remember learning about the horrors of slavery and abuse of Native Americans. It was not glossed over. We learned about the Trail of Tears, etc. Did other people really not learn this stuff? Was our curriculum really that different bc it wasn’t a public school? Maybe studying social sciences in college makes me take for granted that other people’s education on these subjects may have not have continued to fill out in university education?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was fairly shocked to see just how much time and resources at our majority minority school are devoted to “anti racism” curriculum. I mean, 90% of the kids are well below grade level. Shouldn’t every minute of every day be spent on math/reading? It’s bizarre.

My kids attend a DCPS Title 1 school and spend zero hours/time on anti-racism curriculum. You’re a troll.

NP. You are naive and obviously don’t know what your kid is learning. Anti-racism is definitely embedded in the curriculum, no doubt. Also as you get to higher grades in middle and high school, it tends to dominate.

You might be surprised to learn that anti-racism efforts are more robust in Ward 3 schools than anywhere else in the city. Yes, anti-racism is embedded in the curriculum, however it's not explicitly taught as a learning standard. While you might have learned 30 years ago the white supremacy perspective on slavery, current curriculum takes a more holistic approach without leaving out the voices and experiences of those who were enslaved. See how fast we can get to an anti-racism lesson without saying "Today's learning objective will be that all students will be able to define anti-racism." In many schools in Ward 3 Black History month is celebrated with much more effort than many other schools. Why do you suppose that might be?

Please tell me the "White Supremacist version of history" that was taught in DC.

Not "White Supremacist version of history" rather perspective on slavery, as an example. Any historical textbook that didn't include the perspective and/or experiences of an enslaved person, or Native American is by definition bias. Any lesson, for that matter. Consider Christopher Columbus in a more comprehensive historical context and the comparison of curriculum 50 years to those used in classroom nows. Find me a textbook from 1970 that is inclusive to all voices on the subject of Christopher Columbus and him finding America.

You'd have to go pretty far back to find a textbook that didn't include the perspective of slaves and indigenous people. It may not have been gotten its full share of coverage, but it was there.

I went to public elementary school in the Deep South in the 1970s, and I certainly learned that slavery was miserable for the slaves and that indigenous people were treated badly.

You obviously have no clue. I am not white and graduated HS in 2013, texts were still from a white perspective. Simply knowing slaves were miserable or the like is not critical nor in depth. Perspective taking is more than just ‘oh well that sounds bad’

Actually, I would have far more clue of what elementary students were learning in the 1970s than you do.

I don't argue that the perspective was properly balanced; i noted that in my post above. But it was not devoid of different perspectives as you want to believe.

Textbooks then, as now, leave out a lot. And what went in then was more a lot about white males and took a romanticized view of the shiny greatness--rather than the complexity--of major historical figures. Nonetheless, textbooks still took a look at things from different angles, even if not sufficiently.

Meanwhile, textbooks aren't the only thing that teach students. One of my strongest memories from 5th grade is my teacher doing a read-aloud of a book about a family of Japanese-Americans imprisoned in WWII, like their peers, simply for being of Japanese descent.

Long story short, I don't think it is necessary or wise to overstate problems in history to correct them now. There is an abundance of data points deserving attention even when accurately presented.

And, yes, I share the view with posters above that DCPS is trying so hard to correct past imbalances that is now swinging the pendulum too far, so it is now focusing so much curriculum on racial equity that it is communicating a distorted picture.

NP. My issue is that there is so much emphasis and time on anti-racism at the expense of all else that there is no or little time for basic fundamental knowledge.

Can you give an example? Often parents criticize required readings and that they are not inclusive of white authors or characters. But I am wondering if there is a module or lesson that your child(ren) have learned that is explicitly anit-racist; as in part of the learning plan objectives and to focus on anti-racism as an outcome. Also, if you feel this way about the current curriculum, you are absolutely going to hate the new SS curriculum that is going to be rolled out in the coming years.

Yes, people confuse multiculturalism for anti-racism. There is no anti-racism training in DCPS. Although I would welcome it given the number of white students at Deal who think the N-word is ok.