FCPS paying for Critical Race Theory curriculum. To be implemented in a year

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PBS piece on it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JbdKWsHeLI

This PBS special has absolutely no data. There is no data about the actual teaching in schools at all and its pluses and minuses. In the entire special. It's just snippets of people talking where they are probably parsing out words. This is embarrassing for PBS. How can they put out something like this with absolutely no data?

Where is the data? What schools is it actually being taught in? It's just another BS idea that the Republicans said is a serious problem by using words such as "left-wing" and "indoctrination of our kids."

It would help if people wanted to define there terms. A few stories like 3rd graders being asked to define their intersectional identities or kids separating themselves by race into groups for class assignments have surfaced. However some people want to define critical race theory as any teaching about race, slavery, and systemic racism. Other people want to define it as viewing the world from Ibrahim Kendi and Robin DiAngelo's perspective and teaching kids to do the same. Until people start talking about the same thing, it's just talk.

Unfortunately I don't think it's to the advantage of the blue checkmark class that people define their terms, so it won't happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PBS piece on it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JbdKWsHeLI

This PBS special has absolutely no data. There is no data about the actual teaching in schools at all and its pluses and minuses. In the entire special. It's just snippets of people talking where they are probably parsing out words. This is embarrassing for PBS. How can they put out something like this with absolutely no data?

Where is the data? What schools is it actually being taught in? It's just another BS idea that the Republicans said is a serious problem by using words such as "left-wing" and "indoctrination of our kids."

It would help if people wanted to define there terms. A few stories like 3rd graders being asked to define their intersectional identities or kids separating themselves by race into groups for class assignments have surfaced. However some people want to define critical race theory as any teaching about race, slavery, and systemic racism. Other people want to define it as viewing the world from Ibrahim Kendi and Robin DiAngelo's perspective and teaching kids to do the same. Until people start talking about the same thing, it's just talk.

Unfortunately I don't think it's to the advantage of the blue checkmark class that people define their terms, so it won't happen.

FCPS is teaching Ibrahim X Kendi in our elementary schools. They started in the spring. FCPS had older elementary kids read his young adult book as a class without parent consent or notification.

CRT is definitely being taught in fcps elementary schools of FCPS.

[Anonymous]

I recently did a deep-dive into the internet to try to figure out what exactly is CRT. Yes, the theory itself is not explicitly being taught in elementary school. What the left of the media is not saying is that graduate-level theories can often be hallmarked by social action of its believers. I have an MA in English and I definitely saw this play out in classes. For instance, we read texts through the lens of queer gender theories. The instructors who were the proponents of these theories were also organizing gay pride marches (this was 20 yrs ago) and tried to get me to join.

My personal opinion is that equity consultants are using all the tools in the toolbox, including critical race theory, and are dumbing it down to make it accessible for elementary schools. Unfortunately, when you dumb down a theory, you get a social justice position usually. That is why we are seeing white people are oppressors, etc. I don't agree with the right spin on it either, but I am a progressive and also not comfortable with this dumbing down. I think the right has a fair point to make and if they want to tag diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts as "critical race theory" because they see social action/indoctrination of kids being put forth, I think that is a fair strategy. Are they just going to lie down and take it? No. Especially not after a year when everything was online and parents had some huge insights into what was going on in classrooms.

The biggest problem is the dumbing down of a theory and that's why no one can define it. But that doesn't mean it isn't happening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I recently did a deep-dive into the internet to try to figure out what exactly is CRT. Yes, the theory itself is not explicitly being taught in elementary school. What the left of the media is not saying is that graduate-level theories can often be hallmarked by social action of its believers. I have an MA in English and I definitely saw this play out in classes. For instance, we read texts through the lens of queer gender theories. The instructors who were the proponents of these theories were also organizing gay pride marches (this was 20 yrs ago) and tried to get me to join.

My personal opinion is that equity consultants are using all the tools in the toolbox, including critical race theory, and are dumbing it down to make it accessible for elementary schools. Unfortunately, when you dumb down a theory, you get a social justice position usually. That is why we are seeing white people are oppressors, etc. I don't agree with the right spin on it either, but I am a progressive and also not comfortable with this dumbing down. I think the right has a fair point to make and if they want to tag diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts as "critical race theory" because they see social action/indoctrination of kids being put forth, I think that is a fair strategy. Are they just going to lie down and take it? No. Especially not after a year when everything was online and parents had some huge insights into what was going on in classrooms.

The biggest problem is the dumbing down of a theory and that's why no one can define it. But that doesn't mean it isn't happening.

Andrew Sullivan referred to this as teaching "in" critical race theory as opposed to teaching critical race theory.

As someone with a BA in English, I'm still a little flummoxed why we can't just teach our kids relatively easy reading theories like new criticism before we have to go off on deconstructing texts and introducing critical theories.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I recently did a deep-dive into the internet to try to figure out what exactly is CRT. Yes, the theory itself is not explicitly being taught in elementary school. What the left of the media is not saying is that graduate-level theories can often be hallmarked by social action of its believers. I have an MA in English and I definitely saw this play out in classes. For instance, we read texts through the lens of queer gender theories. The instructors who were the proponents of these theories were also organizing gay pride marches (this was 20 yrs ago) and tried to get me to join.

My personal opinion is that equity consultants are using all the tools in the toolbox, including critical race theory, and are dumbing it down to make it accessible for elementary schools. Unfortunately, when you dumb down a theory, you get a social justice position usually. That is why we are seeing white people are oppressors, etc. I don't agree with the right spin on it either, but I am a progressive and also not comfortable with this dumbing down. I think the right has a fair point to make and if they want to tag diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts as "critical race theory" because they see social action/indoctrination of kids being put forth, I think that is a fair strategy. Are they just going to lie down and take it? No. Especially not after a year when everything was online and parents had some huge insights into what was going on in classrooms.

The biggest problem is the dumbing down of a theory and that's why no one can define it. But that doesn't mean it isn't happening.

Andrew Sullivan referred to this as teaching "in" critical race theory as opposed to teaching critical race theory.

As someone with a BA in English, I'm still a little flummoxed why we can't just teach our kids relatively easy reading theories like new criticism before we have to go off on deconstructing texts and introducing critical theories.

Because the goal 9f these people is not education or enlightenment, nor is it to create independent criticwl thinkers.

The goal is indoctrination.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I recently did a deep-dive into the internet to try to figure out what exactly is CRT. Yes, the theory itself is not explicitly being taught in elementary school. What the left of the media is not saying is that graduate-level theories can often be hallmarked by social action of its believers. I have an MA in English and I definitely saw this play out in classes. For instance, we read texts through the lens of queer gender theories. The instructors who were the proponents of these theories were also organizing gay pride marches (this was 20 yrs ago) and tried to get me to join.

My personal opinion is that equity consultants are using all the tools in the toolbox, including critical race theory, and are dumbing it down to make it accessible for elementary schools. Unfortunately, when you dumb down a theory, you get a social justice position usually. That is why we are seeing white people are oppressors, etc. I don't agree with the right spin on it either, but I am a progressive and also not comfortable with this dumbing down. I think the right has a fair point to make and if they want to tag diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts as "critical race theory" because they see social action/indoctrination of kids being put forth, I think that is a fair strategy. Are they just going to lie down and take it? No. Especially not after a year when everything was online and parents had some huge insights into what was going on in classrooms.

The biggest problem is the dumbing down of a theory and that's why no one can define it. But that doesn't mean it isn't happening.

Andrew Sullivan referred to this as teaching "in" critical race theory as opposed to teaching critical race theory.

As someone with a BA in English, I'm still a little flummoxed why we can't just teach our kids relatively easy reading theories like new criticism before we have to go off on deconstructing texts and introducing critical theories.

Because the goal 9f these people is not education or enlightenment, nor is it to create independent criticwl thinkers.

The goal is indoctrination.

YoU sOuNd toTtALY sAnE!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I recently did a deep-dive into the internet to try to figure out what exactly is CRT. Yes, the theory itself is not explicitly being taught in elementary school. What the left of the media is not saying is that graduate-level theories can often be hallmarked by social action of its believers. I have an MA in English and I definitely saw this play out in classes. For instance, we read texts through the lens of queer gender theories. The instructors who were the proponents of these theories were also organizing gay pride marches (this was 20 yrs ago) and tried to get me to join.

My personal opinion is that equity consultants are using all the tools in the toolbox, including critical race theory, and are dumbing it down to make it accessible for elementary schools. Unfortunately, when you dumb down a theory, you get a social justice position usually. That is why we are seeing white people are oppressors, etc. I don't agree with the right spin on it either, but I am a progressive and also not comfortable with this dumbing down. I think the right has a fair point to make and if they want to tag diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts as "critical race theory" because they see social action/indoctrination of kids being put forth, I think that is a fair strategy. Are they just going to lie down and take it? No. Especially not after a year when everything was online and parents had some huge insights into what was going on in classrooms.

The biggest problem is the dumbing down of a theory and that's why no one can define it. But that doesn't mean it isn't happening.

Andrew Sullivan referred to this as teaching "in" critical race theory as opposed to teaching critical race theory.

As someone with a BA in English, I'm still a little flummoxed why we can't just teach our kids relatively easy reading theories like new criticism before we have to go off on deconstructing texts and introducing critical theories.

PP here. I'd be happy with just basic phonics, grammar, and reading for full understanding of content through responsive reading in elementary school. Sure, read a wide variety of diverse texts and apply straight critical thinking skills. This whole CRT conversation/approach is like saying "Look for the Christian God in every text you read." Wouldn't that make the left side mad!? I do thinking reading literature can and should be agnostic, in terms of how to read. What you do with it is a personal decision, obviously. If the personal decision part is brought as the reading method in elementary, then, yay, it screams indoctrination.

[Anonymous]

Yes, there are many lenses and as we read we should be looking at all of them. The protagonist. The antagonist. Man against man, man against self, man against nature. Man aligned with man, man aligned with self, man aligned with nature. Looking at text from a racial perspective is one lense of many.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I recently did a deep-dive into the internet to try to figure out what exactly is CRT. Yes, the theory itself is not explicitly being taught in elementary school. What the left of the media is not saying is that graduate-level theories can often be hallmarked by social action of its believers. I have an MA in English and I definitely saw this play out in classes. For instance, we read texts through the lens of queer gender theories. The instructors who were the proponents of these theories were also organizing gay pride marches (this was 20 yrs ago) and tried to get me to join.

My personal opinion is that equity consultants are using all the tools in the toolbox, including critical race theory, and are dumbing it down to make it accessible for elementary schools. Unfortunately, when you dumb down a theory, you get a social justice position usually. That is why we are seeing white people are oppressors, etc. I don't agree with the right spin on it either, but I am a progressive and also not comfortable with this dumbing down. I think the right has a fair point to make and if they want to tag diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts as "critical race theory" because they see social action/indoctrination of kids being put forth, I think that is a fair strategy. Are they just going to lie down and take it? No. Especially not after a year when everything was online and parents had some huge insights into what was going on in classrooms.

The biggest problem is the dumbing down of a theory and that's why no one can define it. But that doesn't mean it isn't happening.

Andrew Sullivan referred to this as teaching "in" critical race theory as opposed to teaching critical race theory.

As someone with a BA in English, I'm still a little flummoxed why we can't just teach our kids relatively easy reading theories like new criticism before we have to go off on deconstructing texts and introducing critical theories.

PP here. I'd be happy with just basic phonics, grammar, and reading for full understanding of content through responsive reading in elementary school. Sure, read a wide variety of diverse texts and apply straight critical thinking skills. This whole CRT conversation/approach is like saying "Look for the Christian God in every text you read." Wouldn't that make the left side mad!? I do thinking reading literature can and should be agnostic, in terms of how to read. What you do with it is a personal decision, obviously. If the personal decision part is brought as the reading method in elementary, then, yay, it screams indoctrination.

Good point. I think I mentally settle on new criticism because that's the closest thing to just "what do the words on the page mean?" I can think of in lit crit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, there are many lenses and as we read we should be looking at all of them. The protagonist. The antagonist. Man against man, man against self, man against nature. Man aligned with man, man aligned with self, man aligned with nature. Looking at text from a racial perspective is one lense of many.

Why? And who gets to pick which lenses? What if I want to make all children look at it through the lens of my particular religion, is that OK? Or if any extremist (political, cultural, whatever) wants to provide a lens, is that cool?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I recently did a deep-dive into the internet to try to figure out what exactly is CRT. Yes, the theory itself is not explicitly being taught in elementary school. What the left of the media is not saying is that graduate-level theories can often be hallmarked by social action of its believers. I have an MA in English and I definitely saw this play out in classes. For instance, we read texts through the lens of queer gender theories. The instructors who were the proponents of these theories were also organizing gay pride marches (this was 20 yrs ago) and tried to get me to join.

My personal opinion is that equity consultants are using all the tools in the toolbox, including critical race theory, and are dumbing it down to make it accessible for elementary schools. Unfortunately, when you dumb down a theory, you get a social justice position usually. That is why we are seeing white people are oppressors, etc. I don't agree with the right spin on it either, but I am a progressive and also not comfortable with this dumbing down. I think the right has a fair point to make and if they want to tag diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts as "critical race theory" because they see social action/indoctrination of kids being put forth, I think that is a fair strategy. Are they just going to lie down and take it? No. Especially not after a year when everything was online and parents had some huge insights into what was going on in classrooms.

The biggest problem is the dumbing down of a theory and that's why no one can define it. But that doesn't mean it isn't happening.

Andrew Sullivan referred to this as teaching "in" critical race theory as opposed to teaching critical race theory.

As someone with a BA in English, I'm still a little flummoxed why we can't just teach our kids relatively easy reading theories like new criticism before we have to go off on deconstructing texts and introducing critical theories.

Because the goal 9f these people is not education or enlightenment, nor is it to create independent criticwl thinkers.

The goal is indoctrination.

YoU sOuNd toTtALY sAnE!

Jayson Reynolds (the co-author of Stamped along with Kendi) even calls it indoctrination: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6D6Ge1VXySo&t=285s How would you respond to him?

[Anonymous]

I wonder what do you call racism, pp that says the goal of educators is indoctrination.

[Anonymous]

Would like to hear from some FCPS teachers…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, there are many lenses and as we read we should be looking at all of them. The protagonist. The antagonist. Man against man, man against self, man against nature. Man aligned with man, man aligned with self, man aligned with nature. Looking at text from a racial perspective is one lense of many.

Why? And who gets to pick which lenses? What if I want to make all children look at it through the lens of my particular religion, is that OK? Or if any extremist (political, cultural, whatever) wants to provide a lens, is that cool?

Because it helps engage with the text and it helps make more informed citizens? Not to mention it’s interesting? I would have been less bored in 10th grade if we were discussing the coded criticism of ongoing slavery in the British West Indies when we read Jane Austen; I had to learn that in my late twenties.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, there are many lenses and as we read we should be looking at all of them. The protagonist. The antagonist. Man against man, man against self, man against nature. Man aligned with man, man aligned with self, man aligned with nature. Looking at text from a racial perspective is one lense of many.

Why? And who gets to pick which lenses? What if I want to make all children look at it through the lens of my particular religion, is that OK? Or if any extremist (political, cultural, whatever) wants to provide a lens, is that cool?

You can't do that in public school. I'm sure you know that.