WaPO Article-Glenn Youngkin’s own children received anti-racist educations

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm guessing you don't understand the difference between PUBLIC schools and church. Clearly, Youngkin does. They don't mix.

Why did Youngkin endorse an anti-racism initiative in his church based on an "inherently divisive concept" that is equivalent to "political indoctrination"? Or at least that's what Youngkin's Executive Order #1 said.

And if it's not inconsistent, then why was it scrubbed from the church's website?

Again: do you understand the difference between a PUBLIC SCHOOL and a CHURCH? It's clear you don't. Educate yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't suppor Youngkin, however,
I don't think the issue for most voters is what his kids did or did not receive.
I think they don't want their kids to be forced to learn CRT, or to be forced to mask, or to be forced into school closures.

Youngkin can raise his kids with whatever approaches he is comfortable with.

Just saying I don't think this is the smoking gun you thought it was.

Precisely this. Youngkin's whole point is that it's the *parents' choice* how to raise their kids. He and his wife chose private schools for their kids. He is now governor of VA, and as such, has every right to set the direction of public schools. Especially when those who voted for him have been very specific about their issues.

Disagree. He didn't just choose any private, he chose those schools were diversity is really important, taught and celebrated. He had many schools to choose from where that is not the case.

Disagree. Most privates in the DC area push diversity. It would have actually been difficult to find one that *doesn't*.

Not true. There are some conservative schools in DC. He could have also sent them to boarding school if he really cared that much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't suppor Youngkin, however,
I don't think the issue for most voters is what his kids did or did not receive.
I think they don't want their kids to be forced to learn CRT, or to be forced to mask, or to be forced into school closures.

Youngkin can raise his kids with whatever approaches he is comfortable with.

Just saying I don't think this is the smoking gun you thought it was.

Well said. Thank you!

The problem with your statement is that the haves will receive a first class education, while people who can't afford to send their kids to private will receive a lesser education. Parents who want to avoid teaching history are winning the battle but will lose the war. Your kids will be dumber for it. Do you really think someone who has no knowledge of American history will be successful in college or the workforce. They will just sound stupid.

His kids however, will continue to do great b/c they will be well educated. US students already were struggling with history and now he wants to teach them less. The world already thinks are kids are stupid.

Here's what is truly stupid: insisting, over and over again, that Republicans want to "avoid teaching history." This has never been the issue. Ever. And if you don't know that by now, then the stupid one is clearly YOU.
DP

Help me then. What do they want to teach? They don't want to teach CRT - but schools clearly don't teach that anyway. They use CRT as a proxy for anything dealing with race. Race is a tough subject in America. It is also a part of our founding. What do they want to teach then? Whitewashed history? Please, do tell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't suppor Youngkin, however,
I don't think the issue for most voters is what his kids did or did not receive.
I think they don't want their kids to be forced to learn CRT, or to be forced to mask, or to be forced into school closures.

Youngkin can raise his kids with whatever approaches he is comfortable with.

Just saying I don't think this is the smoking gun you thought it was.

Well said. Thank you!

The problem with your statement is that the haves will receive a first class education, while people who can't afford to send their kids to private will receive a lesser education. Parents who want to avoid teaching history are winning the battle but will lose the war. Your kids will be dumber for it. Do you really think someone who has no knowledge of American history will be successful in college or the workforce. They will just sound stupid.

His kids however, will continue to do great b/c they will be well educated. US students already were struggling with history and now he wants to teach them less. The world already thinks are kids are stupid.

Here's what is truly stupid: insisting, over and over again, that Republicans want to "avoid teaching history." This has never been the issue. Ever. And if you don't know that by now, then the stupid one is clearly YOU.
DP

Help me then. What do they want to teach? They don't want to teach CRT - but schools clearly don't teach that anyway. They use CRT as a proxy for anything dealing with race. Race is a tough subject in America. It is also a part of our founding. What do they want to teach then? Whitewashed history? Please, do tell.

Sigh. This has been asked and answered ad nauseum. Republicans are all for teaching history - the good, bad, and the ugly. Slavery, the Holocaust, etc. What they are NOT interested in is this constant fixation with race - seeing everything through an "equity lens," as FCPS puts it. Just teach factual history and leave the sermonizing to the parents.

[Anonymous]

Today's history lessons cover more than the atrocities of the past. The prevailing curriculum now also includes a framework to influence and direct current political ideology to attempt to attach responsibility for the past to people living today.

I guess some people think this will lay the groundwork for the concept of reparations for slavery to become more mainstream and palatable. I personally think the current concept of equity as the goal instead of equality is incredibly destructive and divisive. I don't want to dismantle the best system we have for individuals to pull themselves and future generations of their families into more prosperity and a better life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Today's history lessons cover more than the atrocities of the past. The prevailing curriculum now also includes a framework to influence and direct current political ideology to attempt to attach responsibility for the past to people living today.

I guess some people think this will lay the groundwork for the concept of reparations for slavery to become more mainstream and palatable. I personally think the current concept of equity as the goal instead of equality is incredibly destructive and divisive. I don't want to dismantle the best system we have for individuals to pull themselves and future generations of their families into more prosperity and a better life.

Statistically, the best indicator of the wealth you will have as an adult is the wealth that you are born into. David Copperfield is a myth, the vast majority of people born to parents living in public housing are not entering the middle class let alone the upper middle class. Likewise, the vast majority of upper middle class families will not have kids who end up living in public housing

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Today's history lessons cover more than the atrocities of the past. The prevailing curriculum now also includes a framework to influence and direct current political ideology to attempt to attach responsibility for the past to people living today.

I guess some people think this will lay the groundwork for the concept of reparations for slavery to become more mainstream and palatable. I personally think the current concept of equity as the goal instead of equality is incredibly destructive and divisive. I don't want to dismantle the best system we have for individuals to pull themselves and future generations of their families into more prosperity and a better life.

Statistically, the best indicator of the wealth you will have as an adult is the wealth that you are born into. David Copperfield is a myth, the vast majority of people born to parents living in public housing are not entering the middle class let alone the upper middle class. Likewise, the vast majority of upper middle class families will not have kids who end up living in public housing

That's a destructive and untrue belief. Moving yourself or your family up can absolutely be done with frugality and work ethic. Look at story after story of immigrants who came to the states with nothing and became successful. My husband's and my own families each escaped generational poverty in our parents' generation to give us a wonderful middle class life. We are now striving to do the same or better for our child. This can be a multi-generational process but it can be done. We are not statistical anomalies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Today's history lessons cover more than the atrocities of the past. The prevailing curriculum now also includes a framework to influence and direct current political ideology to attempt to attach responsibility for the past to people living today.

I guess some people think this will lay the groundwork for the concept of reparations for slavery to become more mainstream and palatable. I personally think the current concept of equity as the goal instead of equality is incredibly destructive and divisive. I don't want to dismantle the best system we have for individuals to pull themselves and future generations of their families into more prosperity and a better life.

+1
I like the fact that Youngkin has replaced all mentions of "equity" with "opportunity". Equality of opportunity, period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Today's history lessons cover more than the atrocities of the past. The prevailing curriculum now also includes a framework to influence and direct current political ideology to attempt to attach responsibility for the past to people living today.

I guess some people think this will lay the groundwork for the concept of reparations for slavery to become more mainstream and palatable. I personally think the current concept of equity as the goal instead of equality is incredibly destructive and divisive. I don't want to dismantle the best system we have for individuals to pull themselves and future generations of their families into more prosperity and a better life.

No, it doesn’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Today's history lessons cover more than the atrocities of the past. The prevailing curriculum now also includes a framework to influence and direct current political ideology to attempt to attach responsibility for the past to people living today.

I guess some people think this will lay the groundwork for the concept of reparations for slavery to become more mainstream and palatable. I personally think the current concept of equity as the goal instead of equality is incredibly destructive and divisive. I don't want to dismantle the best system we have for individuals to pull themselves and future generations of their families into more prosperity and a better life.

No, it doesn’t.

It does .

What a productive addition to the conversation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Today's history lessons cover more than the atrocities of the past. The prevailing curriculum now also includes a framework to influence and direct current political ideology to attempt to attach responsibility for the past to people living today.

I guess some people think this will lay the groundwork for the concept of reparations for slavery to become more mainstream and palatable. I personally think the current concept of equity as the goal instead of equality is incredibly destructive and divisive. I don't want to dismantle the best system we have for individuals to pull themselves and future generations of their families into more prosperity and a better life.

Statistically, the best indicator of the wealth you will have as an adult is the wealth that you are born into. David Copperfield is a myth, the vast majority of people born to parents living in public housing are not entering the middle class let alone the upper middle class. Likewise, the vast majority of upper middle class families will not have kids who end up living in public housing

That's a destructive and untrue belief. Moving yourself or your family up can absolutely be done with frugality and work ethic. Look at story after story of immigrants who came to the states with nothing and became successful. My husband's and my own families each escaped generational poverty in our parents' generation to give us a wonderful middle class life. We are now striving to do the same or better for our child. This can be a multi-generational process but it can be done. We are not statistical anomalies.

PP didn’t say upward mobility is impossible, just that it’s tough to break out of poverty. Immigrants are a self-selecting group with different factors in play.

Visual on upward/downward mobility.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/27/upshot/make-your-own-mobility-animation.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Today's history lessons cover more than the atrocities of the past. The prevailing curriculum now also includes a framework to influence and direct current political ideology to attempt to attach responsibility for the past to people living today.

I guess some people think this will lay the groundwork for the concept of reparations for slavery to become more mainstream and palatable. I personally think the current concept of equity as the goal instead of equality is incredibly destructive and divisive. I don't want to dismantle the best system we have for individuals to pull themselves and future generations of their families into more prosperity and a better life.

No, it doesn’t.

It does .

What a productive addition to the conversation.

What else is there to say? You’re full of crap. Period.