New Virginia social studies standards

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Several speakers expressed outrage over kindergarten standards that described Indigenous people as America’s first “immigrants” from Asia.

“This is our home. We are not immigrants,” said Aaron Winston, a board member for the Virginia Tribal Education Consortium. “No one is trying to say the English didn’t come from England or the Chinese didn’t come from China. Why are you telling us that now we come from somewhere else?”

Superintendent Balow later apologized in an interview.

“It was wrong to label them as immigrants in the standards document and we will make sure that is corrected,” Balow said.

Are they saying they didn't come from Asia over a land bridge?
There is a case that Vikings might have arrived first.

Their ancestors migrated here 30,000 years ago.

They’re indigenous.

I haven't read the curriculum, are the talking about the first American as immigrants in terms of early human migration patterns (which I would support) or as a way to equate their claim to being a native to any other American's claim on the term (which would be pretty awful)

The inaccurate use of the politically-loaded word "immigrant" is "othering" indigenous people.

That's not the terminology for migrations that happened 30,000 years ago.

Conversely, the word indigenous is othering as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it true that they left out MLK?

Yes, Any mention of MLK is being removed in every grade but kindergarten.

Is there any indication that the mentioning of MLK Jr is FORBIDDEN, rather than not required or specifically highlighted?
I suspect many will still cover him. Maybe not as many lessons all month long....and I think that's perfectly reasonable, actually. The whole month of January doesn't need to be about MLK Jr. There are a lot of other prominent figures that could be given more attention.

Yes, those new standards prohibit teachers from making thier own lesson plans which is something no other contentv areas do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it true that they left out MLK?

Yes, Any mention of MLK is being removed in every grade but kindergarten.

Is there any indication that the mentioning of MLK Jr is FORBIDDEN, rather than not required or specifically highlighted?
I suspect many will still cover him. Maybe not as many lessons all month long....and I think that's perfectly reasonable, actually. The whole month of January doesn't need to be about MLK Jr. There are a lot of other prominent figures that could be given more attention.

Yes, those new standards prohibit teachers from making thier own lesson plans which is something no other contentv areas do.

If the instructional framework hasn't been issued, yet, how do you know that? Where does it forbid anything other than the examples listed in the guidelines?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it true that they left out MLK?

Yes, Any mention of MLK is being removed in every grade but kindergarten.

Is there any indication that the mentioning of MLK Jr is FORBIDDEN, rather than not required or specifically highlighted?
I suspect many will still cover him. Maybe not as many lessons all month long....and I think that's perfectly reasonable, actually. The whole month of January doesn't need to be about MLK Jr. There are a lot of other prominent figures that could be given more attention.

Yes, those new standards prohibit teachers from making thier own lesson plans which is something no other contentv areas do.

If the instructional framework hasn't been issued, yet, how do you know that? Where does it forbid anything other than the examples listed in the guidelines?

I watched the the school board meeting on YouTube it was filled with historians and teachers complaining that they were given less than a week to review this after all the work they done making this curriculum over 4 months was reduced to a 53 page document riddled with historical inaccuracies and grammatical mistakes. It's all on the VDOE site of you do some hunting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Several speakers expressed outrage over kindergarten standards that described Indigenous people as America’s first “immigrants” from Asia.

“This is our home. We are not immigrants,” said Aaron Winston, a board member for the Virginia Tribal Education Consortium. “No one is trying to say the English didn’t come from England or the Chinese didn’t come from China. Why are you telling us that now we come from somewhere else?”

Superintendent Balow later apologized in an interview.

“It was wrong to label them as immigrants in the standards document and we will make sure that is corrected,” Balow said.

Are they saying they didn't come from Asia over a land bridge?
There is a case that Vikings might have arrived first.

Their ancestors migrated here 30,000 years ago.

They’re indigenous.

I haven't read the curriculum, are the talking about the first American as immigrants in terms of early human migration patterns (which I would support) or as a way to equate their claim to being a native to any other American's claim on the term (which would be pretty awful)

The inaccurate use of the politically-loaded word "immigrant" is "othering" indigenous people.

That's not the terminology for migrations that happened 30,000 years ago.

Conversely, the word indigenous is othering as well.

But it’s accurate and indicates that these were the people of the Americas for many millennia before any Europeans, including Vikings, came and killed/oppressed them. Conflating them with immigrants minimizes the genocide. It’s an intentional, politically-motivated misnomer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it true that they left out MLK?

Yes, Any mention of MLK is being removed in every grade but kindergarten.

Is there any indication that the mentioning of MLK Jr is FORBIDDEN, rather than not required or specifically highlighted?
I suspect many will still cover him. Maybe not as many lessons all month long....and I think that's perfectly reasonable, actually. The whole month of January doesn't need to be about MLK Jr. There are a lot of other prominent figures that could be given more attention.

Yes, those new standards prohibit teachers from making thier own lesson plans which is something no other contentv areas do.

If the instructional framework hasn't been issued, yet, how do you know that? Where does it forbid anything other than the examples listed in the guidelines?

I watched the the school board meeting on YouTube it was filled with historians and teachers complaining that they were given less than a week to review this after all the work they done making this curriculum over 4 months was reduced to a 53 page document riddled with historical inaccuracies and grammatical mistakes. It's all on the VDOE site of you do some hunting.

Still doesn't indicate where it is mandated that mentioning MLK Jr before 6th grade is forbidden.

[Anonymous]

Here’s the link to the meeting. It gets interesting pretty quickly. https://youtu.be/vPIQhS2cYGw

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here’s the link to the meeting. It gets interesting pretty quickly. https://youtu.be/vPIQhS2cYGw

Tons of virtue signaling, tons of left-wing "historians" screaming.

The voters spoke in the last election that they didn't want social studies to be a social activism class anymore. You'll have to teach that to kids on your own time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Native Americans (currently grade 2) and Ancient China (currently grade 3) completely removed from elementary school.

Kind of scary.

Dr. King removed from K-5th grade. Yes, wouldn't want to scare white kids with talk of the man who advocated for equality through non-violence. VA is getting as bad as FL!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“It’s just another attack on trying to make history what they want it to be," said James Fedderman, President of the Virginia Education Association.
In the 53-page document, policies outline what and when certain subjects are taught to Virginia students. Many difficult topics such as lynching would not be taught until 6th grade, and Christopher Columbus' role in the slave trade by 11th grade.
"There is also a removal of content of Martin Luther King Jr from the K-5 standards, no mention of Juneteenth, removal of content of LGBTQ+ histories," Fedderman said.

Speaking as a former Texan, there's really no reason that Virginian grade schoolers need to learn anything about Juneteenth. Ftr, MLK is in the 6th grade standard.

If they're learning about the civil war they need to learn about Juneteenth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Several speakers expressed outrage over kindergarten standards that described Indigenous people as America’s first “immigrants” from Asia.

“This is our home. We are not immigrants,” said Aaron Winston, a board member for the Virginia Tribal Education Consortium. “No one is trying to say the English didn’t come from England or the Chinese didn’t come from China. Why are you telling us that now we come from somewhere else?”

Superintendent Balow later apologized in an interview.

“It was wrong to label them as immigrants in the standards document and we will make sure that is corrected,” Balow said.

Are they saying they didn't come from Asia over a land bridge?
There is a case that Vikings might have arrived first.

Their ancestors migrated here 30,000 years ago.

They’re indigenous.

I haven't read the curriculum, are the talking about the first American as immigrants in terms of early human migration patterns (which I would support) or as a way to equate their claim to being a native to any other American's claim on the term (which would be pretty awful)

The inaccurate use of the politically-loaded word "immigrant" is "othering" indigenous people.

That's not the terminology for migrations that happened 30,000 years ago.

Conversely, the word indigenous is othering as well.

But it’s accurate and indicates that these were the people of the Americas for many millennia before any Europeans, including Vikings, came and killed/oppressed them. Conflating them with immigrants minimizes the genocide. It’s an intentional, politically-motivated misnomer.

Yes and no? The archaelogical and genetic evidence is now very clear over the last couple of years that the original "Native Americans" from Beringia eliminated a pre-existing population. Genocide was complete in North America, but a very small percentage of the South American population derives from the earlier people, or peoples.

A second wave included the Navajo and more northerly Na Dene speakers.

The third wave's most successful tribal group was the Inuit, who finished wiping out the Dorset as late as the 1400s; the Vikings actually predate Inuit colonization of that part of North America. Replacement here was total; there's no sign of Dorset genes among the Inuit, and no indication that any were able to escape to the south.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“It’s just another attack on trying to make history what they want it to be," said James Fedderman, President of the Virginia Education Association.
In the 53-page document, policies outline what and when certain subjects are taught to Virginia students. Many difficult topics such as lynching would not be taught until 6th grade, and Christopher Columbus' role in the slave trade by 11th grade.
"There is also a removal of content of Martin Luther King Jr from the K-5 standards, no mention of Juneteenth, removal of content of LGBTQ+ histories," Fedderman said.

Speaking as a former Texan, there's really no reason that Virginian grade schoolers need to learn anything about Juneteenth. Ftr, MLK is in the 6th grade standard.

If they're learning about the civil war they need to learn about Juneteenth.

I mean, no. It's not a bad thing to celebrate and it is an important regional holiday, but it's the most important part of the civil war. The Emancipation Proclamation was much more important. Juneteenth was merely the end, the conclusion, the final point of that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Several speakers expressed outrage over kindergarten standards that described Indigenous people as America’s first “immigrants” from Asia.

“This is our home. We are not immigrants,” said Aaron Winston, a board member for the Virginia Tribal Education Consortium. “No one is trying to say the English didn’t come from England or the Chinese didn’t come from China. Why are you telling us that now we come from somewhere else?”

Superintendent Balow later apologized in an interview.

“It was wrong to label them as immigrants in the standards document and we will make sure that is corrected,” Balow said.

Are they saying they didn't come from Asia over a land bridge?
There is a case that Vikings might have arrived first.

Their ancestors migrated here 30,000 years ago.

They’re indigenous.

I haven't read the curriculum, are the talking about the first American as immigrants in terms of early human migration patterns (which I would support) or as a way to equate their claim to being a native to any other American's claim on the term (which would be pretty awful)

The inaccurate use of the politically-loaded word "immigrant" is "othering" indigenous people.

That's not the terminology for migrations that happened 30,000 years ago.

Conversely, the word indigenous is othering as well.

But it’s accurate and indicates that these were the people of the Americas for many millennia before any Europeans, including Vikings, came and killed/oppressed them. Conflating them with immigrants minimizes the genocide. It’s an intentional, politically-motivated misnomer.

Yes and no? The archaelogical and genetic evidence is now very clear over the last couple of years that the original "Native Americans" from Beringia eliminated a pre-existing population. Genocide was complete in North America, but a very small percentage of the South American population derives from the earlier people, or peoples.

A second wave included the Navajo and more northerly Na Dene speakers.

The third wave's most successful tribal group was the Inuit, who finished wiping out the Dorset as late as the 1400s; the Vikings actually predate Inuit colonization of that part of North America. Replacement here was total; there's no sign of Dorset genes among the Inuit, and no indication that any were able to escape to the south.

Thank you. There’s no such thing, technically, as “indigenous people” anywhere but Africa, where humans evolved. Everyone on every other continent came there at some point. I’m not sure why facts need to be politically contentious. None of this excuses genocide or killing people & taking their land.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“It’s just another attack on trying to make history what they want it to be," said James Fedderman, President of the Virginia Education Association.
In the 53-page document, policies outline what and when certain subjects are taught to Virginia students. Many difficult topics such as lynching would not be taught until 6th grade, and Christopher Columbus' role in the slave trade by 11th grade.
"There is also a removal of content of Martin Luther King Jr from the K-5 standards, no mention of Juneteenth, removal of content of LGBTQ+ histories," Fedderman said.

Speaking as a former Texan, there's really no reason that Virginian grade schoolers need to learn anything about Juneteenth. Ftr, MLK is in the 6th grade standard.

If they're learning about the civil war they need to learn about Juneteenth.

I mean, no. It's not a bad thing to celebrate and it is an important regional holiday, but it's the most important part of the civil war. The Emancipation Proclamation was much more important. Juneteenth was merely the end, the conclusion, the final point of that.

DP. I think it's important to teach the kids that Emancipation didn't just make slavery go away like a puff of smoke; that it took time and some places were even slower to learn/act than others. It's not like there was a tweet to notify everyone slaves were now free and everyone responded right away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s the link to the meeting. It gets interesting pretty quickly. https://youtu.be/vPIQhS2cYGw

Tons of virtue signaling, tons of left-wing "historians" screaming.

The voters spoke in the last election that they didn't want social studies to be a social activism class anymore. You'll have to teach that to kids on your own time.

Do you Youngkinites care that this curriculum isn't even accurate?