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:

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.

How is the language of the popular and majority culture not ok?

[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.

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?

No, we all had similar educations. But we also learned that Washington and Jefferson were great men, thinkers and wise designers. Kids don't learn that today. Now, all they are are white slaveowners. We would have been better off as a country if they hadn't existed.

[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.

I wasn’t questioning what was taught in the 70’s, I am questioning your view on what is comprehensive enough. I am an educator as well as non-white. I do not see the past as a marker of when American history was taught critically.

I’m sure Farewell to Manzanar was enough to get you critically thinking about Japanese/decent’s experiences. I read that in middle school, however teaching it critically and having it connect to the present is crucial. The way most school districts have teachers teach students about history reads more as trauma porn /fact memorizing rather than getting students to learn history on a more meaningful level.

Overstating it may seem to the privileged or ignorant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How is the language of the popular and majority culture not ok?

DP They are not part of that culture nor do they use it in a manner that would be appropriate.

[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.

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?

No, we all had similar educations. But we also learned that Washington and Jefferson were great men, thinkers and wise designers. Kids don't learn that today. Now, all they are are white slaveowners. We would have been better off as a country if they hadn't existed.

You lost the plot. Now children are able to learn that while they did some great things they also did harm as well and that harm is something we should be aware of.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How is the language of the popular and majority culture not ok?

Yeah, I'll not criminalize middle school use of the n-word until Black musicians and films stop using the word.

Notice that you don't hear adults saying it -- just youth who perceive it as part of youth culture because they are immersed in it.

Trying to enforce distinctions in speech by skin color is a pretty irrational expectation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How is the language of the popular and majority culture not ok?

DP They are not part of that culture nor do they use it in a manner that would be appropriate.

Yes, they are. All over the country, youths are part of youth culture. Which is urban, rap, hip hop, all of it.

There's this divide, separation, yes. It's both internal and external. And totally artificial.

[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.

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?

No, we all had similar educations. But we also learned that Washington and Jefferson were great men, thinkers and wise designers. Kids don't learn that today. Now, all they are are white slaveowners. We would have been better off as a country if they hadn't existed.

You lost the plot. Now children are able to learn that while they did some great things they also did harm as well and that harm is something we should be aware of.

Someone lost the plot. But it wasn't me.

[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.

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?

No, we all had similar educations. But we also learned that Washington and Jefferson were great men, thinkers and wise designers. Kids don't learn that today. Now, all they are are white slaveowners. We would have been better off as a country if they hadn't existed.

You lost the plot. Now children are able to learn that while they did some great things they also did harm as well and that harm is something we should be aware of.

The children are *able to learn* that, but the messaging is appropriate to counter the lessons we adults learned when are kids. It's not a balanced presentation for kids starting with no preconceptions (or at least far fewer prior mis-teachings).

[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.

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?

This is DC. Everyone loves to pretend that they’re in daily battle with the KKK even though everyone here is extremely liberal.

[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.

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?

No, we all had similar educations. But we also learned that Washington and Jefferson were great men, thinkers and wise designers. Kids don't learn that today. Now, all they are are white slaveowners. We would have been better off as a country if they hadn't existed.

You lost the plot. Now children are able to learn that while they did some great things they also did harm as well and that harm is something we should be aware of.

History classes have been teaching that for generations. This isn’t the 1940s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How is the language of the popular and majority culture not ok?

DP They are not part of that culture nor do they use it in a manner that would be appropriate.

Yes, they are. All over the country, youths are part of youth culture. Which is urban, rap, hip hop, all of it.

There's this divide, separation, yes. It's both internal and external. And totally artificial.

White people are not. Colorism, white privilege, racism, etc doesn’t disappear just because you think it has.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?

No, we all had similar educations. But we also learned that Washington and Jefferson were great men, thinkers and wise designers. Kids don't learn that today. Now, all they are are white slaveowners. We would have been better off as a country if they hadn't existed.

You lost the plot. Now children are able to learn that while they did some great things they also did harm as well and that harm is something we should be aware of.

History classes have been teaching that for generations. This isn’t the 1940s.

Yet here we are with people like you thinking that the way history is presented is accurate and fair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?

No, we all had similar educations. But we also learned that Washington and Jefferson were great men, thinkers and wise designers. Kids don't learn that today. Now, all they are are white slaveowners. We would have been better off as a country if they hadn't existed.

You lost the plot. Now children are able to learn that while they did some great things they also did harm as well and that harm is something we should be aware of.

History classes have been teaching that for generations. This isn’t the 1940s.

Yet here we are with people like you thinking that the way history is presented is accurate and fair.

PP here. Do you even know who John Blassingame was? (No, of course, you don’t).

[Anonymous]

Oh wow! You’re so special and anti-racist. How can all people be more brave like you?