Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish that they would skip the bingo and just teach kids that life if not fair and the sooner you accept that, the happier you will be.

Well, life is more unfair to some folks than others all other things being equal. Teaching kids to understand perceptions and innate biases is part of learning.

Anonymous wrote:I wish that they would skip the bingo and just teach kids that life if not fair and the sooner you accept that, the happier you will be.

Anonymous wrote:I think this was just poorly constructed.

First off, they should categorize these items in two ways. Inherited and earned. Or something. Being white shouldn’t be looked at the same way as having married parents or a room to yourself.

Kids families have worked hard to earn some of these things while some of these traits you are born with. Some people may know what it is to be both with a bedroom and without based on how their family has evolved.

I look at many of those earned “privileges” as something that kids should strive to provide for their own lives should they have a family while ignoring crap like sex and race.

Either way as long as parents know this is going on, they can counteract these poorly constructed lessons with proper context and understanding. It always comes back to parenting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So basically, to Republicans CRT is anything that acknowledges privilege exists on any level.

Yep.

That's because they don't understand CRT. It's just a boogey man.

Did you mean booger man? Like someone who picks his nose?
Or bogeyman?
Spelling. It’s a thing. Used to teach it schools.

Anonymous wrote:If you don't believe it is a privilege, then reject the benefit.

Case closed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So basically, to Republicans CRT is anything that acknowledges privilege exists on any level.

Yep.

That's because they don't understand CRT. It's just a boogey man.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So basically, to Republicans CRT is anything that acknowledges privilege exists on any level.

Yep.

Anonymous wrote:A benefit confers a privilege. The dependent child did not "earn" that benefit. Ipso factor, I would consider that a privilege. Not all veterans were exemplary armed-force personnel. But they walk away with many benefits, including the GI Bill.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Get Privilege Bingo Out of Schools!

Doesn't really have a nice ring to it, but it bypasses the technicality argument that "such and such is or isn't actually taught in schools," when clearly it is tangible things like this that started the unfortunately named "Anti-CRT" movement.

I think there should be a transparent review about how this particular lesson formed, who came up with the idea, what steps did it go through to get approval, etc.

And, I don't know, maybe after that we could have an honest discussion about the pros and cons of including things like this in the curriculum?

Ths is a district approved lesson for 10th graders enrolled in English (so all fcps 10th graders).

It had to go through many levels of approval and several sets of eyes before it touched the desk of a single student.

Content aside, is anyone else insulted for our 10th graders that this over simplistic, reads like a 1st year pedagogy theory assignment put together in 5 minutes, was what Gatehouse feels is as appropriate level of instruction for our fcps 15 and 16 year olds? Do they not think our young adults 2 years from college are capable of having a thoughtful, nuanced, unbiased, age appropriate lesson plan?

The fact that a paid fcps employee came up with this juvenile, biased assignment for our young adults with such obviously racist and sexist content, and passed it through whatever levels of approval such things go through, is a bit flabbergasting.

This is the level of work fcps is designing for our soon to be adults?