Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Some of you may be bothered by conservative concerns but their concerns are just as valid and important as yours.

I mean, "no" to the bolded. If their concerns are that kids shouldn't be required to get vaccinated because they believe hokum about vaccines causing autism or making people magnetic or something about Bill Gates, and my concerns are that evolution should be taught as accepted science and young earth theories should be rejected, then conservative concerns "aren't just as valid and important as mine."

Maybe you'll say not *those* conservative concerns and not *those* liberal concerns. But, even so, that means you can't really use a broad brush to say which concerns are "just as valid and important" as the other.

There are people that believe that gender ideology is as much hokum as the idea that vaccines cause autism, yet there are books for young children that teach the tenets of gender identity to young kids in some public schools. You can’t say, oh MY side is the science-based one but then ignore the outright mythology that passes for fact by a lot of leftists.

I think that, eventually, a lot of the sex and gender essentialism we see these days will be held in the same regard as the race essentialism we saw back in the 19th century.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Some of you may be bothered by conservative concerns but their concerns are just as valid and important as yours.

I mean, "no" to the bolded. If their concerns are that kids shouldn't be required to get vaccinated because they believe hokum about vaccines causing autism or making people magnetic or something about Bill Gates, and my concerns are that evolution should be taught as accepted science and young earth theories should be rejected, then conservative concerns "aren't just as valid and important as mine."

Maybe you'll say not *those* conservative concerns and not *those* liberal concerns. But, even so, that means you can't really use a broad brush to say which concerns are "just as valid and important" as the other.

There are people that believe that gender ideology is as much hokum as the idea that vaccines cause autism, yet there are books for young children that teach the tenets of gender identity to young kids in some public schools. You can’t say, oh MY side is the science-based one but then ignore the outright mythology that passes for fact by a lot of leftists.

I think that, eventually, a lot of the sex and gender essentialism we see these days will be held in the same regard as the race essentialism we saw back in the 19th century.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Some of you may be bothered by conservative concerns but their concerns are just as valid and important as yours.

I mean, "no" to the bolded. If their concerns are that kids shouldn't be required to get vaccinated because they believe hokum about vaccines causing autism or making people magnetic or something about Bill Gates, and my concerns are that evolution should be taught as accepted science and young earth theories should be rejected, then conservative concerns "aren't just as valid and important as mine."

Maybe you'll say not *those* conservative concerns and not *those* liberal concerns. But, even so, that means you can't really use a broad brush to say which concerns are "just as valid and important" as the other.

There are people that believe that gender ideology is as much hokum as the idea that vaccines cause autism, yet there are books for young children that teach the tenets of gender identity to young kids in some public schools. You can’t say, oh MY side is the science-based one but then ignore the outright mythology that passes for fact by a lot of leftists.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Some of you may be bothered by conservative concerns but their concerns are just as valid and important as yours.

I mean, "no" to the bolded. If their concerns are that kids shouldn't be required to get vaccinated because they believe hokum about vaccines causing autism or making people magnetic or something about Bill Gates, and my concerns are that evolution should be taught as accepted science and young earth theories should be rejected, then conservative concerns "aren't just as valid and important as mine."

Maybe you'll say not *those* conservative concerns and not *those* liberal concerns. But, even so, that means you can't really use a broad brush to say which concerns are "just as valid and important" as the other.

Anonymous wrote:
Some of you may be bothered by conservative concerns but their concerns are just as valid and important as yours.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. The interesting thing for me is that I simply do not trust the left’s characterization of educational issues any more. Not since the school closures and all the gaslighting from the left on those. I just flat-out don’t believe them anymore. They’ve just overtly lied too many times and it’s obvious they never did care about quality of education.

I never believed the right, so it’s not like I believe them either. But now I think the left is as untrustworthy.

How do you even figure out who is speaking on behalf of "the left" or "the right?" There is just so much noise out there. I mostly trust mainstream media with the caveat that: a) they'll always get something wrong -- if you've ever been part of something that's being reported, you know there are errors to one degree or another; and b) they have to make money, so there is going to be a bias toward reporting things with an emotional appeal.

Anonymous wrote:NP. The interesting thing for me is that I simply do not trust the left’s characterization of educational issues any more. Not since the school closures and all the gaslighting from the left on those. I just flat-out don’t believe them anymore. They’ve just overtly lied too many times and it’s obvious they never did care about quality of education.

I never believed the right, so it’s not like I believe them either. But now I think the left is as untrustworthy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They aren't focused on it, it is just a small part of the broader curriculum. Only the right is overhyping this because they are total snowflakes.

What if young earth creationism was just “a small part” of the curriculum?

How much crazy is too much? For some people, any more than zero

Depends where in the curriculum. If it's part of the science curriculum, then hell no. But if it was part of a comparative religions class, then I'd have no problem at all with some craziness being included.

A PP above was insisting it was being taught in place of math. Still hasn't provided any evidence to support it.

Not the PP and not entirely familiar with the exchange you're quoting, but there was a teacher continuing education module endorsed by the Oregon Department of Education about anti-racism in math education. It was called, "A Pathway to Equitable Instruction: Dismantling Racism in Mathematics Instruction." Snopes reviewed the claim, "Did Oregon officials say 'showing work' in math class Is white supremacism?" and rated the claim as "a mixture."

What's true: In a newsletter to math teachers, ODE promoted an independent project that has materials on its website that read, "White supremacy culture shows up in math classrooms when ... students are required to 'show their work.'"
What's False: The ODE did not explicitly tell teachers that requiring students to "show their work" in math class was a form of white supremacy. Rather, the department told Snopes that expanding the ways in which teachers make students explain their question-answering process beyond the written word and numbers could help eliminate racial and language performance gaps.

Snopes link: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/education-oregon/
Link to the module: https://equitablemath.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/11/1_STRIDE1.pdf

So, there is an anti-racist lens for math education that at least arguably goes too far albeit probably for noble reasons; meanwhile, it's misrepresented by right wing agitators into a caricature of itself that's not nearly as pervasive as they'd like you to believe.

Anonymous wrote:

I'm curious, how often do parents engage with you directly to discuss this sort of issue? I'm thinking more conversations between parents and teachers would create a better situation than...whatever it is we have now.

Parents rarely bring it up directly to teachers. It comes up occasionally, and when it does I find that parents - on both sides - are relieved to hear that whatever they thought was or wasn't happening isn't reality.
It's amazing that teachers aren't often included in conversations about what's really happening in classrooms. There are two reasons for that, in my experience: The first is that the administration makes decisions that we don't necessarily agree with but we're not able to speak up without risking our jobs. The second is that teaching isn't well-respected in the US, and now far too many teachers have been silenced.
I'm liberal and I teach in a district that believes in equity. It's not equality, it's trying to meet our students where they are and build them up. We haven't harmed our brightest students - we haven't done away with leveling middle school and high school classes according to ability, we haven't stopped the gifted program, and we continue to give standardized tests. We also have a diversity group, a tolerance group, after-school tutoring groups, and teachers that are married to same-sex partners, alongside the usual community service, band, art, foreign-language, etc. clubs. All of this in a lower-middle-class, Title 1 school. The high, the low, and the average achievers, white children and children of color, native-born and immigrants, Christians/Jews/Muslims/atheists can all have their needs met as much as any public entity can. Public school will never be perfect because of the varied needs its presented with, but the goal is to create an equity and a sense of belonging and acceptance that can carry over into the general public.
It's about acknowledging the validity of everyone, the opposite of the divisiveness the right has been brainwashed to believe in.

Anonymous wrote:

I'm curious, how often do parents engage with you directly to discuss this sort of issue? I'm thinking more conversations between parents and teachers would create a better situation than...whatever it is we have now.

Parents rarely bring it up directly to teachers. It comes up occasionally, and when it does I find that parents - on both sides - are relieved to hear that whatever they thought was or wasn't happening isn't reality.
It's amazing that teachers aren't often included in conversations about what's really happening in classrooms. There are two reasons for that, in my experience: The first is that the administration makes decisions that we don't necessarily agree with but we're not able to speak up without risking our jobs. The second is that teaching isn't well-respected in the US, and now far too many teachers have been silenced.
I'm liberal and I teach in a district that believes in equity. It's not equality, it's trying to meet our students where they are and build them up. We haven't harmed our brightest students - we haven't done away with leveling middle school and high school classes according to ability, we haven't stopped the gifted program, and we continue to give standardized tests. We also have a diversity group, a tolerance group, after-school tutoring groups, and teachers that are married to same-sex partners, alongside the usual community service, band, art, foreign-language, etc. clubs. All of this in a lower-middle-class, Title 1 school. The high, the low, and the average achievers, white children and children of color, native-born and immigrants, Christians/Jews/Muslims/atheists can all have their needs met as much as any public entity can. Public school will never be perfect because of the varied needs its presented with, but the goal is to create an equity and a sense of belonging and acceptance that can carry over into the general public.
It's about acknowledging the validity of everyone, the opposite of the divisiveness the right has been brainwashed to believe in.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They aren't focused on it, it is just a small part of the broader curriculum. Only the right is overhyping this because they are total snowflakes.

What if young earth creationism was just “a small part” of the curriculum?

How much crazy is too much? For some people, any more than zero

Depends where in the curriculum. If it's part of the science curriculum, then hell no. But if it was part of a comparative religions class, then I'd have no problem at all with some craziness being included.

PP here and we agree!

If the stuff about gender and antiracism was being studied clinically in a class about social movements and contagions etc, that would be fine - even better than fine, it would be great

But it ain’t that way

Uh, yes it is, either as part of social movements in history or as reflected in literature. Because these issues are part of our history and culture. We don't all live in a straight white male Christian world.

I’m not sure what you’re saying

What I’m saying is that schools could study the emergence and dynamics of these belief systems - but instead, they are presenting them as the law

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They aren't focused on it, it is just a small part of the broader curriculum. Only the right is overhyping this because they are total snowflakes.

What if young earth creationism was just “a small part” of the curriculum?

How much crazy is too much? For some people, any more than zero

Depends where in the curriculum. If it's part of the science curriculum, then hell no. But if it was part of a comparative religions class, then I'd have no problem at all with some craziness being included.

A PP above was insisting it was being taught in place of math. Still hasn't provided any evidence to support it.