Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn’t want public school teachers teaching race or white privilege to my non-white kids, are you kidding me? I barely trust them to teach essay writing.

One of my public school teachers, who insisted their class of 10th graders watch Roots from start-to-finish, absolutely changed my life and perspective on society.

Its about exposure not necessarily having the Cicero of educators teaching you at every level.

I don’t see anything in this proposal that would prevent showing the kids Roots.

One thing I’m very skeptical of is white teachers trying to explain how bad off nonwhites are, in a way that’s ultimately disempowering and discouraging. Honestly, again, as a the parent of nonwhite kids, I don’t want white people teaching my kids any of this, full stop.

Anonymous wrote:did you read the legislation? It didn't say anything about banning discussions on race. it just establishes guidelines to discourage calling white kids oppressors and privileged. I agree 100%. it's gone too far. my super quiet DD has to deal with black kids calling her and other kids racist for no reason except that she is white.
teach history and leave the blame out of it. it is causing as many problems as religion in schools was said to cause.

+10000

Anonymous wrote:CRT is a lie which does not belong in any classroom.

But you’re fine with the other lies?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:?
I realize this is not what some people want taught but it IS focused on trying to be neutral. Having read the pages posted I do not see a problem and wish FCPS were following this too.

- Moderate Dem, would have voted for even Bernie over Trump, but also sees SB in FCPS as trying to dive left off a cliff.

+1. Either basically nobody took the time to read the pages in entirety, orrrrr people are dumber than we previously thought humanly possible.

+1 Everything in the Resolution is what Democrats believed 2-3 years ago. But now it’s considered racist to state that no one should be considered better than another based on the color of their skin.

The words are nice but the intent, like a lot of Southern policies, is to restrict educational knowledge about practices like Jim Crow, poll taxes, black codes, and redlining by making it a negative to even bring up past-and-current practices.

What was stopping them from including a rider that all Georgia schools will have a class section on the economic and social practices of slavery, the succeeding repressive laws, and how Georgia has improved over the years to become a better society?

Oh I know what it was - the fact that those in power haven't really changed.

Bravo pp. If this doesn't shut the thread down, nothing will. I digress to 17:41

The seed has been planted and it's germinating.

This country is about to go through some things and it won't be pleasant.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn’t want public school teachers teaching race or white privilege to my non-white kids, are you kidding me? I barely trust them to teach essay writing.

One of my public school teachers, who insisted their class of 10th graders watch Roots from start-to-finish, absolutely changed my life and perspective on society.

Its about exposure not necessarily having the Cicero of educators teaching you at every level.

Right, that's showing a professionally created work of art to 10th graders. I sadly agree with PP that teachers are terribly suited to be teaching about race and from what I overheard, did it in an extremely clumsy way. I suspected that it might have been particularly painful for the non-white kids. Teaching the basics about MLK and some discussion of current events, probably necessary and appropriate for 3rd graders. But it was a truly endless discussion of "black people are treated so badly! racism is so bad!" without any context, for months. But at the end of the day, this is really an argument for better teaching about race, not absurdities like the Georgia stuff.

It’s Georgia- home to Stone Mountain, why is anyone surprised by racism there?

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn’t want public school teachers teaching race or white privilege to my non-white kids, are you kidding me? I barely trust them to teach essay writing.

One of my public school teachers, who insisted their class of 10th graders watch Roots from start-to-finish, absolutely changed my life and perspective on society.

Its about exposure not necessarily having the Cicero of educators teaching you at every level.

I wouldn’t want public school teachers teaching race or white privilege to my non-white kids, are you kidding me? I barely trust them to teach essay writing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most of this is exemplary of what would have been considered anti-racist 5 or 10 or 20 years ago.

It bothers the CRT proponents because it's an impediment to holding certain groups back in order to favor others in educational settings, or expressly advocating in the public schools for the confiscation of private wealth and redistribution of societal resources to benefit Black and Hispanic people. It won't prevent anyone from teaching about slavery or past racism as part of the nation's history.

Actually it bothers me because it enshrines in state law a particular, ideological, view of American history and forbids teaching children the full range of perspectives on that history.

It doesn't. You simply are pissed because one particular perspective (CRT) won't be shoved down kids' throats as the preferred and/or only way to study history.

New poster here:
You couldn’t identify “CRT” if it hit you upside the head. Seriously, stop reading the internet and finding the most extreme examples by which to be outraged.

DP but I’m well versed in CRT and critical theory in general, and I don’t think CRT should be in the classroom. There are other methods of teaching about racism. It’s not the only option. It’s just the one being pushed right now.

Ok so you need to decide -- should we be teaching different perspectives on history, or only the once that a government body deems acceptable? Can you not see the basic problem with that.

DP. But isn't the point of this to not allow the government to require certain perspectives to be taught?

Yes it is. I'm pointing out the irony of that, because at the same time the right-wingers blather about "free speech" and "not teaching ideologies."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most of this is exemplary of what would have been considered anti-racist 5 or 10 or 20 years ago.

It bothers the CRT proponents because it's an impediment to holding certain groups back in order to favor others in educational settings, or expressly advocating in the public schools for the confiscation of private wealth and redistribution of societal resources to benefit Black and Hispanic people. It won't prevent anyone from teaching about slavery or past racism as part of the nation's history.

Actually it bothers me because it enshrines in state law a particular, ideological, view of American history and forbids teaching children the full range of perspectives on that history.

It doesn't. You simply are pissed because one particular perspective (CRT) won't be shoved down kids' throats as the preferred and/or only way to study history.

New poster here:
You couldn’t identify “CRT” if it hit you upside the head. Seriously, stop reading the internet and finding the most extreme examples by which to be outraged.

DP but I’m well versed in CRT and critical theory in general, and I don’t think CRT should be in the classroom. There are other methods of teaching about racism. It’s not the only option. It’s just the one being pushed right now.

Ok so you need to decide -- should we be teaching different perspectives on history, or only the once that a government body deems acceptable? Can you not see the basic problem with that.

DP. But isn't the point of this to not allow the government to require certain perspectives to be taught?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most of this is exemplary of what would have been considered anti-racist 5 or 10 or 20 years ago.

It bothers the CRT proponents because it's an impediment to holding certain groups back in order to favor others in educational settings, or expressly advocating in the public schools for the confiscation of private wealth and redistribution of societal resources to benefit Black and Hispanic people. It won't prevent anyone from teaching about slavery or past racism as part of the nation's history.

Actually it bothers me because it enshrines in state law a particular, ideological, view of American history and forbids teaching children the full range of perspectives on that history.

It doesn't. You simply are pissed because one particular perspective (CRT) won't be shoved down kids' throats as the preferred and/or only way to study history.

New poster here:
You couldn’t identify “CRT” if it hit you upside the head. Seriously, stop reading the internet and finding the most extreme examples by which to be outraged.

DP but I’m well versed in CRT and critical theory in general, and I don’t think CRT should be in the classroom. There are other methods of teaching about racism. It’s not the only option. It’s just the one being pushed right now.

Ok so you need to decide -- should we be teaching different perspectives on history, or only the once that a government body deems acceptable? Can you not see the basic problem with that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A teacher cannot “be compelled” to teach & discuss current events?

This is absurdist, DuChampian theatrics by the GA school board.

A teacher shouldn’t be compelled to teach and discuss current events.

school curriculums can't mandate the discussion of current events, which is completely nuts for things like social science classes.

Anonymous wrote:Where does it say it banned the discussion of racism and white supremacy in the classroom?

It doesn't actually say that, but it's hard to see how you could have an acceptable discussion of racism in the classroom. The whole reason CRT became a bugaboo of the right was because they were exceedingly uncomfortable with how much support racial justice got after George Floyd. They latched on to CRT and certain excesses/bad examples of diversity training to tar all discussion of race and racism. Now any white student who feels "uncomfortable" talking about facts like, say, that the white-black wealth gap today is due to a legacy of discriminatory policies such as restrictive covenants and racist lending policies, can claim that this discussion violates the policy.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2020/02/27/examining-the-black-white-wealth-gap/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:?
I realize this is not what some people want taught but it IS focused on trying to be neutral. Having read the pages posted I do not see a problem and wish FCPS were following this too.

- Moderate Dem, would have voted for even Bernie over Trump, but also sees SB in FCPS as trying to dive left off a cliff.

+1. Either basically nobody took the time to read the pages in entirety, orrrrr people are dumber than we previously thought humanly possible.

+1 Everything in the Resolution is what Democrats believed 2-3 years ago. But now it’s considered racist to state that no one should be considered better than another based on the color of their skin.

The words are nice but the intent, like a lot of Southern policies, is to restrict educational knowledge about practices like Jim Crow, poll taxes, black codes, and redlining by making it a negative to even bring up past-and-current practices.

What was stopping them from including a rider that all Georgia schools will have a class section on the economic and social practices of slavery, the succeeding repressive laws, and how Georgia has improved over the years to become a better society?

Oh I know what it was - the fact that those in power haven't really changed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:did you read the legislation? It didn't say anything about banning discussions on race. it just establishes guidelines to discourage calling white kids oppressors and privileged. I agree 100%. it's gone too far. my super quiet DD has to deal with black kids calling her and other kids racist for no reason except that she is white.
teach history and leave the blame out of it. it is causing as many problems as religion in schools was said to cause.

The intention is to suppress conversations about racism. Even as written, it makes no sense because point 1) is obviously in contradiction to point 4), so there's no way to implement this logically at all.

I agree with this. How are you supposed to teach about things like current race-based disparities?

Do you feel the same about teaching religion classes in public schools?

Huh? Of course teaching ABOUT religion is fine. Religious are an area of academic study. Likewise, racial disparities are an area of academic studies, with plenty of quantitative and qualitative analysis.