Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Achieve pushes “competency-based pathways.”

I say we need more critical thinking in schools, more holistic approaches.

Conservatives hate that idea because they won’t win future elections if voters think critically. So they push things like “competency based pathways.”

What you characterize as "critical thinking" is understood by many to mean the indoctrination of younger students with a particular set of political views by teachers who do not seek to explore multiple perspectives. "Comptency-based pathways" at least connotes learning things that will help graduates earn a living wage.

Yes, I am aware of the twisted narrative.

The difference is like the difference between teaching liberal arts in college or attending trade school. The most successful people in society today have a liberal arts/critical thinking background. It’s actually the opposite of indoctrination because it teaches students to challenge authority, which includes what is being taught.

The “just learn skills” crowd only wants students to know how to change a light fixture or repair a car or program a computer. It doesn’t want anyone seeing the forest for the trees. Because then people might second-guess voting for conservative politicians who promote policies that are bad for them. It makes them more prone to acquiescence.

This has been in the works for 30+ years in public education. What we’re seeing now is next level, however.

That's a lot to unpack.

It's not like students who just have liberal arts degrees graduate and set the world on fire. Many can barely find decent employment, and the higher-paid liberal arts graduates often are those who've gone on to attend graduate or professional schools, which may not be a financial option for many students.

As for whether "critical thinking" is being encouraged, it's notable that the School Board has been exploring, if it has not already adopted, revisions to an existing "controversial issues" policy that required teachers to consider presenting competing perspectives, which would be consistent with encouraging students to develop their own views, to instead allow teachers to advocate in classrooms for a particular point of view. That would be fine if students already had the so-called "critical thinking" skills to challenge their teachers, but in practice it may lead to race and class-centered indoctrination.

Finally, as for the suggestion that "competency-based pathways" boil down to "just learn skills," that would be unfortunate if it were all that it entailed. At least some conservatives want to ensure all students are receiving an education in what used to be called "civics" that entails gaining an understanding of the basics about, for example, the three branches of the federal government (executive, legislative, and judicial) and a federal system (under which certain powers are exercised by the federal government, while others are reserved to the states). That type of education can make for an informed citizenry and electorate, not one that only learns vocational training.

Certainly it would be preferable to some of what currently happens in FCPS, where multiple schools (including some where students might benefit the most from additional vocational pathways) instead have International Baccalaureate programs that purport to develop "global citizens," but are poorly subscribed, treat the United States as just one of many countries around the world, fail to cover basic "civics," and graduate few students on track to receive an IB diploma.

To “unpack” your response, one has to dispute the premises you lay out.

1) The notion that “it’s not like those who just have a liberal arts degree have set the world on fire” or cannot find decent employment is simply unsupported by the facts. In fact, it’s a lazy trope. Yes, many go on to get professional degrees or certifications but the liberal arts background equipped them to do so and succeed in those environments. Others become entrepreneurs or find gainful employment in major corporations, which value the ability to think and make connections. Continuous education is necessary for anyone who wishes to succeed and progress in a career — same for trades. But it’s not true that liberal arts graduates are barely employable. Are there some? Sure — there are always outliers. Just like there are crappy plumbers who can’t hold a job.

2) The notion that teachers “advocate” a point of view on controversial subjects is similarly unsupported. That’s some straight up bullshit you have lapped up from propaganda outlets like the Federalist or Washington Examiner or any number of right wing publications masquerading as news. I have known literally hundreds of teachers in my life and none of them do this. It’s a complete and bizarre fantasy of conservatives that this happens — my guess many are confusing the lack of parroting about their own world view in the classroom with “indoctrination.” In other words, they’re complaining about the omission of right-wing dogma in schools. And again, there may be anecdotes here and there of outliers or nutty teachers who have, but in general, teachers are following a state-approved curriculum with accountability in the form of things like SOLs — there’s no time for “indoctrination.” The kids are learning reading, writing, arithmetic. They are also learning how to be citizens and basic society skills like empathy, equity, tolerance, etc. This is important because they might not be learning these concepts at home and society needs for them to know them in order to function. This is essential to that basic “civics” you mention.

We need *More* emphasis on global citizens, not less. We live in a globalized economy. The more holistically we can help our children think and disabuse them of the notion of things like American exceptionalism (teach the concept, but don’t indoctrinate them to the jingoism), the better.

DP here. I'm on your side, PP; however, the empathy, equity, and tolerance you refer to is exactly what these people consider to be indoctrination.
Also, even if teachers aren't formally teaching a specific politically-biased curriculum or "dogma," the liberal bias in this area permeates the school environment and - not infrequently - classroom discussion, to include teachers being very clear about their personal beliefs and positions on social and political issues.

+1. PP, do you have kids in MS or HS in northern VA?

Yes. 2 in HS.

DP.

So, “liberal indoctrination” means teaching kids “how to be citizens” and “basic society skills like empathy, equity, tolerance, etc.”

Liberal indoctrination would mean failing to teach kids about the branches of government under the Constitution and their respective roles, or about individual rights, and instead lambasting the United States as a "settler colonialist" society whose defining characteristic is racism and that can only be salvaged through future discrimination in favor of "oppressed" races and classes.

"Equity" is not a "basic society skill," so much as a political agenda. Equality under the law, on the other hand, is a fundamental right.

Anonymous wrote:Duh.

The state lowered the SOL standards.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Achieve pushes “competency-based pathways.”

I say we need more critical thinking in schools, more holistic approaches.

Conservatives hate that idea because they won’t win future elections if voters think critically. So they push things like “competency based pathways.”

What you characterize as "critical thinking" is understood by many to mean the indoctrination of younger students with a particular set of political views by teachers who do not seek to explore multiple perspectives. "Comptency-based pathways" at least connotes learning things that will help graduates earn a living wage.

Yes, I am aware of the twisted narrative.

The difference is like the difference between teaching liberal arts in college or attending trade school. The most successful people in society today have a liberal arts/critical thinking background. It’s actually the opposite of indoctrination because it teaches students to challenge authority, which includes what is being taught.

The “just learn skills” crowd only wants students to know how to change a light fixture or repair a car or program a computer. It doesn’t want anyone seeing the forest for the trees. Because then people might second-guess voting for conservative politicians who promote policies that are bad for them. It makes them more prone to acquiescence.

This has been in the works for 30+ years in public education. What we’re seeing now is next level, however.

That's a lot to unpack.

It's not like students who just have liberal arts degrees graduate and set the world on fire. Many can barely find decent employment, and the higher-paid liberal arts graduates often are those who've gone on to attend graduate or professional schools, which may not be a financial option for many students.

As for whether "critical thinking" is being encouraged, it's notable that the School Board has been exploring, if it has not already adopted, revisions to an existing "controversial issues" policy that required teachers to consider presenting competing perspectives, which would be consistent with encouraging students to develop their own views, to instead allow teachers to advocate in classrooms for a particular point of view. That would be fine if students already had the so-called "critical thinking" skills to challenge their teachers, but in practice it may lead to race and class-centered indoctrination.

Finally, as for the suggestion that "competency-based pathways" boil down to "just learn skills," that would be unfortunate if it were all that it entailed. At least some conservatives want to ensure all students are receiving an education in what used to be called "civics" that entails gaining an understanding of the basics about, for example, the three branches of the federal government (executive, legislative, and judicial) and a federal system (under which certain powers are exercised by the federal government, while others are reserved to the states). That type of education can make for an informed citizenry and electorate, not one that only learns vocational training.

Certainly it would be preferable to some of what currently happens in FCPS, where multiple schools (including some where students might benefit the most from additional vocational pathways) instead have International Baccalaureate programs that purport to develop "global citizens," but are poorly subscribed, treat the United States as just one of many countries around the world, fail to cover basic "civics," and graduate few students on track to receive an IB diploma.

To “unpack” your response, one has to dispute the premises you lay out.

1) The notion that “it’s not like those who just have a liberal arts degree have set the world on fire” or cannot find decent employment is simply unsupported by the facts. In fact, it’s a lazy trope. Yes, many go on to get professional degrees or certifications but the liberal arts background equipped them to do so and succeed in those environments. Others become entrepreneurs or find gainful employment in major corporations, which value the ability to think and make connections. Continuous education is necessary for anyone who wishes to succeed and progress in a career — same for trades. But it’s not true that liberal arts graduates are barely employable. Are there some? Sure — there are always outliers. Just like there are crappy plumbers who can’t hold a job.

2) The notion that teachers “advocate” a point of view on controversial subjects is similarly unsupported. That’s some straight up bullshit you have lapped up from propaganda outlets like the Federalist or Washington Examiner or any number of right wing publications masquerading as news. I have known literally hundreds of teachers in my life and none of them do this. It’s a complete and bizarre fantasy of conservatives that this happens — my guess many are confusing the lack of parroting about their own world view in the classroom with “indoctrination.” In other words, they’re complaining about the omission of right-wing dogma in schools. And again, there may be anecdotes here and there of outliers or nutty teachers who have, but in general, teachers are following a state-approved curriculum with accountability in the form of things like SOLs — there’s no time for “indoctrination.” The kids are learning reading, writing, arithmetic. They are also learning how to be citizens and basic society skills like empathy, equity, tolerance, etc. This is important because they might not be learning these concepts at home and society needs for them to know them in order to function. This is essential to that basic “civics” you mention.

We need *More* emphasis on global citizens, not less. We live in a globalized economy. The more holistically we can help our children think and disabuse them of the notion of things like American exceptionalism (teach the concept, but don’t indoctrinate them to the jingoism), the better.

DP here. I'm on your side, PP; however, the empathy, equity, and tolerance you refer to is exactly what these people consider to be indoctrination.
Also, even if teachers aren't formally teaching a specific politically-biased curriculum or "dogma," the liberal bias in this area permeates the school environment and - not infrequently - classroom discussion, to include teachers being very clear about their personal beliefs and positions on social and political issues.

+1. PP, do you have kids in MS or HS in northern VA?

Yes. 2 in HS.

DP.

So, “liberal indoctrination” means teaching kids “how to be citizens” and “basic society skills like empathy, equity, tolerance, etc.”

Liberal indoctrination would mean failing to teach kids about the branches of government under the Constitution and their respective roles, or about individual rights, and instead lambasting the United States as a "settler colonialist" society whose defining characteristic is racism and that can only be salvaged through future discrimination in favor of "oppressed" races and classes.

"Equity" is not a "basic society skill," so much as a political agenda. Equality under the law, on the other hand, is a fundamental right.

How do people write stuff like this with a straight face? My kids have all learned about the branches of government, individual rights and responsibilities, the roles of representatives, etc., beginning in late elementary school. What schools are YOUR kids going to? The other stuff mentioned here is just alarmist rhetoric that has no basis in reality. I have a long line of teachers in my family. Interestingly enough, they are not "liberals". My aunt recently retired after decades in NOVA schools and her chief complaints about the state of things are the obnoxious parents, the administration demands, and yes, lowered standards for student responsibility. The narrative you're pushing is just not happening in public schools. That being said, it sounds like your issue is that you WANT schools to paint a sanitized version of history. You put the word oppressed in quotes, as if oppression was not a part of our country's history. Are you implying that oppression played no role in where we are today? And tell me, how does one achieve "equity under the law" when our laws are created, interpreted, and enforced by biased human beings who've historically shown that laws can be used to "oppress" or be applied inequitably?

Your aunt was an old-timer who likely still had some inclination to teach rather than proselytize. If you checked the social media feeds of many current social studies teachers in NoVa, they are dismissive of American values and interested only in pushing an equity agenda that will garner support from others with similar views.

But you might want to explore how those "lowered standards for student responsibility" came into effect. They go hand in hand with "lowered standards for student achievement."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Achieve pushes “competency-based pathways.”

I say we need more critical thinking in schools, more holistic approaches.

Conservatives hate that idea because they won’t win future elections if voters think critically. So they push things like “competency based pathways.”

What you characterize as "critical thinking" is understood by many to mean the indoctrination of younger students with a particular set of political views by teachers who do not seek to explore multiple perspectives. "Comptency-based pathways" at least connotes learning things that will help graduates earn a living wage.

Yes, I am aware of the twisted narrative.

The difference is like the difference between teaching liberal arts in college or attending trade school. The most successful people in society today have a liberal arts/critical thinking background. It’s actually the opposite of indoctrination because it teaches students to challenge authority, which includes what is being taught.

The “just learn skills” crowd only wants students to know how to change a light fixture or repair a car or program a computer. It doesn’t want anyone seeing the forest for the trees. Because then people might second-guess voting for conservative politicians who promote policies that are bad for them. It makes them more prone to acquiescence.

This has been in the works for 30+ years in public education. What we’re seeing now is next level, however.

That's a lot to unpack.

It's not like students who just have liberal arts degrees graduate and set the world on fire. Many can barely find decent employment, and the higher-paid liberal arts graduates often are those who've gone on to attend graduate or professional schools, which may not be a financial option for many students.

As for whether "critical thinking" is being encouraged, it's notable that the School Board has been exploring, if it has not already adopted, revisions to an existing "controversial issues" policy that required teachers to consider presenting competing perspectives, which would be consistent with encouraging students to develop their own views, to instead allow teachers to advocate in classrooms for a particular point of view. That would be fine if students already had the so-called "critical thinking" skills to challenge their teachers, but in practice it may lead to race and class-centered indoctrination.

Finally, as for the suggestion that "competency-based pathways" boil down to "just learn skills," that would be unfortunate if it were all that it entailed. At least some conservatives want to ensure all students are receiving an education in what used to be called "civics" that entails gaining an understanding of the basics about, for example, the three branches of the federal government (executive, legislative, and judicial) and a federal system (under which certain powers are exercised by the federal government, while others are reserved to the states). That type of education can make for an informed citizenry and electorate, not one that only learns vocational training.

Certainly it would be preferable to some of what currently happens in FCPS, where multiple schools (including some where students might benefit the most from additional vocational pathways) instead have International Baccalaureate programs that purport to develop "global citizens," but are poorly subscribed, treat the United States as just one of many countries around the world, fail to cover basic "civics," and graduate few students on track to receive an IB diploma.

To “unpack” your response, one has to dispute the premises you lay out.

1) The notion that “it’s not like those who just have a liberal arts degree have set the world on fire” or cannot find decent employment is simply unsupported by the facts. In fact, it’s a lazy trope. Yes, many go on to get professional degrees or certifications but the liberal arts background equipped them to do so and succeed in those environments. Others become entrepreneurs or find gainful employment in major corporations, which value the ability to think and make connections. Continuous education is necessary for anyone who wishes to succeed and progress in a career — same for trades. But it’s not true that liberal arts graduates are barely employable. Are there some? Sure — there are always outliers. Just like there are crappy plumbers who can’t hold a job.

2) The notion that teachers “advocate” a point of view on controversial subjects is similarly unsupported. That’s some straight up bullshit you have lapped up from propaganda outlets like the Federalist or Washington Examiner or any number of right wing publications masquerading as news. I have known literally hundreds of teachers in my life and none of them do this. It’s a complete and bizarre fantasy of conservatives that this happens — my guess many are confusing the lack of parroting about their own world view in the classroom with “indoctrination.” In other words, they’re complaining about the omission of right-wing dogma in schools. And again, there may be anecdotes here and there of outliers or nutty teachers who have, but in general, teachers are following a state-approved curriculum with accountability in the form of things like SOLs — there’s no time for “indoctrination.” The kids are learning reading, writing, arithmetic. They are also learning how to be citizens and basic society skills like empathy, equity, tolerance, etc. This is important because they might not be learning these concepts at home and society needs for them to know them in order to function. This is essential to that basic “civics” you mention.

We need *More* emphasis on global citizens, not less. We live in a globalized economy. The more holistically we can help our children think and disabuse them of the notion of things like American exceptionalism (teach the concept, but don’t indoctrinate them to the jingoism), the better.

DP here. I'm on your side, PP; however, the empathy, equity, and tolerance you refer to is exactly what these people consider to be indoctrination.
Also, even if teachers aren't formally teaching a specific politically-biased curriculum or "dogma," the liberal bias in this area permeates the school environment and - not infrequently - classroom discussion, to include teachers being very clear about their personal beliefs and positions on social and political issues.

+1. PP, do you have kids in MS or HS in northern VA?

Yes. 2 in HS.

DP.

So, “liberal indoctrination” means teaching kids “how to be citizens” and “basic society skills like empathy, equity, tolerance, etc.”

Liberal indoctrination would mean failing to teach kids about the branches of government under the Constitution and their respective roles, or about individual rights, and instead lambasting the United States as a "settler colonialist" society whose defining characteristic is racism and that can only be salvaged through future discrimination in favor of "oppressed" races and classes.

"Equity" is not a "basic society skill," so much as a political agenda. Equality under the law, on the other hand, is a fundamental right.

How do people write stuff like this with a straight face? My kids have all learned about the branches of government, individual rights and responsibilities, the roles of representatives, etc., beginning in late elementary school. What schools are YOUR kids going to? The other stuff mentioned here is just alarmist rhetoric that has no basis in reality. I have a long line of teachers in my family. Interestingly enough, they are not "liberals". My aunt recently retired after decades in NOVA schools and her chief complaints about the state of things are the obnoxious parents, the administration demands, and yes, lowered standards for student responsibility. The narrative you're pushing is just not happening in public schools. That being said, it sounds like your issue is that you WANT schools to paint a sanitized version of history. You put the word oppressed in quotes, as if oppression was not a part of our country's history. Are you implying that oppression played no role in where we are today? And tell me, how does one achieve "equity under the law" when our laws are created, interpreted, and enforced by biased human beings who've historically shown that laws can be used to "oppress" or be applied inequitably?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Achieve pushes “competency-based pathways.”

I say we need more critical thinking in schools, more holistic approaches.

Conservatives hate that idea because they won’t win future elections if voters think critically. So they push things like “competency based pathways.”

What you characterize as "critical thinking" is understood by many to mean the indoctrination of younger students with a particular set of political views by teachers who do not seek to explore multiple perspectives. "Comptency-based pathways" at least connotes learning things that will help graduates earn a living wage.

Yes, I am aware of the twisted narrative.

The difference is like the difference between teaching liberal arts in college or attending trade school. The most successful people in society today have a liberal arts/critical thinking background. It’s actually the opposite of indoctrination because it teaches students to challenge authority, which includes what is being taught.

The “just learn skills” crowd only wants students to know how to change a light fixture or repair a car or program a computer. It doesn’t want anyone seeing the forest for the trees. Because then people might second-guess voting for conservative politicians who promote policies that are bad for them. It makes them more prone to acquiescence.

This has been in the works for 30+ years in public education. What we’re seeing now is next level, however.

That's a lot to unpack.

It's not like students who just have liberal arts degrees graduate and set the world on fire. Many can barely find decent employment, and the higher-paid liberal arts graduates often are those who've gone on to attend graduate or professional schools, which may not be a financial option for many students.

As for whether "critical thinking" is being encouraged, it's notable that the School Board has been exploring, if it has not already adopted, revisions to an existing "controversial issues" policy that required teachers to consider presenting competing perspectives, which would be consistent with encouraging students to develop their own views, to instead allow teachers to advocate in classrooms for a particular point of view. That would be fine if students already had the so-called "critical thinking" skills to challenge their teachers, but in practice it may lead to race and class-centered indoctrination.

Finally, as for the suggestion that "competency-based pathways" boil down to "just learn skills," that would be unfortunate if it were all that it entailed. At least some conservatives want to ensure all students are receiving an education in what used to be called "civics" that entails gaining an understanding of the basics about, for example, the three branches of the federal government (executive, legislative, and judicial) and a federal system (under which certain powers are exercised by the federal government, while others are reserved to the states). That type of education can make for an informed citizenry and electorate, not one that only learns vocational training.

Certainly it would be preferable to some of what currently happens in FCPS, where multiple schools (including some where students might benefit the most from additional vocational pathways) instead have International Baccalaureate programs that purport to develop "global citizens," but are poorly subscribed, treat the United States as just one of many countries around the world, fail to cover basic "civics," and graduate few students on track to receive an IB diploma.

To “unpack” your response, one has to dispute the premises you lay out.

1) The notion that “it’s not like those who just have a liberal arts degree have set the world on fire” or cannot find decent employment is simply unsupported by the facts. In fact, it’s a lazy trope. Yes, many go on to get professional degrees or certifications but the liberal arts background equipped them to do so and succeed in those environments. Others become entrepreneurs or find gainful employment in major corporations, which value the ability to think and make connections. Continuous education is necessary for anyone who wishes to succeed and progress in a career — same for trades. But it’s not true that liberal arts graduates are barely employable. Are there some? Sure — there are always outliers. Just like there are crappy plumbers who can’t hold a job.

2) The notion that teachers “advocate” a point of view on controversial subjects is similarly unsupported. That’s some straight up bullshit you have lapped up from propaganda outlets like the Federalist or Washington Examiner or any number of right wing publications masquerading as news. I have known literally hundreds of teachers in my life and none of them do this. It’s a complete and bizarre fantasy of conservatives that this happens — my guess many are confusing the lack of parroting about their own world view in the classroom with “indoctrination.” In other words, they’re complaining about the omission of right-wing dogma in schools. And again, there may be anecdotes here and there of outliers or nutty teachers who have, but in general, teachers are following a state-approved curriculum with accountability in the form of things like SOLs — there’s no time for “indoctrination.” The kids are learning reading, writing, arithmetic. They are also learning how to be citizens and basic society skills like empathy, equity, tolerance, etc. This is important because they might not be learning these concepts at home and society needs for them to know them in order to function. This is essential to that basic “civics” you mention.

We need *More* emphasis on global citizens, not less. We live in a globalized economy. The more holistically we can help our children think and disabuse them of the notion of things like American exceptionalism (teach the concept, but don’t indoctrinate them to the jingoism), the better.

DP here. I'm on your side, PP; however, the empathy, equity, and tolerance you refer to is exactly what these people consider to be indoctrination.
Also, even if teachers aren't formally teaching a specific politically-biased curriculum or "dogma," the liberal bias in this area permeates the school environment and - not infrequently - classroom discussion, to include teachers being very clear about their personal beliefs and positions on social and political issues.

+1. PP, do you have kids in MS or HS in northern VA?

Yes. 2 in HS.

DP.

So, “liberal indoctrination” means teaching kids “how to be citizens” and “basic society skills like empathy, equity, tolerance, etc.”

Liberal indoctrination would mean failing to teach kids about the branches of government under the Constitution and their respective roles, or about individual rights, and instead lambasting the United States as a "settler colonialist" society whose defining characteristic is racism and that can only be salvaged through future discrimination in favor of "oppressed" races and classes.

"Equity" is not a "basic society skill," so much as a political agenda. Equality under the law, on the other hand, is a fundamental right.

It must be really hard to live a life filled with such delusions. What you describe is a complete fiction.

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:Achieve pushes “competency-based pathways.”

I say we need more critical thinking in schools, more holistic approaches.

Conservatives hate that idea because they won’t win future elections if voters think critically. So they push things like “competency based pathways.”

What you characterize as "critical thinking" is understood by many to mean the indoctrination of younger students with a particular set of political views by teachers who do not seek to explore multiple perspectives. "Comptency-based pathways" at least connotes learning things that will help graduates earn a living wage.

Yes, I am aware of the twisted narrative.

The difference is like the difference between teaching liberal arts in college or attending trade school. The most successful people in society today have a liberal arts/critical thinking background. It’s actually the opposite of indoctrination because it teaches students to challenge authority, which includes what is being taught.

The “just learn skills” crowd only wants students to know how to change a light fixture or repair a car or program a computer. It doesn’t want anyone seeing the forest for the trees. Because then people might second-guess voting for conservative politicians who promote policies that are bad for them. It makes them more prone to acquiescence.

This has been in the works for 30+ years in public education. What we’re seeing now is next level, however.

That's a lot to unpack.

It's not like students who just have liberal arts degrees graduate and set the world on fire. Many can barely find decent employment, and the higher-paid liberal arts graduates often are those who've gone on to attend graduate or professional schools, which may not be a financial option for many students.

As for whether "critical thinking" is being encouraged, it's notable that the School Board has been exploring, if it has not already adopted, revisions to an existing "controversial issues" policy that required teachers to consider presenting competing perspectives, which would be consistent with encouraging students to develop their own views, to instead allow teachers to advocate in classrooms for a particular point of view. That would be fine if students already had the so-called "critical thinking" skills to challenge their teachers, but in practice it may lead to race and class-centered indoctrination.

Finally, as for the suggestion that "competency-based pathways" boil down to "just learn skills," that would be unfortunate if it were all that it entailed. At least some conservatives want to ensure all students are receiving an education in what used to be called "civics" that entails gaining an understanding of the basics about, for example, the three branches of the federal government (executive, legislative, and judicial) and a federal system (under which certain powers are exercised by the federal government, while others are reserved to the states). That type of education can make for an informed citizenry and electorate, not one that only learns vocational training.

Certainly it would be preferable to some of what currently happens in FCPS, where multiple schools (including some where students might benefit the most from additional vocational pathways) instead have International Baccalaureate programs that purport to develop "global citizens," but are poorly subscribed, treat the United States as just one of many countries around the world, fail to cover basic "civics," and graduate few students on track to receive an IB diploma.

To “unpack” your response, one has to dispute the premises you lay out.

1) The notion that “it’s not like those who just have a liberal arts degree have set the world on fire” or cannot find decent employment is simply unsupported by the facts. In fact, it’s a lazy trope. Yes, many go on to get professional degrees or certifications but the liberal arts background equipped them to do so and succeed in those environments. Others become entrepreneurs or find gainful employment in major corporations, which value the ability to think and make connections. Continuous education is necessary for anyone who wishes to succeed and progress in a career — same for trades. But it’s not true that liberal arts graduates are barely employable. Are there some? Sure — there are always outliers. Just like there are crappy plumbers who can’t hold a job.

2) The notion that teachers “advocate” a point of view on controversial subjects is similarly unsupported. That’s some straight up bullshit you have lapped up from propaganda outlets like the Federalist or Washington Examiner or any number of right wing publications masquerading as news. I have known literally hundreds of teachers in my life and none of them do this. It’s a complete and bizarre fantasy of conservatives that this happens — my guess many are confusing the lack of parroting about their own world view in the classroom with “indoctrination.” In other words, they’re complaining about the omission of right-wing dogma in schools. And again, there may be anecdotes here and there of outliers or nutty teachers who have, but in general, teachers are following a state-approved curriculum with accountability in the form of things like SOLs — there’s no time for “indoctrination.” The kids are learning reading, writing, arithmetic. They are also learning how to be citizens and basic society skills like empathy, equity, tolerance, etc. This is important because they might not be learning these concepts at home and society needs for them to know them in order to function. This is essential to that basic “civics” you mention.

We need *More* emphasis on global citizens, not less. We live in a globalized economy. The more holistically we can help our children think and disabuse them of the notion of things like American exceptionalism (teach the concept, but don’t indoctrinate them to the jingoism), the better.

DP here. I'm on your side, PP; however, the empathy, equity, and tolerance you refer to is exactly what these people consider to be indoctrination.
Also, even if teachers aren't formally teaching a specific politically-biased curriculum or "dogma," the liberal bias in this area permeates the school environment and - not infrequently - classroom discussion, to include teachers being very clear about their personal beliefs and positions on social and political issues.

+1. PP, do you have kids in MS or HS in northern VA?

Yes. 2 in HS.

DP.

So, “liberal indoctrination” means teaching kids “how to be citizens” and “basic society skills like empathy, equity, tolerance, etc.”

Liberal indoctrination would mean failing to teach kids about the branches of government under the Constitution and their respective roles, or about individual rights, and instead lambasting the United States as a "settler colonialist" society whose defining characteristic is racism and that can only be salvaged through future discrimination in favor of "oppressed" races and classes.

"Equity" is not a "basic society skill," so much as a political agenda. Equality under the law, on the other hand, is a fundamental right.

Confirming that all the hubbabaloo about indoctrination is overblown, as this is generally not happening in our schools.

Depends on whose schools you're talking about. It's happening in many places and seeping into the local public schools as well.

Here's one example at a public university: https://www.commonsense.news/p/why-im-giving-up-tenure-at-ucla

An op-ed from commonsense.news. Seems like a reputable source

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Achieve pushes “competency-based pathways.”

I say we need more critical thinking in schools, more holistic approaches.

Conservatives hate that idea because they won’t win future elections if voters think critically. So they push things like “competency based pathways.”

What you characterize as "critical thinking" is understood by many to mean the indoctrination of younger students with a particular set of political views by teachers who do not seek to explore multiple perspectives. "Comptency-based pathways" at least connotes learning things that will help graduates earn a living wage.

Yes, I am aware of the twisted narrative.

The difference is like the difference between teaching liberal arts in college or attending trade school. The most successful people in society today have a liberal arts/critical thinking background. It’s actually the opposite of indoctrination because it teaches students to challenge authority, which includes what is being taught.

The “just learn skills” crowd only wants students to know how to change a light fixture or repair a car or program a computer. It doesn’t want anyone seeing the forest for the trees. Because then people might second-guess voting for conservative politicians who promote policies that are bad for them. It makes them more prone to acquiescence.

This has been in the works for 30+ years in public education. What we’re seeing now is next level, however.

That's a lot to unpack.

It's not like students who just have liberal arts degrees graduate and set the world on fire. Many can barely find decent employment, and the higher-paid liberal arts graduates often are those who've gone on to attend graduate or professional schools, which may not be a financial option for many students.

As for whether "critical thinking" is being encouraged, it's notable that the School Board has been exploring, if it has not already adopted, revisions to an existing "controversial issues" policy that required teachers to consider presenting competing perspectives, which would be consistent with encouraging students to develop their own views, to instead allow teachers to advocate in classrooms for a particular point of view. That would be fine if students already had the so-called "critical thinking" skills to challenge their teachers, but in practice it may lead to race and class-centered indoctrination.

Finally, as for the suggestion that "competency-based pathways" boil down to "just learn skills," that would be unfortunate if it were all that it entailed. At least some conservatives want to ensure all students are receiving an education in what used to be called "civics" that entails gaining an understanding of the basics about, for example, the three branches of the federal government (executive, legislative, and judicial) and a federal system (under which certain powers are exercised by the federal government, while others are reserved to the states). That type of education can make for an informed citizenry and electorate, not one that only learns vocational training.

Certainly it would be preferable to some of what currently happens in FCPS, where multiple schools (including some where students might benefit the most from additional vocational pathways) instead have International Baccalaureate programs that purport to develop "global citizens," but are poorly subscribed, treat the United States as just one of many countries around the world, fail to cover basic "civics," and graduate few students on track to receive an IB diploma.

To “unpack” your response, one has to dispute the premises you lay out.

1) The notion that “it’s not like those who just have a liberal arts degree have set the world on fire” or cannot find decent employment is simply unsupported by the facts. In fact, it’s a lazy trope. Yes, many go on to get professional degrees or certifications but the liberal arts background equipped them to do so and succeed in those environments. Others become entrepreneurs or find gainful employment in major corporations, which value the ability to think and make connections. Continuous education is necessary for anyone who wishes to succeed and progress in a career — same for trades. But it’s not true that liberal arts graduates are barely employable. Are there some? Sure — there are always outliers. Just like there are crappy plumbers who can’t hold a job.

2) The notion that teachers “advocate” a point of view on controversial subjects is similarly unsupported. That’s some straight up bullshit you have lapped up from propaganda outlets like the Federalist or Washington Examiner or any number of right wing publications masquerading as news. I have known literally hundreds of teachers in my life and none of them do this. It’s a complete and bizarre fantasy of conservatives that this happens — my guess many are confusing the lack of parroting about their own world view in the classroom with “indoctrination.” In other words, they’re complaining about the omission of right-wing dogma in schools. And again, there may be anecdotes here and there of outliers or nutty teachers who have, but in general, teachers are following a state-approved curriculum with accountability in the form of things like SOLs — there’s no time for “indoctrination.” The kids are learning reading, writing, arithmetic. They are also learning how to be citizens and basic society skills like empathy, equity, tolerance, etc. This is important because they might not be learning these concepts at home and society needs for them to know them in order to function. This is essential to that basic “civics” you mention.

We need *More* emphasis on global citizens, not less. We live in a globalized economy. The more holistically we can help our children think and disabuse them of the notion of things like American exceptionalism (teach the concept, but don’t indoctrinate them to the jingoism), the better.

DP here. I'm on your side, PP; however, the empathy, equity, and tolerance you refer to is exactly what these people consider to be indoctrination.
Also, even if teachers aren't formally teaching a specific politically-biased curriculum or "dogma," the liberal bias in this area permeates the school environment and - not infrequently - classroom discussion, to include teachers being very clear about their personal beliefs and positions on social and political issues.

+1. PP, do you have kids in MS or HS in northern VA?

Yes. 2 in HS.

DP.

So, “liberal indoctrination” means teaching kids “how to be citizens” and “basic society skills like empathy, equity, tolerance, etc.”

Liberal indoctrination would mean failing to teach kids about the branches of government under the Constitution and their respective roles, or about individual rights, and instead lambasting the United States as a "settler colonialist" society whose defining characteristic is racism and that can only be salvaged through future discrimination in favor of "oppressed" races and classes.

"Equity" is not a "basic society skill," so much as a political agenda. Equality under the law, on the other hand, is a fundamental right.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Achieve pushes “competency-based pathways.”

I say we need more critical thinking in schools, more holistic approaches.

Conservatives hate that idea because they won’t win future elections if voters think critically. So they push things like “competency based pathways.”

What you characterize as "critical thinking" is understood by many to mean the indoctrination of younger students with a particular set of political views by teachers who do not seek to explore multiple perspectives. "Comptency-based pathways" at least connotes learning things that will help graduates earn a living wage.

Yes, I am aware of the twisted narrative.

The difference is like the difference between teaching liberal arts in college or attending trade school. The most successful people in society today have a liberal arts/critical thinking background. It’s actually the opposite of indoctrination because it teaches students to challenge authority, which includes what is being taught.

The “just learn skills” crowd only wants students to know how to change a light fixture or repair a car or program a computer. It doesn’t want anyone seeing the forest for the trees. Because then people might second-guess voting for conservative politicians who promote policies that are bad for them. It makes them more prone to acquiescence.

This has been in the works for 30+ years in public education. What we’re seeing now is next level, however.

That's a lot to unpack.

It's not like students who just have liberal arts degrees graduate and set the world on fire. Many can barely find decent employment, and the higher-paid liberal arts graduates often are those who've gone on to attend graduate or professional schools, which may not be a financial option for many students.

As for whether "critical thinking" is being encouraged, it's notable that the School Board has been exploring, if it has not already adopted, revisions to an existing "controversial issues" policy that required teachers to consider presenting competing perspectives, which would be consistent with encouraging students to develop their own views, to instead allow teachers to advocate in classrooms for a particular point of view. That would be fine if students already had the so-called "critical thinking" skills to challenge their teachers, but in practice it may lead to race and class-centered indoctrination.

Finally, as for the suggestion that "competency-based pathways" boil down to "just learn skills," that would be unfortunate if it were all that it entailed. At least some conservatives want to ensure all students are receiving an education in what used to be called "civics" that entails gaining an understanding of the basics about, for example, the three branches of the federal government (executive, legislative, and judicial) and a federal system (under which certain powers are exercised by the federal government, while others are reserved to the states). That type of education can make for an informed citizenry and electorate, not one that only learns vocational training.

Certainly it would be preferable to some of what currently happens in FCPS, where multiple schools (including some where students might benefit the most from additional vocational pathways) instead have International Baccalaureate programs that purport to develop "global citizens," but are poorly subscribed, treat the United States as just one of many countries around the world, fail to cover basic "civics," and graduate few students on track to receive an IB diploma.

To “unpack” your response, one has to dispute the premises you lay out.

1) The notion that “it’s not like those who just have a liberal arts degree have set the world on fire” or cannot find decent employment is simply unsupported by the facts. In fact, it’s a lazy trope. Yes, many go on to get professional degrees or certifications but the liberal arts background equipped them to do so and succeed in those environments. Others become entrepreneurs or find gainful employment in major corporations, which value the ability to think and make connections. Continuous education is necessary for anyone who wishes to succeed and progress in a career — same for trades. But it’s not true that liberal arts graduates are barely employable. Are there some? Sure — there are always outliers. Just like there are crappy plumbers who can’t hold a job.

2) The notion that teachers “advocate” a point of view on controversial subjects is similarly unsupported. That’s some straight up bullshit you have lapped up from propaganda outlets like the Federalist or Washington Examiner or any number of right wing publications masquerading as news. I have known literally hundreds of teachers in my life and none of them do this. It’s a complete and bizarre fantasy of conservatives that this happens — my guess many are confusing the lack of parroting about their own world view in the classroom with “indoctrination.” In other words, they’re complaining about the omission of right-wing dogma in schools. And again, there may be anecdotes here and there of outliers or nutty teachers who have, but in general, teachers are following a state-approved curriculum with accountability in the form of things like SOLs — there’s no time for “indoctrination.” The kids are learning reading, writing, arithmetic. They are also learning how to be citizens and basic society skills like empathy, equity, tolerance, etc. This is important because they might not be learning these concepts at home and society needs for them to know them in order to function. This is essential to that basic “civics” you mention.

We need *More* emphasis on global citizens, not less. We live in a globalized economy. The more holistically we can help our children think and disabuse them of the notion of things like American exceptionalism (teach the concept, but don’t indoctrinate them to the jingoism), the better.

DP here. I'm on your side, PP; however, the empathy, equity, and tolerance you refer to is exactly what these people consider to be indoctrination.
Also, even if teachers aren't formally teaching a specific politically-biased curriculum or "dogma," the liberal bias in this area permeates the school environment and - not infrequently - classroom discussion, to include teachers being very clear about their personal beliefs and positions on social and political issues.

+1. PP, do you have kids in MS or HS in northern VA?

Yes. 2 in HS.

DP.

So, “liberal indoctrination” means teaching kids “how to be citizens” and “basic society skills like empathy, equity, tolerance, etc.”

Liberal indoctrination would mean failing to teach kids about the branches of government under the Constitution and their respective roles, or about individual rights, and instead lambasting the United States as a "settler colonialist" society whose defining characteristic is racism and that can only be salvaged through future discrimination in favor of "oppressed" races and classes.

"Equity" is not a "basic society skill," so much as a political agenda. Equality under the law, on the other hand, is a fundamental right.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Achieve pushes “competency-based pathways.”

I say we need more critical thinking in schools, more holistic approaches.

Conservatives hate that idea because they won’t win future elections if voters think critically. So they push things like “competency based pathways.”

What you characterize as "critical thinking" is understood by many to mean the indoctrination of younger students with a particular set of political views by teachers who do not seek to explore multiple perspectives. "Comptency-based pathways" at least connotes learning things that will help graduates earn a living wage.

Yes, I am aware of the twisted narrative.

The difference is like the difference between teaching liberal arts in college or attending trade school. The most successful people in society today have a liberal arts/critical thinking background. It’s actually the opposite of indoctrination because it teaches students to challenge authority, which includes what is being taught.

The “just learn skills” crowd only wants students to know how to change a light fixture or repair a car or program a computer. It doesn’t want anyone seeing the forest for the trees. Because then people might second-guess voting for conservative politicians who promote policies that are bad for them. It makes them more prone to acquiescence.

This has been in the works for 30+ years in public education. What we’re seeing now is next level, however.

That's a lot to unpack.

It's not like students who just have liberal arts degrees graduate and set the world on fire. Many can barely find decent employment, and the higher-paid liberal arts graduates often are those who've gone on to attend graduate or professional schools, which may not be a financial option for many students.

As for whether "critical thinking" is being encouraged, it's notable that the School Board has been exploring, if it has not already adopted, revisions to an existing "controversial issues" policy that required teachers to consider presenting competing perspectives, which would be consistent with encouraging students to develop their own views, to instead allow teachers to advocate in classrooms for a particular point of view. That would be fine if students already had the so-called "critical thinking" skills to challenge their teachers, but in practice it may lead to race and class-centered indoctrination.

Finally, as for the suggestion that "competency-based pathways" boil down to "just learn skills," that would be unfortunate if it were all that it entailed. At least some conservatives want to ensure all students are receiving an education in what used to be called "civics" that entails gaining an understanding of the basics about, for example, the three branches of the federal government (executive, legislative, and judicial) and a federal system (under which certain powers are exercised by the federal government, while others are reserved to the states). That type of education can make for an informed citizenry and electorate, not one that only learns vocational training.

Certainly it would be preferable to some of what currently happens in FCPS, where multiple schools (including some where students might benefit the most from additional vocational pathways) instead have International Baccalaureate programs that purport to develop "global citizens," but are poorly subscribed, treat the United States as just one of many countries around the world, fail to cover basic "civics," and graduate few students on track to receive an IB diploma.

To “unpack” your response, one has to dispute the premises you lay out.

1) The notion that “it’s not like those who just have a liberal arts degree have set the world on fire” or cannot find decent employment is simply unsupported by the facts. In fact, it’s a lazy trope. Yes, many go on to get professional degrees or certifications but the liberal arts background equipped them to do so and succeed in those environments. Others become entrepreneurs or find gainful employment in major corporations, which value the ability to think and make connections. Continuous education is necessary for anyone who wishes to succeed and progress in a career — same for trades. But it’s not true that liberal arts graduates are barely employable. Are there some? Sure — there are always outliers. Just like there are crappy plumbers who can’t hold a job.

2) The notion that teachers “advocate” a point of view on controversial subjects is similarly unsupported. That’s some straight up bullshit you have lapped up from propaganda outlets like the Federalist or Washington Examiner or any number of right wing publications masquerading as news. I have known literally hundreds of teachers in my life and none of them do this. It’s a complete and bizarre fantasy of conservatives that this happens — my guess many are confusing the lack of parroting about their own world view in the classroom with “indoctrination.” In other words, they’re complaining about the omission of right-wing dogma in schools. And again, there may be anecdotes here and there of outliers or nutty teachers who have, but in general, teachers are following a state-approved curriculum with accountability in the form of things like SOLs — there’s no time for “indoctrination.” The kids are learning reading, writing, arithmetic. They are also learning how to be citizens and basic society skills like empathy, equity, tolerance, etc. This is important because they might not be learning these concepts at home and society needs for them to know them in order to function. This is essential to that basic “civics” you mention.

We need *More* emphasis on global citizens, not less. We live in a globalized economy. The more holistically we can help our children think and disabuse them of the notion of things like American exceptionalism (teach the concept, but don’t indoctrinate them to the jingoism), the better.

DP here. I'm on your side, PP; however, the empathy, equity, and tolerance you refer to is exactly what these people consider to be indoctrination.
Also, even if teachers aren't formally teaching a specific politically-biased curriculum or "dogma," the liberal bias in this area permeates the school environment and - not infrequently - classroom discussion, to include teachers being very clear about their personal beliefs and positions on social and political issues.

+1. PP, do you have kids in MS or HS in northern VA?

Yes. 2 in HS.

DP.

So, “liberal indoctrination” means teaching kids “how to be citizens” and “basic society skills like empathy, equity, tolerance, etc.”

Liberal indoctrination would mean failing to teach kids about the branches of government under the Constitution and their respective roles, or about individual rights, and instead lambasting the United States as a "settler colonialist" society whose defining characteristic is racism and that can only be salvaged through future discrimination in favor of "oppressed" races and classes.

"Equity" is not a "basic society skill," so much as a political agenda. Equality under the law, on the other hand, is a fundamental right.

Keep going with that thought. Equality is hard to get to under the law because judges and juries are made up of people who tend to fall back on memories and narratives instead of facts. This is why witness testimony is so notoriously bad.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Achieve pushes “competency-based pathways.”

I say we need more critical thinking in schools, more holistic approaches.

Conservatives hate that idea because they won’t win future elections if voters think critically. So they push things like “competency based pathways.”

What you characterize as "critical thinking" is understood by many to mean the indoctrination of younger students with a particular set of political views by teachers who do not seek to explore multiple perspectives. "Comptency-based pathways" at least connotes learning things that will help graduates earn a living wage.

Yes, I am aware of the twisted narrative.

The difference is like the difference between teaching liberal arts in college or attending trade school. The most successful people in society today have a liberal arts/critical thinking background. It’s actually the opposite of indoctrination because it teaches students to challenge authority, which includes what is being taught.

The “just learn skills” crowd only wants students to know how to change a light fixture or repair a car or program a computer. It doesn’t want anyone seeing the forest for the trees. Because then people might second-guess voting for conservative politicians who promote policies that are bad for them. It makes them more prone to acquiescence.

This has been in the works for 30+ years in public education. What we’re seeing now is next level, however.

That's a lot to unpack.

It's not like students who just have liberal arts degrees graduate and set the world on fire. Many can barely find decent employment, and the higher-paid liberal arts graduates often are those who've gone on to attend graduate or professional schools, which may not be a financial option for many students.

As for whether "critical thinking" is being encouraged, it's notable that the School Board has been exploring, if it has not already adopted, revisions to an existing "controversial issues" policy that required teachers to consider presenting competing perspectives, which would be consistent with encouraging students to develop their own views, to instead allow teachers to advocate in classrooms for a particular point of view. That would be fine if students already had the so-called "critical thinking" skills to challenge their teachers, but in practice it may lead to race and class-centered indoctrination.

Finally, as for the suggestion that "competency-based pathways" boil down to "just learn skills," that would be unfortunate if it were all that it entailed. At least some conservatives want to ensure all students are receiving an education in what used to be called "civics" that entails gaining an understanding of the basics about, for example, the three branches of the federal government (executive, legislative, and judicial) and a federal system (under which certain powers are exercised by the federal government, while others are reserved to the states). That type of education can make for an informed citizenry and electorate, not one that only learns vocational training.

Certainly it would be preferable to some of what currently happens in FCPS, where multiple schools (including some where students might benefit the most from additional vocational pathways) instead have International Baccalaureate programs that purport to develop "global citizens," but are poorly subscribed, treat the United States as just one of many countries around the world, fail to cover basic "civics," and graduate few students on track to receive an IB diploma.

To “unpack” your response, one has to dispute the premises you lay out.

1) The notion that “it’s not like those who just have a liberal arts degree have set the world on fire” or cannot find decent employment is simply unsupported by the facts. In fact, it’s a lazy trope. Yes, many go on to get professional degrees or certifications but the liberal arts background equipped them to do so and succeed in those environments. Others become entrepreneurs or find gainful employment in major corporations, which value the ability to think and make connections. Continuous education is necessary for anyone who wishes to succeed and progress in a career — same for trades. But it’s not true that liberal arts graduates are barely employable. Are there some? Sure — there are always outliers. Just like there are crappy plumbers who can’t hold a job.

2) The notion that teachers “advocate” a point of view on controversial subjects is similarly unsupported. That’s some straight up bullshit you have lapped up from propaganda outlets like the Federalist or Washington Examiner or any number of right wing publications masquerading as news. I have known literally hundreds of teachers in my life and none of them do this. It’s a complete and bizarre fantasy of conservatives that this happens — my guess many are confusing the lack of parroting about their own world view in the classroom with “indoctrination.” In other words, they’re complaining about the omission of right-wing dogma in schools. And again, there may be anecdotes here and there of outliers or nutty teachers who have, but in general, teachers are following a state-approved curriculum with accountability in the form of things like SOLs — there’s no time for “indoctrination.” The kids are learning reading, writing, arithmetic. They are also learning how to be citizens and basic society skills like empathy, equity, tolerance, etc. This is important because they might not be learning these concepts at home and society needs for them to know them in order to function. This is essential to that basic “civics” you mention.

We need *More* emphasis on global citizens, not less. We live in a globalized economy. The more holistically we can help our children think and disabuse them of the notion of things like American exceptionalism (teach the concept, but don’t indoctrinate them to the jingoism), the better.

DP here. I'm on your side, PP; however, the empathy, equity, and tolerance you refer to is exactly what these people consider to be indoctrination.
Also, even if teachers aren't formally teaching a specific politically-biased curriculum or "dogma," the liberal bias in this area permeates the school environment and - not infrequently - classroom discussion, to include teachers being very clear about their personal beliefs and positions on social and political issues.

+1. PP, do you have kids in MS or HS in northern VA?

Yes. 2 in HS.

DP.

So, “liberal indoctrination” means teaching kids “how to be citizens” and “basic society skills like empathy, equity, tolerance, etc.”

Liberal indoctrination would mean failing to teach kids about the branches of government under the Constitution and their respective roles, or about individual rights, and instead lambasting the United States as a "settler colonialist" society whose defining characteristic is racism and that can only be salvaged through future discrimination in favor of "oppressed" races and classes.

"Equity" is not a "basic society skill," so much as a political agenda. Equality under the law, on the other hand, is a fundamental right.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Achieve pushes “competency-based pathways.”

I say we need more critical thinking in schools, more holistic approaches.

Conservatives hate that idea because they won’t win future elections if voters think critically. So they push things like “competency based pathways.”

What you characterize as "critical thinking" is understood by many to mean the indoctrination of younger students with a particular set of political views by teachers who do not seek to explore multiple perspectives. "Comptency-based pathways" at least connotes learning things that will help graduates earn a living wage.

Yes, I am aware of the twisted narrative.

The difference is like the difference between teaching liberal arts in college or attending trade school. The most successful people in society today have a liberal arts/critical thinking background. It’s actually the opposite of indoctrination because it teaches students to challenge authority, which includes what is being taught.

The “just learn skills” crowd only wants students to know how to change a light fixture or repair a car or program a computer. It doesn’t want anyone seeing the forest for the trees. Because then people might second-guess voting for conservative politicians who promote policies that are bad for them. It makes them more prone to acquiescence.

This has been in the works for 30+ years in public education. What we’re seeing now is next level, however.

That's a lot to unpack.

It's not like students who just have liberal arts degrees graduate and set the world on fire. Many can barely find decent employment, and the higher-paid liberal arts graduates often are those who've gone on to attend graduate or professional schools, which may not be a financial option for many students.

As for whether "critical thinking" is being encouraged, it's notable that the School Board has been exploring, if it has not already adopted, revisions to an existing "controversial issues" policy that required teachers to consider presenting competing perspectives, which would be consistent with encouraging students to develop their own views, to instead allow teachers to advocate in classrooms for a particular point of view. That would be fine if students already had the so-called "critical thinking" skills to challenge their teachers, but in practice it may lead to race and class-centered indoctrination.

Finally, as for the suggestion that "competency-based pathways" boil down to "just learn skills," that would be unfortunate if it were all that it entailed. At least some conservatives want to ensure all students are receiving an education in what used to be called "civics" that entails gaining an understanding of the basics about, for example, the three branches of the federal government (executive, legislative, and judicial) and a federal system (under which certain powers are exercised by the federal government, while others are reserved to the states). That type of education can make for an informed citizenry and electorate, not one that only learns vocational training.

Certainly it would be preferable to some of what currently happens in FCPS, where multiple schools (including some where students might benefit the most from additional vocational pathways) instead have International Baccalaureate programs that purport to develop "global citizens," but are poorly subscribed, treat the United States as just one of many countries around the world, fail to cover basic "civics," and graduate few students on track to receive an IB diploma.

To “unpack” your response, one has to dispute the premises you lay out.

1) The notion that “it’s not like those who just have a liberal arts degree have set the world on fire” or cannot find decent employment is simply unsupported by the facts. In fact, it’s a lazy trope. Yes, many go on to get professional degrees or certifications but the liberal arts background equipped them to do so and succeed in those environments. Others become entrepreneurs or find gainful employment in major corporations, which value the ability to think and make connections. Continuous education is necessary for anyone who wishes to succeed and progress in a career — same for trades. But it’s not true that liberal arts graduates are barely employable. Are there some? Sure — there are always outliers. Just like there are crappy plumbers who can’t hold a job.

2) The notion that teachers “advocate” a point of view on controversial subjects is similarly unsupported. That’s some straight up bullshit you have lapped up from propaganda outlets like the Federalist or Washington Examiner or any number of right wing publications masquerading as news. I have known literally hundreds of teachers in my life and none of them do this. It’s a complete and bizarre fantasy of conservatives that this happens — my guess many are confusing the lack of parroting about their own world view in the classroom with “indoctrination.” In other words, they’re complaining about the omission of right-wing dogma in schools. And again, there may be anecdotes here and there of outliers or nutty teachers who have, but in general, teachers are following a state-approved curriculum with accountability in the form of things like SOLs — there’s no time for “indoctrination.” The kids are learning reading, writing, arithmetic. They are also learning how to be citizens and basic society skills like empathy, equity, tolerance, etc. This is important because they might not be learning these concepts at home and society needs for them to know them in order to function. This is essential to that basic “civics” you mention.

We need *More* emphasis on global citizens, not less. We live in a globalized economy. The more holistically we can help our children think and disabuse them of the notion of things like American exceptionalism (teach the concept, but don’t indoctrinate them to the jingoism), the better.

DP here. I'm on your side, PP; however, the empathy, equity, and tolerance you refer to is exactly what these people consider to be indoctrination.
Also, even if teachers aren't formally teaching a specific politically-biased curriculum or "dogma," the liberal bias in this area permeates the school environment and - not infrequently - classroom discussion, to include teachers being very clear about their personal beliefs and positions on social and political issues.

+1. PP, do you have kids in MS or HS in northern VA?

Yes. 2 in HS.

DP.

So, “liberal indoctrination” means teaching kids “how to be citizens” and “basic society skills like empathy, equity, tolerance, etc.”

Liberal indoctrination would mean failing to teach kids about the branches of government under the Constitution and their respective roles, or about individual rights, and instead lambasting the United States as a "settler colonialist" society whose defining characteristic is racism and that can only be salvaged through future discrimination in favor of "oppressed" races and classes.

"Equity" is not a "basic society skill," so much as a political agenda. Equality under the law, on the other hand, is a fundamental right.

Confirming that all the hubbabaloo about indoctrination is overblown, as this is generally not happening in our schools.

Depends on whose schools you're talking about. It's happening in many places and seeping into the local public schools as well.

Here's one example at a public university: https://www.commonsense.news/p/why-im-giving-up-tenure-at-ucla

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Achieve pushes “competency-based pathways.”

I say we need more critical thinking in schools, more holistic approaches.

Conservatives hate that idea because they won’t win future elections if voters think critically. So they push things like “competency based pathways.”

What you characterize as "critical thinking" is understood by many to mean the indoctrination of younger students with a particular set of political views by teachers who do not seek to explore multiple perspectives. "Comptency-based pathways" at least connotes learning things that will help graduates earn a living wage.

Yes, I am aware of the twisted narrative.

The difference is like the difference between teaching liberal arts in college or attending trade school. The most successful people in society today have a liberal arts/critical thinking background. It’s actually the opposite of indoctrination because it teaches students to challenge authority, which includes what is being taught.

The “just learn skills” crowd only wants students to know how to change a light fixture or repair a car or program a computer. It doesn’t want anyone seeing the forest for the trees. Because then people might second-guess voting for conservative politicians who promote policies that are bad for them. It makes them more prone to acquiescence.

This has been in the works for 30+ years in public education. What we’re seeing now is next level, however.

That's a lot to unpack.

It's not like students who just have liberal arts degrees graduate and set the world on fire. Many can barely find decent employment, and the higher-paid liberal arts graduates often are those who've gone on to attend graduate or professional schools, which may not be a financial option for many students.

As for whether "critical thinking" is being encouraged, it's notable that the School Board has been exploring, if it has not already adopted, revisions to an existing "controversial issues" policy that required teachers to consider presenting competing perspectives, which would be consistent with encouraging students to develop their own views, to instead allow teachers to advocate in classrooms for a particular point of view. That would be fine if students already had the so-called "critical thinking" skills to challenge their teachers, but in practice it may lead to race and class-centered indoctrination.

Finally, as for the suggestion that "competency-based pathways" boil down to "just learn skills," that would be unfortunate if it were all that it entailed. At least some conservatives want to ensure all students are receiving an education in what used to be called "civics" that entails gaining an understanding of the basics about, for example, the three branches of the federal government (executive, legislative, and judicial) and a federal system (under which certain powers are exercised by the federal government, while others are reserved to the states). That type of education can make for an informed citizenry and electorate, not one that only learns vocational training.

Certainly it would be preferable to some of what currently happens in FCPS, where multiple schools (including some where students might benefit the most from additional vocational pathways) instead have International Baccalaureate programs that purport to develop "global citizens," but are poorly subscribed, treat the United States as just one of many countries around the world, fail to cover basic "civics," and graduate few students on track to receive an IB diploma.

To “unpack” your response, one has to dispute the premises you lay out.

1) The notion that “it’s not like those who just have a liberal arts degree have set the world on fire” or cannot find decent employment is simply unsupported by the facts. In fact, it’s a lazy trope. Yes, many go on to get professional degrees or certifications but the liberal arts background equipped them to do so and succeed in those environments. Others become entrepreneurs or find gainful employment in major corporations, which value the ability to think and make connections. Continuous education is necessary for anyone who wishes to succeed and progress in a career — same for trades. But it’s not true that liberal arts graduates are barely employable. Are there some? Sure — there are always outliers. Just like there are crappy plumbers who can’t hold a job.

2) The notion that teachers “advocate” a point of view on controversial subjects is similarly unsupported. That’s some straight up bullshit you have lapped up from propaganda outlets like the Federalist or Washington Examiner or any number of right wing publications masquerading as news. I have known literally hundreds of teachers in my life and none of them do this. It’s a complete and bizarre fantasy of conservatives that this happens — my guess many are confusing the lack of parroting about their own world view in the classroom with “indoctrination.” In other words, they’re complaining about the omission of right-wing dogma in schools. And again, there may be anecdotes here and there of outliers or nutty teachers who have, but in general, teachers are following a state-approved curriculum with accountability in the form of things like SOLs — there’s no time for “indoctrination.” The kids are learning reading, writing, arithmetic. They are also learning how to be citizens and basic society skills like empathy, equity, tolerance, etc. This is important because they might not be learning these concepts at home and society needs for them to know them in order to function. This is essential to that basic “civics” you mention.

We need *More* emphasis on global citizens, not less. We live in a globalized economy. The more holistically we can help our children think and disabuse them of the notion of things like American exceptionalism (teach the concept, but don’t indoctrinate them to the jingoism), the better.

DP here. I'm on your side, PP; however, the empathy, equity, and tolerance you refer to is exactly what these people consider to be indoctrination.
Also, even if teachers aren't formally teaching a specific politically-biased curriculum or "dogma," the liberal bias in this area permeates the school environment and - not infrequently - classroom discussion, to include teachers being very clear about their personal beliefs and positions on social and political issues.

+1. PP, do you have kids in MS or HS in northern VA?

Yes. 2 in HS.

DP.

So, “liberal indoctrination” means teaching kids “how to be citizens” and “basic society skills like empathy, equity, tolerance, etc.”

Liberal indoctrination would mean failing to teach kids about the branches of government under the Constitution and their respective roles, or about individual rights, and instead lambasting the United States as a "settler colonialist" society whose defining characteristic is racism and that can only be salvaged through future discrimination in favor of "oppressed" races and classes.

"Equity" is not a "basic society skill," so much as a political agenda. Equality under the law, on the other hand, is a fundamental right.

Confirming that all the hubbabaloo about indoctrination is overblown, as this is generally not happening in our schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Achieve pushes “competency-based pathways.”

I say we need more critical thinking in schools, more holistic approaches.

Conservatives hate that idea because they won’t win future elections if voters think critically. So they push things like “competency based pathways.”

What you characterize as "critical thinking" is understood by many to mean the indoctrination of younger students with a particular set of political views by teachers who do not seek to explore multiple perspectives. "Comptency-based pathways" at least connotes learning things that will help graduates earn a living wage.

Yes, I am aware of the twisted narrative.

The difference is like the difference between teaching liberal arts in college or attending trade school. The most successful people in society today have a liberal arts/critical thinking background. It’s actually the opposite of indoctrination because it teaches students to challenge authority, which includes what is being taught.

The “just learn skills” crowd only wants students to know how to change a light fixture or repair a car or program a computer. It doesn’t want anyone seeing the forest for the trees. Because then people might second-guess voting for conservative politicians who promote policies that are bad for them. It makes them more prone to acquiescence.

This has been in the works for 30+ years in public education. What we’re seeing now is next level, however.

That's a lot to unpack.

It's not like students who just have liberal arts degrees graduate and set the world on fire. Many can barely find decent employment, and the higher-paid liberal arts graduates often are those who've gone on to attend graduate or professional schools, which may not be a financial option for many students.

As for whether "critical thinking" is being encouraged, it's notable that the School Board has been exploring, if it has not already adopted, revisions to an existing "controversial issues" policy that required teachers to consider presenting competing perspectives, which would be consistent with encouraging students to develop their own views, to instead allow teachers to advocate in classrooms for a particular point of view. That would be fine if students already had the so-called "critical thinking" skills to challenge their teachers, but in practice it may lead to race and class-centered indoctrination.

Finally, as for the suggestion that "competency-based pathways" boil down to "just learn skills," that would be unfortunate if it were all that it entailed. At least some conservatives want to ensure all students are receiving an education in what used to be called "civics" that entails gaining an understanding of the basics about, for example, the three branches of the federal government (executive, legislative, and judicial) and a federal system (under which certain powers are exercised by the federal government, while others are reserved to the states). That type of education can make for an informed citizenry and electorate, not one that only learns vocational training.

Certainly it would be preferable to some of what currently happens in FCPS, where multiple schools (including some where students might benefit the most from additional vocational pathways) instead have International Baccalaureate programs that purport to develop "global citizens," but are poorly subscribed, treat the United States as just one of many countries around the world, fail to cover basic "civics," and graduate few students on track to receive an IB diploma.

To “unpack” your response, one has to dispute the premises you lay out.

1) The notion that “it’s not like those who just have a liberal arts degree have set the world on fire” or cannot find decent employment is simply unsupported by the facts. In fact, it’s a lazy trope. Yes, many go on to get professional degrees or certifications but the liberal arts background equipped them to do so and succeed in those environments. Others become entrepreneurs or find gainful employment in major corporations, which value the ability to think and make connections. Continuous education is necessary for anyone who wishes to succeed and progress in a career — same for trades. But it’s not true that liberal arts graduates are barely employable. Are there some? Sure — there are always outliers. Just like there are crappy plumbers who can’t hold a job.

2) The notion that teachers “advocate” a point of view on controversial subjects is similarly unsupported. That’s some straight up bullshit you have lapped up from propaganda outlets like the Federalist or Washington Examiner or any number of right wing publications masquerading as news. I have known literally hundreds of teachers in my life and none of them do this. It’s a complete and bizarre fantasy of conservatives that this happens — my guess many are confusing the lack of parroting about their own world view in the classroom with “indoctrination.” In other words, they’re complaining about the omission of right-wing dogma in schools. And again, there may be anecdotes here and there of outliers or nutty teachers who have, but in general, teachers are following a state-approved curriculum with accountability in the form of things like SOLs — there’s no time for “indoctrination.” The kids are learning reading, writing, arithmetic. They are also learning how to be citizens and basic society skills like empathy, equity, tolerance, etc. This is important because they might not be learning these concepts at home and society needs for them to know them in order to function. This is essential to that basic “civics” you mention.

We need *More* emphasis on global citizens, not less. We live in a globalized economy. The more holistically we can help our children think and disabuse them of the notion of things like American exceptionalism (teach the concept, but don’t indoctrinate them to the jingoism), the better.

DP here. I'm on your side, PP; however, the empathy, equity, and tolerance you refer to is exactly what these people consider to be indoctrination.
Also, even if teachers aren't formally teaching a specific politically-biased curriculum or "dogma," the liberal bias in this area permeates the school environment and - not infrequently - classroom discussion, to include teachers being very clear about their personal beliefs and positions on social and political issues.

+1. PP, do you have kids in MS or HS in northern VA?

Yes. 2 in HS.

DP.

So, “liberal indoctrination” means teaching kids “how to be citizens” and “basic society skills like empathy, equity, tolerance, etc.”

Liberal indoctrination would mean failing to teach kids about the branches of government under the Constitution and their respective roles, or about individual rights, and instead lambasting the United States as a "settler colonialist" society whose defining characteristic is racism and that can only be salvaged through future discrimination in favor of "oppressed" races and classes.

"Equity" is not a "basic society skill," so much as a political agenda. Equality under the law, on the other hand, is a fundamental right.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Achieve pushes “competency-based pathways.”

I say we need more critical thinking in schools, more holistic approaches.

Conservatives hate that idea because they won’t win future elections if voters think critically. So they push things like “competency based pathways.”

What you characterize as "critical thinking" is understood by many to mean the indoctrination of younger students with a particular set of political views by teachers who do not seek to explore multiple perspectives. "Comptency-based pathways" at least connotes learning things that will help graduates earn a living wage.

People like Youngkin and FL governor DeSantis seem to have done well enough with their indoctrinating educations.

Yeah but they did it while being white/rich. Now try that being a person of color and poor.

Not exactly relevant. Nevertheless, are you suggesting that if you're poor and of color you should be encouraged/directed/guided into trade training rather than a 4-year college degree? That's precisely what these republicans want to do, thus maintaining the racial and socioeconomic divides. Many non-white and non-rich folks have become very successful with the broader education these white men are hypocritically disparaging. It's harder for some than for others. That's life.

Please provide a citation for anyone stating that people of color should go to trade school while white people should go to college.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Achieve pushes “competency-based pathways.”

I say we need more critical thinking in schools, more holistic approaches.

Conservatives hate that idea because they won’t win future elections if voters think critically. So they push things like “competency based pathways.”

What you characterize as "critical thinking" is understood by many to mean the indoctrination of younger students with a particular set of political views by teachers who do not seek to explore multiple perspectives. "Comptency-based pathways" at least connotes learning things that will help graduates earn a living wage.

Yes, I am aware of the twisted narrative.

The difference is like the difference between teaching liberal arts in college or attending trade school. The most successful people in society today have a liberal arts/critical thinking background. It’s actually the opposite of indoctrination because it teaches students to challenge authority, which includes what is being taught.

The “just learn skills” crowd only wants students to know how to change a light fixture or repair a car or program a computer. It doesn’t want anyone seeing the forest for the trees. Because then people might second-guess voting for conservative politicians who promote policies that are bad for them. It makes them more prone to acquiescence.

This has been in the works for 30+ years in public education. What we’re seeing now is next level, however.

That's a lot to unpack.

It's not like students who just have liberal arts degrees graduate and set the world on fire. Many can barely find decent employment, and the higher-paid liberal arts graduates often are those who've gone on to attend graduate or professional schools, which may not be a financial option for many students.

As for whether "critical thinking" is being encouraged, it's notable that the School Board has been exploring, if it has not already adopted, revisions to an existing "controversial issues" policy that required teachers to consider presenting competing perspectives, which would be consistent with encouraging students to develop their own views, to instead allow teachers to advocate in classrooms for a particular point of view. That would be fine if students already had the so-called "critical thinking" skills to challenge their teachers, but in practice it may lead to race and class-centered indoctrination.

Finally, as for the suggestion that "competency-based pathways" boil down to "just learn skills," that would be unfortunate if it were all that it entailed. At least some conservatives want to ensure all students are receiving an education in what used to be called "civics" that entails gaining an understanding of the basics about, for example, the three branches of the federal government (executive, legislative, and judicial) and a federal system (under which certain powers are exercised by the federal government, while others are reserved to the states). That type of education can make for an informed citizenry and electorate, not one that only learns vocational training.

Certainly it would be preferable to some of what currently happens in FCPS, where multiple schools (including some where students might benefit the most from additional vocational pathways) instead have International Baccalaureate programs that purport to develop "global citizens," but are poorly subscribed, treat the United States as just one of many countries around the world, fail to cover basic "civics," and graduate few students on track to receive an IB diploma.

To “unpack” your response, one has to dispute the premises you lay out.

1) The notion that “it’s not like those who just have a liberal arts degree have set the world on fire” or cannot find decent employment is simply unsupported by the facts. In fact, it’s a lazy trope. Yes, many go on to get professional degrees or certifications but the liberal arts background equipped them to do so and succeed in those environments. Others become entrepreneurs or find gainful employment in major corporations, which value the ability to think and make connections. Continuous education is necessary for anyone who wishes to succeed and progress in a career — same for trades. But it’s not true that liberal arts graduates are barely employable. Are there some? Sure — there are always outliers. Just like there are crappy plumbers who can’t hold a job.

2) The notion that teachers “advocate” a point of view on controversial subjects is similarly unsupported. That’s some straight up bullshit you have lapped up from propaganda outlets like the Federalist or Washington Examiner or any number of right wing publications masquerading as news. I have known literally hundreds of teachers in my life and none of them do this. It’s a complete and bizarre fantasy of conservatives that this happens — my guess many are confusing the lack of parroting about their own world view in the classroom with “indoctrination.” In other words, they’re complaining about the omission of right-wing dogma in schools. And again, there may be anecdotes here and there of outliers or nutty teachers who have, but in general, teachers are following a state-approved curriculum with accountability in the form of things like SOLs — there’s no time for “indoctrination.” The kids are learning reading, writing, arithmetic. They are also learning how to be citizens and basic society skills like empathy, equity, tolerance, etc. This is important because they might not be learning these concepts at home and society needs for them to know them in order to function. This is essential to that basic “civics” you mention.

We need *More* emphasis on global citizens, not less. We live in a globalized economy. The more holistically we can help our children think and disabuse them of the notion of things like American exceptionalism (teach the concept, but don’t indoctrinate them to the jingoism), the better.

DP here. I'm on your side, PP; however, the empathy, equity, and tolerance you refer to is exactly what these people consider to be indoctrination.
Also, even if teachers aren't formally teaching a specific politically-biased curriculum or "dogma," the liberal bias in this area permeates the school environment and - not infrequently - classroom discussion, to include teachers being very clear about their personal beliefs and positions on social and political issues.

+1. PP, do you have kids in MS or HS in northern VA?

Yes. 2 in HS.

DP.

So, “liberal indoctrination” means teaching kids “how to be citizens” and “basic society skills like empathy, equity, tolerance, etc.”

Liberal indoctrination would mean failing to teach kids about the branches of government under the Constitution and their respective roles, or about individual rights, and instead lambasting the United States as a "settler colonialist" society whose defining characteristic is racism and that can only be salvaged through future discrimination in favor of "oppressed" races and classes.

"Equity" is not a "basic society skill," so much as a political agenda. Equality under the law, on the other hand, is a fundamental right.