The Most Active Threads since Friday

Because I didn't post over the weekend, today I'll review the most active threads since Friday. The most active thread during that period was titled, "Call to discuss the state of Hardy 05/15/23" and posted in the "DC Public and Public Charter Schools". Initially this thread started with a question by the original poster asking about an urgent call involving Hardy Middle School, a DC Public Schools middle school located in Georgetown. Posters were fairly tight-lipped about the call in question, but it was implied that it was a conference call involving school parents. Subsequent posts revealed that the primary topic of the call, perhaps the only topic, was parents' loss of faith in Errol Johnson, the school's principal, and their desire to have him replaced. Just four days after the thread was started, Johnson was indeed removed. For me, this brought back memories of a similar controversy involving Hardy from over a decade ago. At that time, parents of inbound students had rallied to demand the removal of Principal Patrick Pope who inbound families viewed as overly supportive of out-of-bounds students to the detriment of inbound students. This resulted in allegations that the inbound families — largely wealthy and White — were using their privilege to disadvantage out-of-bounds families who were predominately (but far from entirely) people of color. As soon as Johnson's removal became known, several posters made similar allegations, complaining that wealthy White families had unfairly pushed out a Black principal with little input from people of color. While the speed with which Johnson was removed was remarkable, I see some fundamental differences between the Johnson and Pope incidences. Pope was clearly removed because inbound families wanted to see the school remade with a focus on its role as a neighborhood school. Regardless of the legitimacy of that position, it had an obvious negative impact on people of color. There was a certain amount of truth in the allegation that White people were taking over a school that, in their opinion, catered far too much to Black students. In the case of Johnson, while those organizing against him appear to be primarily White, their efforts seem to be aimed at protecting the interests of all students. Their complaints involve the principal's communications, managerial, and decision-making abilities. While I may have missed it in this nearly 40-page thread, I don't see many complaints about Johnson's removal coming from the school's parents. Rather, those standing up for Johnson and complaining about his treatment appear to be a small number of teachers. DCPS can often have a "crabs in the barrel" tendency, something that is reflected in some posts. For instance, there are posts from parents with children at other DCPS schools complaining that Hardy parents were able to get almost immediate attention while their schools are largely ignored. I would argue that the problem is not Hardy's issues being addressed, but that other schools don't get similar treatment. Don't blame Hardy for that, blame DCPS.

The next most active thread over the weekend was from anther schools forum, this one was the "Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS)" forum. The thread was titled, "No consequence for teaching CRT". In all honesty, the original post in this thread was about as poorly done as it could possibly be. The original poster simply says that he talked to someone from "Moms of Liberty", a right-wing parenting organization, and that person told him that there are no consequences for teaching critical race theory. The original poster seems to accept this is as fact. There are a number of problems with this post. Moms of Liberty is obviously not an objective source and the original poster provides no further support for the allegation. Anyone associated with Moms of Liberty likely has a much broader definition of "CRT" than most people. The original poster does not provide any examples of CRT being taught in FCPS schools. In a perfect world, posters would have simply ignored this thread, but DCUM is far from a perfect world. Instead, posters challenged the original poster to define CRT and disputed that CRT is taught in FCPS schools. As far as I can tell, the original poster did not return to the thread. So, in some ways, this was the prefect troll. But, in the original poster's absence, another poster stood in to argue that CRT was, in fact, being taught or, more precisely, "lessons based on CRT" are being taught. Even if threads like this stuck to CRT-related topics, they would most always turn in to dumpster fires. But, they never stay on topic. This one drifts into discussions of reparations, transgender topics, comparisons of slavery to the attempted extermination of Jews, policies in Maryland, and other issues clearly outside the scope of this topic. One irony of such threads is that the main contention of CRT, that institutions are inherently biased against people of color, especially Black people, is demonstrated as true almost every day. To take one example, consider the disparate treatment of Black and White individuals accused of voting irregularities. Black people have been imprisoned for years for voting or simply attempting to vote even when officials told them they were eligible. Meanwhile, White people who admit voting multiple times have been convicted, but not sentenced to jail time. Discussing this clear injustice in school would likely be criticized as "teaching CRT". Telling White students that White people routinely enjoy advantages of this sort is translated into "telling them they are bullies" or some such nonsense and becomes a subject of White grievance. Since this thread was going nowhere good, I locked it this morning.

Like CRT, another issue that is sure to spur controversy these days is anything involving transgender people. Therefore, I guess it is no surprise that the next most active thread was titled, "Do conservatives want to ban transgenderism for the same reasons they want to ban abortion?" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. As in the case of the previous thread, the original poster of this thread could have done a better job starting such a discussion. This one was started by simply alleging that conservative opposition to transgender people is based on a desire to increase birthrates and that conservatives believe that transgender individuals will not procreate. As far as I can tell, virtually nobody accepted this argument. But, posters were more than willing to engage in a number of other disputes. The first poster to respond claimed that conservatives are attempting to impose a "medieval worldview" on others. The next responder suggested that conservatives live in a "culture of fear" and can't accept anyone different than them. The thread could have very well ended on the first page with a post saying, in full, "Republicans assume that as long as they keep low and moderate income bigots fired up about their prejudices against all forms of ‘wokeness’ they can get their votes without ever doing anything for anyone other than their financial sponsors." This is really the heart of the issue. To be sure, plenty of posters in this thread claim to be legitimately concerned about children having their private parts removed. That this is mostly a baseless fear does little to deter them. Other posters argue that their concern is about conflicts between trans rights and women's rights. While a few instances of such conflicts get out-sized publicity, I think that anyone who believes that trans people are anywhere near the biggest threat to women's rights are misguided. As such, the obsession among some is really missing the big picture. The original poster does appear to be correct in that there is a relationship between abortion and anti-trans positions. The most clear cut case of that was the recent bill approved by the Nebraska Legislature that imposed a 12-week abortion ban and restricted gender-affirming care for people younger than 19. Both measures were included in a single bill, so no mistaking the connection in that case. But, I think this has less to do with concern about birthrates and more about controlling sexuality, and, of course, getting votes. Another thing that both issues have in common, as pointed out in this thread, is that both are kind of "slippery slopes". Conservatives once argued that Roe v. Wade should be overturned because abortion was an issue rightly decided by states. Now they are proposing nationwide bans. Similarly, conservatives tend to argue that they are against gender-affirming care for children and that such care should be limited to adults. But, we now are starting to see restrictions for care of those of all ages such as in the case of a law in Florida signed by Governor Ron DeSantis.

The final thread at which I'll look today is another school-related topic. This one was posted in the "Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)" forum and titled, "The state of MCPS is atrocious". The original poster complains about proposals to raise taxes in order to increase funding to schools and then links to a Reddit post by someone describing herself as a teacher and listing a number of shortcomings with MCPS. Many of the complaints deal with the lack of discipline and lax grading standards. Posters in the thread attribute these problems to a desire for "equity" — a word that is often seen almost as the root of all evil in our school forums. One of the complaints is that students can pass a class simply by turning in three assignments, whether they know the subject matter or not. Therefore, students can graduate with a D-average but without really having grasped the subject matter. Some posters are concerned that this devalues a MCPS diploma since such a diploma does not guarantee much in the way of knowledge. Another poster argues that a weak diploma is better than the alternative which would be kids dropping out or failing out of school. Much of the discussion in this thread repeats what has been posted countless times in other threads. Discipline is apparently a terrible problem this year, and many of those who identify themselves as teachers place considerable blame on parents. "Parents are not parenting" seems to be a constant refrain. However, one thing that is apparent is the vast differences between schools based on socio-economic factors. Schools in wealthier areas have significantly fewer problems. As such, parents with children at those schools are much more positive about the state of MCPS. But, in the less well-to-do schools, reports of student behavioral issues are consistent and concerning. Teachers attribute much of the problem to the COVID pandemic which kept kids out of school. When the students returned, many had developed screen addictions. It's impossible to say whether the same attachment to electronic devices would have resulted otherwise, but teachers are consistent in complaining about them now. One teacher alleges that in order to deal with the lack of dopamine hits provided by social media, kids are indulging in marijuana more often. The same teacher noted something that hadn't occurred to me. While the teacher favors tighter restrictions on phones during school, many parents who are concerned about the frequency of school shootings are adamant that their kids have access to their phones in case of such an event. I do know that many parents on DCUM have strongly opposed prohibitions on phones in classrooms, but I didn't really understand the basis of their position. I am not necessarily convinced that it is due to school shootings, but it's an interesting possibility.