Implementation of CRT is not teaching of CRT.
I guess that many on the right are not aware that there are teachers in college and universities too.
But the point of the article is that there is support to have curriculum that includes CRT research in the future. As pointed already in the thread, most of the opposition to CRT is Orwellian and astroturfed.
Also, it is logical to eventually see some concepts and research from CRT at the high school level, that leads to another point mentioned earlier: that what the bigoted and stupid governors from red states signed into law will be found to be unconstitutional as local authorities are likely to prevent any teaching related to the history of race relations and conditions in America, regardless if CRT is not involved.
There seems to be a lot of histrionics around the topic of CRT, but not much in the way of information of the content and how it will be presented to various grades.
I’d like to hear what is actually going to be taught to kids as part of the new CRT curriculum framework, rather than what opponents and critics are afraid will be taught.
I forgot one more observation: I was correct when, earlier here or in the other threads about this, I expected that the bigoted Governors and the Republicans raising this hysteria got it wrong when assuming that teachers and professors would be an easy target. They already have a different thing coming at them.
There’s a lot more heat than light in this debate, and it’s hard to find copies of the actual material.
There’s an example at the bottom of this page, and I think others on the same site:
Talk about less light. That article is a perfect example of illogical thinking. Besides acknowledging that a lot is happening because of the pandemic and other infective policies, there is not really a good logical reason to claim that critical race theory is causing the failure or that putting things already discussed here in “scare quotes” makes his argument.
Having looked at that, then one looks at the bias, he is a fellow at the Manhattan Institute:
So, not only biased, but that guy already has a history of bullshit galore.
That’s what happened to officials in Oregon’s Tigard-Tualatin School District. In an article for City Journal ’s spring issue, Rufo said he’d received “a blueprint” from a whistleblower. It purportedly showed that the district’s new director of equity and inclusion, Zinnia Un, planned to transform “the pedagogy and curriculum” by adopting the theories of Paulo Freire, a Brazilian educator whose best-known work, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, encourages teachers to work with their students as partners and frames education as an act of liberation and mutual humanization. This is a problem, Rufo said, because Freire was a Marxist. “Following Freire’s categorizations, Un writes that the Tigard-Tualatin school district must move from a state of ‘reading the world’ to the phase of ‘denunciation’ against the revolution’s enemies and, finally, to the state of ‘annunciation’ of the liberated masses, who will begin ‘rewriting the world,’” Rufo wrote.
The school-district document Rufo cites does not say this. It references Freire’s work but not, for example, revolution, its enemies, or the liberated masses. A spokesperson for the district said the presentation was used internally for an opt-in professional-development session and school-board discussions about implementing an anti-racist resolution; a revolutionary vanguard has yet to form.
Of an additional staff resource, Rufo wrote that it “assumes” whites are born racist, which he called “textbook cult indoctrination.” The truth is a bit tamer: The guide urges white educators to move beyond the “belief that you aren’t racist if you don’t purposely or consciously act in racist ways,” and according to the spokesperson, it has not been used in any formal settings, such as for staff training. Still, this hysterical interpretation appealed to right-wing commentators like Andy Ngo, and Rufo later went on Newsmax to promote the misleading story further.
Hah! I was part of that NEA representative assembly. There were more than 70 different things we voted on, and that’s just counting the major items, not the votes on whether to close debate on an amendment to a new business item.
CRT is no more taught in schools, according to this resolution, than Zygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development or Piaget’s Stages of Proximal Development are taught in schools. These are pedagogical theories that underpin approaches to instruction, not topics of instruction. If you read Stephen King’s latest novel, you’re likely to get a few good scares, but you won’t come away with any indoctrination about bookbinding techniques or kerning protocols. Those were necessary to the construction of the book, but the reader will no more notice them than the student will notice CRT.
But yes, a lot of teachers find CRT a useful lens through which to understand history, and teach history informed by this lens. I did so before I knew the lens had a name: I taught kids about the racist history of our nation, and I taught them about the resistance to racism in our nation. And I am so proud of Becky Pringle for standing up on behalf of educators who refuse to be canceled (that’s what y’all are calling it these days, right?) over our commitment to teaching honest history.
This is what I find so disingenuous about this whole debate. One side is insisting schools are teaching kids CRT, and the other side keeps insisting they aren’t; but the real issue is that schools are teaching kids ideas/conclusions derived from CRT. Telling the anti-CRT side that it’s not technically CRT is never going to satisfy them, because it’s the ideas they object to. The what-is-CRT debate is just a red herring and it’s getting very tiresome.
One side needs to stop insisting on calling it CRT, and the other needs to stop arguing semantics and pretending it is all imaginary, and start defending what they are teaching.
Assuming that what you state here is exactly true, who is disingenuous in this story?
The problem is that the first group of people are, per your description, wrong, and the second group of people are correct.
Imagine if the liberal media kept telling you creationism was being taught in schools, with examples of what they were teaching, and the response of teachers and the conservative media was ‘don’t be silly. That’s not creationism. This is a panic over nothing.’ Since the schools are actually teaching Intelligent Design, they are correct.
Don’t you think they’re being a teeny bit disingenuous?
Rufo is a dishonest piece of shit, citing him is like citing Trump.
Yes, of course they are. Of course, that situation isn’t remotely analogous to what’s happening with CRT so I’m not sure why you used it. The appropriate comparison is the one LHOD made:
But you’re quite right that it is difficult to get people to stop misunderstanding what CRT is and how it is applied in the curriculum at various stages when there is a persistent, widespread effort to deliberately get people to misunderstand what CRT is and how it is applied.
Yes, why can’t people just blindly believe what the anti-CRT side are saying? It’s so tiresome how the other side keep calling them out fo their malign bullshit.
And the “ideas they object to” are the teaching of actual American history. Cancel culture writ large.
Nobody is pretending it is all imaginary and it’s not “semantics” to counter deliberate falsehoods. And they are defending what they are actually teaching; what they’re not doing is teaching what the other side is accusing them of teaching.
For people who don’t like analogies, let me put it another way. There are two issues here:
- Conservatives and some parents object to what (their) children are being taught in school.
- They are wrongly calling this CRT.
Showing they are wrong about (2) and implying this means they are also wrong about (1) is disingenuous.
Almost certainly the conservative media is also being disingenuous and making a mountain out of a molehill, but it’s quite hard to tell since the mainstream media never seems to bother addressing the actual lessons.
Most of the examples I have seen were about teaching kids things that I guess come from intersectionality, plus anti-racism, how to be an ally - that kind of thing. Nothing to do with US history.
It’s fine to correct the misunderstanding on what this stuff is called, but I haven’t seen anyone defend the actual material. Can you link to an example please?
Personally, I like analogies just fine, unless they’re false or misleading.
Neither of those are the issues here, so your conclusion about who is being “disingenuous” is incorrect. Conservatives and some parents are objecting to what they falsely believe their children are being taught in schools, including rampant Marxism and to hate white people. And they believe this because of the aforementioned campaign to misrepresent how CRT is applied in the curricula at all level.
You are correct that they are “wrongly” calling this misrepresentation “CRT”, but your causal link is reversed. They are wrong about 2) because they are wrong about 1).
Yes, that is one of the problems of Gish Gallops - discussion of the myriad lies tends to dominate the conversation. But to blame the “mainstream media” for failing to fully counter the strong coordinated disinformation campaign of the conservative media is not only a bit odd, it’s straying into comic-book-villain logic: “It’s your fault for not stopping me from doing bad things!”. Since “disingenuousness” appears to be significant concern of yours, perhaps such labels should be applied to the appropriate targets.
Where have you seen those examples?
Perhaps you could review the multiple CRD threads I am aware you’ve been involved with. There is plenty of material to be getting on with there.
Clearly, your point here is telling us that the cited law papers and the not Orwellian cites that countered the unreliable narrators from the right wing media are chopped liver.
The conservative media is lying to parents about what their children are being taught - that is the issue and the only issue.
But it’s the mainstream media’s fault for failing to deprogram those parents faster than they’re being brainwashed.
I mean, those last two posts do sum it up, right?
It’s not just that they’re claiming, falsely, that we’re teaching CRT: it’s that they then claim, falsely, that we’re teaching things like “white people should feel ashamed of their race” or “hatred between the races” or “how to hate America” or “Marxism.”
I can’t say for sure that nobody anywhere has taught kids that white people should feel ashamed of their race. But straight up the folks making these accusations don’t have a stellar history of following the “no false witness” commandment, and a lot of the folks who (for example) mobbed my local school board and shut it down are people who don’t even have kids in the schools, but who just watch too much Hannity.
And the rare unicorn teacher who teaches kids “hatred between the races”? That teacher isn’t using CRT as a lens. Race hatred is antithetical to CRT.
I gave an example earlier of the guy who got all aggro at me because kids don’t say the Pledge anymore in schools (spoiler: they do, state law). That’s the level of wrongness that we’re dealing with. I’d lay $20 on that guy being part of the schoolboard-shut-down mob over CRT.