Sure, it’s good if they adjusted their proposal in response to criticism. But then giving feedback and saying ‘I think this is a bad idea’ is also part of that process. If it wasn’t public they might not have felt the need to change anything.
Are you saying the Facebook posts of a Democratic school board member are part of the right-wing spin machine? What?
This seems to be an increasingly common attitude on this website. Someone posts a story with a link to the original source, and people’s first question is ‘what is right-wing news saying about this?’ Like, why? Are they afraid they might accidentally agree with the enemy or something?
Anyway, here’s the link from the OP which contains the paragraphs quoted in Mr Serotkin’s second Facebook post that he says were added later:
Although, it would be better if they would adjust their infographic to show how taking the courses earlier could fit in with their scheme, rather than just stating it’s possible but not showing how.
Repeating that does not make it so. As others also pointed earlier, even the criticism applied to the early proposal may not have been as valid as the critics claimed. But as I pointed out, the line the right wing sources will continue to use will be against the now imaginary resolution, and it will not be the correction the one that will use, and I know that from experience.
Please cite your claim that the video conferences hosted by the Virginia Department of Education to discuss this proposal were a psyop staged by “Project Veritas.”
This would be the best possible meaning of the situation, though we still have a lot of people speaking out of both sides of their mouth (Lane saying in the same statement that “acceleration is not going away” and then later on talking about how we need to keep students grouped together through grade 10, and most of the people denying that acceleration is being removed pointing to the possibility of taking calculus in 12th grade only) and a lot of ways to go until 2026. Given what has gone on with the magnet school situation and the general “equity”/CRT movement in the Virginia DoE my trust that they will not look for another opportunity to sneak in “wanting to take courses at your ability level is racist and forbidden” is pretty low, assuming they even have backed off of it for now which is far from clear.
Please read it again, that right wing group was offered “as an example” IOW, as it was supposed to be clear, Project Veritas is not involved here, but there is a modus operandi at hand. It was indeed an example of the spin right wing sources of info use.
Get a misunderstanding and blow it up in the worse ways to get a rise of other right-wingers in the infosphere.
Yes, there are many citations showing exactly that. Here’s our old friends Atif Qarni and James Lane right at the top of the “Road Map to Equity” that specifically thanks the pope of the CRT religion, Ibram Kendi, for “research and scholarship contributions that have informed the development of the EdEquityVA Framework.”
So just an attempt to poison the well by mentioning something totally irrelevant to the situation at hand? “Hey, I heard some right-wingers in Germany did some bad stuff in the 1930s…anyway, what’s up with the people I’ve decided are right-wingers and their opinions on Virginia’s math standards?”
Not impressed as the thanks to Kendi are for his research. IOW facts offered, no reference to any CRT papers. Remember, (besides your OP not being operational as Nixon aids found their arguments to be) your overall issue with CRT is that you claim that it is not based on reality. (Again it is just a framework for researchers any findings that stand will be based on the quality of the research)
It is very underwhelming to declare someone as a well poisoner when that someone is just pointing at the sources that you used as the ones who did poison it, you need to read the tread to see that I was not the only one who noticed how exaggerated the accusations are.
The sources I used for my claims about what the Virginia Department of Education is proposing were the Virginia Department of Education’s website and a Youtube video showing a meeting hosted by the Virginia Department of Education.
You alleged that these sources are part of a vast right-wing conspiracy fabricated by “Project Veritas,” Richard Nixon, and a liberal Democratic Party member serving on an elected school board who you have decided, based on nothing, is not just a “conservative” but an insidious far-right operative engaged in making up fake websites and conferences and attributing them to the Department of Education, and now you are doubling down on it as part of some recurring bugaboo that equity and CRT ideology are, simultaneously, unquestionably good things that must be supported, and things that never exist or have any adherents or influence in any place or time.
No, that is 100% wrong. Again the first item was mentioned as an example of how misunderstandings from even liberal leaning educators can get are used then by right wing sources to get twisted arguments.
The Nixon item was mentioned just as a reference to how an argument that was found already to be an exaggeration or a mistake should not be used again since all others in a thread already do know the score. (Just a heads-up BTW)
Nothing about a conspiracy, but just about pointing out how wrong you are on your arguments so far. Including this one using a personal attack against me.
Also let’s be clear–while the original categorization of the chain of events was me calling Ian Serotkin a right wing school board member was not accurate–he was just a generally confused school board member (probably in part because of poor wording by the BOE–but him not knowing that the BOE lacks power to set individual division curriculum is on him), the second part of it–that right wing propaganda sources then ran with it to stir up trouble is absolutely correct, and very likely the only reason this issue darkened our doors. Point of fact one way you can tell Serotkin was not a right winger is when confronted with factual details which showed his original complaints were unfounded, he changed his stance on the issue, changing one’s opinion in light of new facts isn’t part of the right wing mindset in America so obviously Serotkin demonstrated he was not part of that segment of our politics.
Why do you think it is appropriate for the “news” section of a major newspaper to have the same tone and agenda as a person strongly advocating for one side of an issue on a “great debates” message board?
Is it your contention that an otherwise true story, cited to primary sources only, becomes false if the wrong people report it? What’s the epistemological mechanism of that process?
Being wrong is still being wrong, what is clear is that even when knowing now that the early report was wrong right wing sources of information are not correcting their reports. Nor telling viewers or readers that the original wrong report is not a valid one, that is beyond asinine as seen by the articles cited by @Martin_Hyde
Others do note how false those reports are by purposely omitting the clarifications of what the status of the discussion really is in Virginia.