Post by davidsf on Jan 30, 2021 10:01:50 GMT -8
This is not the place for conspiracy theories, although I confess I am probably the one most likely to post those, so you guys can hold me accountable.
Rather, I think it is time to start unraveling what we see around the country we believe is intended to undermine our freedoms or manipulate our thinking.
Me being in IL and you or most of you being out there in CA, I suspect we might see more of these than others.
My thought about this thread was triggered by the following article:
Compulsory political ideology for Illinois teachers moves closer to finalization
Rather, I think it is time to start unraveling what we see around the country we believe is intended to undermine our freedoms or manipulate our thinking.
Me being in IL and you or most of you being out there in CA, I suspect we might see more of these than others.
My thought about this thread was triggered by the following article:
Compulsory political ideology for Illinois teachers moves closer to finalization
As you will see, it’s no exaggeration to say the standards would tell teachers what they must think, believe and teach – in broad political terms — and they would disqualify teachers who don’t conform...
One who wrote about it is Nathan Hoffman, a black education policy researcher.
In an op-ed opposing the standards, he wrote they would “force onto teachers a singular view for some of our country’s most-heavily debated topics that they are then expected to carry forth into the classroom...”
On the surface, the CRTL Standards might appear to be only about required teaching of critical race theory – alleged systemic racism, gender discrimination, systems of oppression, white supremacy, etc – centering on a requirement to be a “culturally responsive teacher.”
But each section of the rule starts by saying what a culturally responsive teacher will do. A few examples:
Mandatory counterculture curriculum. The culturally responsive teacher, the standards say, will “co-create content to include a counternarrative to dominant culture.”
Training students to be progressive activists. Culturally responsive teachers and leaders, the standards say, will “Research and offer student advocacy and activism content with real world implications and [h]old high expectations in which all students can participate and lead as student advocates or activists.” Teachers are also encouraged to substitute “social justice work” or “action civics projects” for more traditional forms of testing when deciding on a student’s grade.
Required thinking for teachers. The “culturally responsive teacher and leader will,” according to the standards, “engage in reflection about their own actions and interactions and what ideas motivated those actions,” and “explore their own intersecting identities, how they were developed, and how they impact daily experience of the world.” Teachers must “assess their biases and perceptions” about, among other things, “unearned privilege, Eurocentrism, etc.”
The first and most obvious problem is that the standards would force dogmatic answers to what indeed are some of our country’s most-heavily debated topics...
One who wrote about it is Nathan Hoffman, a black education policy researcher.
In an op-ed opposing the standards, he wrote they would “force onto teachers a singular view for some of our country’s most-heavily debated topics that they are then expected to carry forth into the classroom...”
On the surface, the CRTL Standards might appear to be only about required teaching of critical race theory – alleged systemic racism, gender discrimination, systems of oppression, white supremacy, etc – centering on a requirement to be a “culturally responsive teacher.”
But each section of the rule starts by saying what a culturally responsive teacher will do. A few examples:
Mandatory counterculture curriculum. The culturally responsive teacher, the standards say, will “co-create content to include a counternarrative to dominant culture.”
Training students to be progressive activists. Culturally responsive teachers and leaders, the standards say, will “Research and offer student advocacy and activism content with real world implications and [h]old high expectations in which all students can participate and lead as student advocates or activists.” Teachers are also encouraged to substitute “social justice work” or “action civics projects” for more traditional forms of testing when deciding on a student’s grade.
Required thinking for teachers. The “culturally responsive teacher and leader will,” according to the standards, “engage in reflection about their own actions and interactions and what ideas motivated those actions,” and “explore their own intersecting identities, how they were developed, and how they impact daily experience of the world.” Teachers must “assess their biases and perceptions” about, among other things, “unearned privilege, Eurocentrism, etc.”
The first and most obvious problem is that the standards would force dogmatic answers to what indeed are some of our country’s most-heavily debated topics...
