Further, it’s not that CRT should not be explained in a classroom. It’s that the assumptions and conclusions of Black oppression in the U.S. should not be the basis of reaching history, or English, or math. Presenting CRT is fine. Using it as a lens for teaching everything else is not fine.
To clarify: do teachers “give up” their First Amendment rights in the classroom? Answer. It’s complicated. In K-8 classes, teachers have little room for personal opinions on controversial issues, especially those that could affect delivery of the approved curriculum. In high schools and especially colleges, students are more able to discern personal opinions versus official curriculum.
If a teacher spends a unit on CRT for 4th graders, that will raise flags. In college not really. However, the state does have the ability to direct educators to not consider CRT in formulating curricula.
It seems like a tidier approach to CRT (from a conservative perspective) would be teaching the theory (at a level where students can engage with it productively) and to teach it critically. Look at the theory and ask:
1. Is it a useful theory scientifically in that it generates testable hypotheses that can be tested to measure how well it explains the world?
2. Is it a useful theory as a historical lens, in that it provides plausible explanations of present-day outcomes arising out of historical places, people, and events?
3. How does the usefulness of the theory vary based on the field and time period in which it is used to evaluate? Is CRT a useful tool for crafting personal banking regulations? Is it a useful tool for determining which planet NASA sends its next probe to?
4. How has the theory evolved since its inception and why? Is it charting similar developmental paths as other theories (such as historical intelligence-based theories) or is it something unique and original?
The problem that too many people have is that we don't teach *enough* critical thinking skills where our citizens are comfortable taking ideas and taking them apart to see how they work and where those ideas are useful. Instead, too many folks fall back to emotionally-motivated "reasoning" and we end up with folks like Pringle attempting to ban something he clearly doesn't understand, and opportunists like Tucker Carlson twist the idea and misexplain it enough to make his audience respond viscerally (boosting his ratings in the process).
I think that if more folks engaged with some of the modern CRT proponents, they'd discover that there's less there than meets the eye.
CRT is in my grandkinds online learning. Different states buy different curriculum. Every subject is infused with race commentary and so much so that even a 8 yr old picks it up.
Right off the bat my eight yr old thrid grader had an assignment that asked her to pick her skin color and there were all shades of brown going to black. She's white. it went to bad to worse over the year.
The education system is teaching little but indoctrinating a lot - especially in democrat controlled areas. It's either that or today's youth has somehow decided that the traditional American way of life is a turn-off.
From what I've read about so far, the teaching of radical racial concepts seems to consist of isolated examples, mostly in blue states or blue cities. But it doesn't seem to be widespread. I think since most parents, regardless of their political affiliation, would bristle at hyper-woke views on race being taught to their kids, the school boards would hear an earful if that were the case. Parents can always replace members of the school board through elections, so I think that serves as a good check on public schools, to where most of them will probably think twice before implementing toxic, woke concepts on race into the classroom.
It can be a sticky issue when parents are forced to pony up tax dollars to public schools that are teaching objectionable things to kids. It's one thing if its a college or university, where attendance is not mandatory, and kids are by that time, full grown adults paying tuition. There is one issue that unites almost every conservative. I feel that it might go a long way in dealing with these and other kinds of issues, and that is School Choice. That way, parents have options should they deal with these and other kinds of problems with the public schools their kids attend.
Further, it’s not that CRT should not be explained in a classroom. It’s that the assumptions and conclusions of Black oppression in the U.S. should not be the basis of reaching history, or English, or math. Presenting CRT is fine. Using it as a lens for teaching everything else is not fine.
To clarify: do teachers “give up” their First Amendment rights in the classroom? Answer. It’s complicated. In K-8 classes, teachers have little room for personal opinions on controversial issues, especially those that could affect delivery of the approved curriculum. In high schools and especially colleges, students are more able to discern personal opinions versus official curriculum.
If a teacher spends a unit on CRT for 4th graders, that will raise flags. In college not really. However, the state does have the ability to direct educators to not consider CRT in formulating curricula.
https://kappanonline.org/underwood-school-districts-control-teachers-classroom-speech/
It seems like a tidier approach to CRT (from a conservative perspective) would be teaching the theory (at a level where students can engage with it productively) and to teach it critically. Look at the theory and ask:
1. Is it a useful theory scientifically in that it generates testable hypotheses that can be tested to measure how well it explains the world?
2. Is it a useful theory as a historical lens, in that it provides plausible explanations of present-day outcomes arising out of historical places, people, and events?
3. How does the usefulness of the theory vary based on the field and time period in which it is used to evaluate? Is CRT a useful tool for crafting personal banking regulations? Is it a useful tool for determining which planet NASA sends its next probe to?
4. How has the theory evolved since its inception and why? Is it charting similar developmental paths as other theories (such as historical intelligence-based theories) or is it something unique and original?
The problem that too many people have is that we don't teach *enough* critical thinking skills where our citizens are comfortable taking ideas and taking them apart to see how they work and where those ideas are useful. Instead, too many folks fall back to emotionally-motivated "reasoning" and we end up with folks like Pringle attempting to ban something he clearly doesn't understand, and opportunists like Tucker Carlson twist the idea and misexplain it enough to make his audience respond viscerally (boosting his ratings in the process).
I think that if more folks engaged with some of the modern CRT proponents, they'd discover that there's less there than meets the eye.
As always, you are a voice of reason and intellect that seems so hard to find on the right these days.
CRT is in my grandkinds online learning. Different states buy different curriculum. Every subject is infused with race commentary and so much so that even a 8 yr old picks it up.
Right off the bat my eight yr old thrid grader had an assignment that asked her to pick her skin color and there were all shades of brown going to black. She's white. it went to bad to worse over the year.
The education system is teaching little but indoctrinating a lot - especially in democrat controlled areas. It's either that or today's youth has somehow decided that the traditional American way of life is a turn-off.
From what I've read about so far, the teaching of radical racial concepts seems to consist of isolated examples, mostly in blue states or blue cities. But it doesn't seem to be widespread. I think since most parents, regardless of their political affiliation, would bristle at hyper-woke views on race being taught to their kids, the school boards would hear an earful if that were the case. Parents can always replace members of the school board through elections, so I think that serves as a good check on public schools, to where most of them will probably think twice before implementing toxic, woke concepts on race into the classroom.
It can be a sticky issue when parents are forced to pony up tax dollars to public schools that are teaching objectionable things to kids. It's one thing if its a college or university, where attendance is not mandatory, and kids are by that time, full grown adults paying tuition. There is one issue that unites almost every conservative. I feel that it might go a long way in dealing with these and other kinds of issues, and that is School Choice. That way, parents have options should they deal with these and other kinds of problems with the public schools their kids attend.