Homeschoolers Being Taught Neo-Nazi, White Supremacist Curriculum (the ACT, require, 70's)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I trust all teachers understand students seldom learn by sitting and listening. Teach by engagement and example. Make it exciting and active. I enjoyed chatting with teachers in some countries who are amazed and concerned that USA elementary schools are full of desks and chairs. They ask, "how in the world does that work? You expect kids to sit around and be idle?". They don't have chairs in their elementary schools. Sometimes they use exercise balls for short periods of sitting while reading, but their kids are not confined, nor were ours. Since we 'unschooled', ours learned on the go - from daily trips to foreign fresh markets, to mixing feed and fertilizer ratios while farming, plus dealing with customers in the kid's business. For jr high, they each designed and built their own homes. No sitting around. Lots of learning by doing (active).
Even in my country school of yesteryear, we were very active and often engaged with upper level students mentoring the younger, or their peers who needed assistance. We learned by doing and experiences, not by sitting and listening to a lecture.
It sounds like the solution is simple: don't sit around. Allow the children to move. That sounds like a class where children have autonomy. I wanted to ask my friend, who has been teaching for the last 15 years in public schools, before I got back to you. She said that in "good schools" this is possible because the children are already performing on grade level. They don't need a lot of remediation nor do they need a teacher that follows a script. They work on projects. But in other schools, she said you cannot give that much freedom when the teacher is responsible for being on a certain page by a certain date because the children came in below grade level. That is why I don't blame teachers first. Now that my daughter is in advanced classes after working with her to get her state test scores up, she can tell the difference.
The difference would be history vs social studies.
There was a time when there was history, geography and social studies all as separate classes with separate books.
History can be objective with names, dates, places, events.
Social studies covers the underlying politics, culture, etc.
But they were combined into Social Studies and so bias worked its way into it.
A history textbook cannot be truly objective. Not all events can be covered. Even if the book focused on a particular point in history, all facts couldn't be covered. The facts that are placed inside a textbook are biased based on the author's point of view of what should be included. There is a always reason why a fact was included in a book and that reason is biased.
A history textbook cannot be truly objective. Not all events can be covered. Even if the book focused on a particular point in history, all facts couldn't be covered. The facts that are placed inside a textbook are biased based on the author's point of view of what should be included. There is a always reason why a fact was included in a book and that reason is biased.
Absolutely- say you talk about WWII and the bombings in Nagasaki. So the kids learn the bombs were dropped on August 6 and August 9, 1945 and so many civilians died with each bombing. Then what? There is no discussion of why? I lived in one of the cities where the bombs were dropped and went to the annual ceremony where the PM speaks. I went to both of the museums there. I’m American and have taken American history and have been to the WWII museum in NO. I can tell you that each side’s interpretation of the events that happened on those days and what lead up to them are radically different. The kids even have a specific curriculum they must do in Japan related to it, that I am sure has a ton of bias in it. Of course any education here in the US also has bias. There is just no way to avoid it.
It's just astounding that people keep playing this game.
1. CRT does not need to be taught per se to be leveraged in K-12.
2. If Robert Smith, David Steward and others had listened to you they'd be poor.
How would they be poor? Learning about history and the affects racism has on society is not the same as making anyone a victim. Learning about what I said is not CRT. I can't see how you could possibly separate a historical event of period from the aftermath. It seems like you want to either change history, or silence it.
As a retired principal, just a general piece of advice: if you feel the school is not listening, put everything in writing...a paper trail worries school administrators. If you have a meeting with the principal, for example, do a follow up memo where you summarize what was discussed and decided in the meeting. Paper trails can later be sent to the superintendent or even school board.
Thank you, I will. I do most of the "negotiation" by email, so I've always got a record. Do get a bit bounced around different staff members though.
How would they be poor? Learning about history and the affects racism has on society is not the same as making anyone a victim. Learning about what I said is not CRT. I can't see how you could possibly separate a historical event of period from the aftermath. It seems like you want to either change history, or silence it.
My points here are very simple. And obviously I do not wish to change, diminish, distort or withhold history from anyone. You will find no one here more committed to ramping up K-12 rigor and expectations than me including unvarnished emersion in US and world histories.
1. The theory behind CRT, its origins etc. need not be taught in K-12 classes in order for CRT and its key tenets to be leveraged in K-12. It's long past time to stop with the distortion.
2. A growing number of black Americans have and are building generational wealth.
A history textbook cannot be truly objective. Not all events can be covered. Even if the book focused on a particular point in history, all facts couldn't be covered. The facts that are placed inside a textbook are biased based on the author's point of view of what should be included. There is a always reason why a fact was included in a book and that reason is biased.
So what is your point? No history textbook can be totally objective and no teacher can be totally objective. Every teacher and book author has their own biases. Does that mean we shouldn't attempt to teach history?
Capitalism isn’t the problem. The alternative has caused more problems than solutions. That’s why the Soviet Union was one of the shortest civilizations in history. The problem is the media and the groups that exploit situations for their own agendas.
Location: We_tside PNW (Columbia Gorge) / CO / SA TX / Thailand
34,779 posts, read 58,241,105 times
Reputation: 46278
Quote:
Originally Posted by brajohns81
Capitalism isn’t the problem. ...The problem is the media and the groups that exploit situations for their own agendas.
sounds so familiar...
The last thing those types want is an 'Educated' elecorate
Their agenda cannot deal with or survive with responsible, knowledgable, and discerning voters.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
