Transparency in Public School Curriculum

[mahagonny]

You might think that educators who are certain they have found ways to improve the way students are taught about race, gender, etc. would be eager to share the good news with parents and taxpayers. But you'd be wrong, a lot of the time.

https://www.city-journal.org/progressives-against-school-transparency

[marshwiggle]

You might think that educators who are certain they have found ways to improve the way students are taught about race, gender, etc. would be eager to share the good news with parents and taxpayers. But you'd be wrong, a lot of the time.

https://www.city-journal.org/progressives-against-school-transparency

In hilarious Orwellian fashion:

In at least a dozen states, Republican lawmakers have introduced bills seeking to make instruction in public schools more transparent. Pennsylvania's bill, for example, would require public schools to post their curricula online. Democrats have largely opposed these bills, viewing them as the latest conservative salvo against critical race theory–inspired pedagogy. In vetoing the Pennsylvania legislation, Democratic governor Tom Wolf warned that the "legislation is a thinly veiled attempt to restrict truthful instruction and censor content reflecting various cultures, identities, and experiences."

Yup. Posting curriculum online is a truly nefarious way to restrict truthful instruction. But that's not enough. We need to forbid children to tell their parents what they learned in school for the same reason.

[mahagonny]

Interesting information about how the ACLU is behaving after getting infused with comparatively huge amounts of money from left-leaning donors.

Lawsuits are coming. Here's one...https://adflegal.org/press-release/parents-unite-against-discriminatory-public-school-policies-virginia

[dismalist]

In  typical contemporary fashion, this struggle between different opinions is being litigated. As politics has been hard pressed to offer solutions, people turn to the courts more and more.

That is a real pity, for what's wanted to preserve peace  is true diversity -- choice. That could be determined politically at the State level. Meanwhile, I'm glad to see requirements to publicize content rather than prohibitions of teaching anything. The ultimate answer is complete choice of school by parents, of course. Voucherize everything!

Looking at this more positively, perhaps the neo-marxists have overstepped the bounds of their electorate and are inviting a bloody big backlash. There can hardly be a question that the Virginia governor's race was decided by the Democratic candidate denying parents' control over their kids' education. The handwriting is on the wall.

[quasihumanist]

The problem with school choice is that it only works in places where there are enough students for having two schools to choose from to be viable.

In a rural area, there will never be enough students for a second school, and parents will keep fighting over what happens at the only school.

Also, as we see from our experience with universities, the default in a model with choice is that almost all schools become purely daycare centers that do almost no education but award a "diploma".  Of course one can argue that's not so different from the current situation.

[Parasaurolophus]

Presumably, the opposition worries these bills are part of a right-wing keyword fishing expedition so that the troll hordes from across the country can be mobilized to harass individual instructors who include content they don't like. Since we've seen this happen in the recent past, that seems like a perfectly plausible interpretation to me. Do we have reason not to believe it?

Also, isn't the general curriculum already available? Like, whatever it is that the state (or federal) government requires each school level to cover?

[mahagonny]

https://www.thenation.com/article/society/black-parents-critical-race-theory/

Here is how the people on the radical left who are just confident enough to accidentally tell us the truth help clarify things that much more vividly.

The author cites something from somewhere claiming over 80% of black Americans support the teaching of CRT in public schools. And goes on to say, why aren't their voices being heard; they must be getting suppressed! Then claims that republicans erroneously believe that CRT is being taught in public school; therefore they are hysterical over nothing.
So if no one is teaching CRT in public school, and no one intends to, the fact that many would like it to be would be a moot point wouldn't it, because that's not what the ruckus is about. But it's not a moot point to the author. To her it's a victory.

ETA:

Presumably, the opposition worries these bills are part of a right-wing keyword fishing expedition so that the troll hordes from across the country can be mobilized to harass individual instructors who include content they don't like. Since we've seen this happen in the recent past, that seems like a perfectly plausible interpretation to me. Do we have reason not to believe it?

No, there's no reason you shouldn't believe that.

[ergative]

Also, isn't the general curriculum already available? Like, whatever it is that the state (or federal) government requires each school level to cover?

Yes. Here's  Wolfe's statement:

"State regulations adopted by the State Board of Education already require that public schools provide parents and guardians with course curriculum and instructional materials upon request. In addition, textbooks are adopted by school boards in meetings open to the public.

"Therefore, requiring all public schools to publish on their website the details of every textbook, course syllabus or written summary of each course, and the relevant academic standards for each course is not only duplicative, but overly burdensome."

Wolf said the "onerous requirements of this bill fall on educators" who should be focused on more important issues. . .

The information is already available, so the bill introduces unnecessary government regulation (!!), presumably as a strategic attempt to capitalize on the prominence of school curriculum debates in public discourse.

[marshwiggle]

Presumably, the opposition worries these bills are part of a right-wing keyword fishing expedition so that the troll hordes from across the country can be mobilized to harass individual instructors who include content they don't like. Since we've seen this happen in the recent past, that seems like a perfectly plausible interpretation to me. Do we have reason not to believe it?

Time will tell. The will of the majority of voters will come out one way or another. Policies that most people agree with will get voter support for the party that implements them. Policies that most people disagree with will cost the party that supports them. In addition, public support for either increasing or decreasing funding for education will reflect how happy voters are with the policies being implemented and the practices of the education system. So if people are happy with the education system, a party which wants to cut funding will have a hard time getting elected. On the other hand, if the people are unhappy with the education system,  they will be more likely embrace a party that will cut funding.

A few loud "trolls" of whatever ideological leaning may drown out the masses in the mass and social media, but cowing people into silence doesn't affect how they vote. In fact, the more they feel silenced, the more aggressively they may vote against the people they feel are silencing them.

[mahagonny]

Presumably, the opposition worries these bills are part of a right-wing keyword fishing expedition so that the troll hordes from across the country can be mobilized to harass individual instructors who include content they don't like. Since we've seen this happen in the recent past, that seems like a perfectly plausible interpretation to me. Do we have reason not to believe it?

Time will tell. The will of the majority of voters will come out one way or another. Policies that most people agree with will get voter support for the party that implements them. Policies that most people disagree with will cost the party that supports them. In addition, public support for either increasing or decreasing funding for education will reflect how happy voters are with the policies being implemented and the practices of the education system. So if people are happy with the education system, a party which wants to cut funding will have a hard time getting elected. On the other hand, if the people are unhappy with the education system,  they will be more likely embrace a party that will cut funding.

A few loud "trolls" of whatever ideological leaning may drown out the masses in the mass and social media, but cowing people into silence doesn't affect how they vote. In fact, the more they feel silenced, the more aggressively they may vote against the people they feel are silencing them.

As well, I haven't seen any evidence that the majority of teachers want to teach in the new controversial ways. There's plenty of reason to suspect they are being cowed by not just their school administrations but also their unions, who control the purse strings to some extent, and regularly issue communications that falsely purport to support the democratic platforms on behalf of all their members. I could easily envision an individual teacher hearing of a contentious board meeting with angry parents present and thinking "thank God somebody's showing up to fight this 'progressive' insanity."
True to form, Randi Weingarten has pledged to sic a well paid legal team on anyone who 'harasses' a teacher for teaching in the new ways, citing the  academic freedom, while, for some reason,* she says nothing about defending a teacher who doesn't want to teach their class that way.

*sarcasm, yeah

[mahagonny]

The problem with school choice is that it only works in places where there are enough students for having two schools to choose from to be viable.

In a rural area, there will never be enough students for a second school, and parents will keep fighting over what happens at the only school.

Also, as we see from our experience with universities, the default in a model with choice is that almost all schools become purely daycare centers that do almost no education but award a "diploma".  Of course one can argue that's not so different from the current situation.

A possible way to work on at least one piece of this dilemma: pass an amendment (call it the Martin Luther King Freedom of Identity Act) that gives each citizen the right to self-identify racially. You get to check the box, White, Asian, Black, Latino, South Asian, racially non-specified, however many there are. Your decision as to what race you belong to is irrefutable and must be acknowledged accordingly. That way when you go to work at CVS or attend high school and the person in authority says 'OK, now we're going to separate in groups of white people and all those victimized by white people for some soul searching, edifying exercises, you may say:
1. Fine - I'll go with the white group
2. Fine - I'll go with another group
or,
3. I am non-specified racially. (Will not participate in the exercise.)

Because a lot of the objection parents, others have is their kids being targeted by skin color for different categories of instruction. If they're not required to be members of a race, there's nothing to object to.

[dismalist]

The problem with school choice is that it only works in places where there are enough students for having two schools to choose from to be viable.

Interestingly, the mere threat of competition keeps firms, including schools, on their toes.

"Schools" are a bundle. Large or small, they can be unbundled. For example, when I went to school in New York City near the middle of last century, Tuesday afternoons were "Release Time", when the religious could leave school to attend religious instruction at their places of worship. In small schools, one can envision the same -- Tuesday afternoons for teaching neo-marxist religion, e.g., with parents' consent, of course. All others could stay in their classrooms and do useful things. Or, the others could go outside and play.

[mahagonny]

The problem with school choice is that it only works in places where there are enough students for having two schools to choose from to be viable.

Interestingly, the mere threat of competition keeps firms, including schools, on their toes.

"Schools" are a bundle. Large or small, they can be unbundled. For example, when I went to school in New York City near the middle of last century, Tuesday afternoons were "Release Time", when the religious could leave school to attend religious instruction at their places of worship. In small schools, one can envision the same -- Tuesday afternoons for teaching neo-marxist religion, e.g., with parents' consent, of course. All others could stay in their classrooms and do useful things. Or, the others could go outside and play.

Great but for one thing: the progressive mob does not understand that their dogma is a religion that may be chosen, or not.  They think it is the one truth. So how do we get them to agree to our compromise? They will agree to nothing except that which makes them feel victorious. The problem remains as long as they believe they are empowered to identify individuals as to their race and then proselytize as needed to each. Their ability to do that doesn't appear to me to have any legal standing. it relies on social convention. It can be defied.
In Nazi Germany they required Jews to wear armbands.

[Parasaurolophus]

I don't think you get to compare yourself to Jews in Nazi Germany when the neo-Nazis are on your side.

[marshwiggle]

Only one page, and Godwin's law has kicked in.