Texas LT. Gov. Calls for End of Tenure due to CLT

[marshwiggle]

This is bullshit. Critical Race Theory isn't being taught in elementary or secondary schools ... .

Then there's no problem if it's forbidden there. :-)

It's inefficient, which alone should suffice for you to think it's a bad idea.

But it's also clearly a pretext to ban teaching aspects of US history which fragile parents might find distressing.

I don't think many people find the teaching of history distressing; what people may be more concerned about is added commentary about what "ought" to be done in the present as a consequence of events in history. Sticking to the established facts is fine; moralizing about the present isn't.

In Canadian history, for example, i know of no-one opposed to learning about the fur trade, New France, the battle on the Plains of Abraham, etc., but there are very different opinions about Quebec laws regarding language, religious symbols, etc; laws which some will argue are necessary because of that history.

The "activists" consider the moralizing an essential part of "teaching" any subject. Many people disagree.

[Aster]

If you think eliminating tenure will stop the radicalizing of academia, well...

So radicalizing academia is a good thing, I guess. That's exactly the attitude that turns people off.

There is no "radicalizing" of academia. That is a manufactured story, pushed by talk show entertainers whose viewership model is derived from inciting divisiveness.

If people would stop watching that garbage and would pick up a newspaper or listen to AP reports, society would be the much the better for it.

[mahagonny]

If you think eliminating tenure will stop the radicalizing of academia, well...

So radicalizing academia is a good thing, I guess. That's exactly the attitude that turns people off.

There is no "radicalizing" of academia. That is a manufactured story, pushed by talk show entertainers whose viewership model is derived from inciting divisiveness.

If people would stop watching that garbage and would pick up a newspaper or listen to AP reports, society would be the much the better for it.

Something that surprises me a bit is these educators'* and their unions' reluctance to even acknowledge or explain that there have been dramatic revisions in their view of what needs to be taught in public school, and how, and why these revisions are necessary. Their response seems to be one of the following:

1. Attack the attacker - what you did. "These ignoramuses are getting brainwashed by divisive Trump-loving right wing news outlets."
2. "It's not CRT, and you're so dumb you think it is. You wouldn't understand anyway. Just forget it."

*that is, those educators who even want to teach their subjects in the new way, which the unions would have you believe is everyone of them, obviously a lie.

[Diogenes]

RE: Experts who study things.

https://www.amazon.com/Hate-Crime-Hoax-Lefts-Campaign/dp/1621577783

What's this... a cherry pie recipe book?
Must be with all that cherrypicking of data.

I'd be glad to read a review of the book when you have time, Diogenes. It's on my reading list. (Haven't gotten around to it yet). Sometimes I get interested in things because they bring out fragility reactions like yours from the progressives, who love difficult conversations. Or sometimes I just get interested because I've seen the author on youtube and they sound sensible. From what I understand of Dr. Reilly's book thus far, he decided to study hate crime hoaxes. That's what academics do, study things.

Easy Peasy. Let Me Google This For You.
FBI Reported hate crime stats in 2019 alone number in the 6-8000 range, depending on how you define it. Your book there claims there are hundreds of hoaxes. Quite possible. But even if those hundreds happened in the same year (which they don't), we are taking a proportionally low rate. We also know that crime rates are always under-reported to some extent. This means the epidemic of hate crimes still easily overshadows potential hoaxes. Which your author above are clearly overweighting, hence the thing we academics call cherrypicking when we do what you say, "study things"
https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2019/resource-pages/tables/table-1.xls

[smallcleanrat]

This is bullshit. Critical Race Theory isn't being taught in elementary or secondary schools ... .

Then there's no problem if it's forbidden there. :-)

It's inefficient, which alone should suffice for you to think it's a bad idea.

But it's also clearly a pretext to ban teaching aspects of US history which fragile parents might find distressing.

I don't think many people find the teaching of history distressing; what people may be more concerned about is added commentary about what "ought" to be done in the present as a consequence of events in history. Sticking to the established facts is fine; moralizing about the present isn't.

[...]

People who object to sticking to established facts do exist (and they exist on school boards and other governing entities).

Some people object to ideological indoctrination only if it is a flavor of ideology they don't like.

Many Americans think that teaching history must involve teaching American exceptionalism, else it's indoctrination. They are not subtle about it; they outright state that kids need to learn that America is "the best country in the world."

And this often includes either removing discussion of historical events that don't fit with this worldview, or a hefty heap of soft-pedaling and apologetics.

[marshwiggle]

I don't think many people find the teaching of history distressing; what people may be more concerned about is added commentary about what "ought" to be done in the present as a consequence of events in history. Sticking to the established facts is fine; moralizing about the present isn't.

[...]

People who object to sticking to established facts do exist (and they exist on school boards and other governing entities).

Sure. And they exist on both ends of the political spectrum.

Some people object to ideological indoctrination only if it is a flavor of ideology they don't like.

Many Americans think that teaching history must involve teaching American exceptionalism, else it's indoctrination. They are not subtle about it; they outright state that kids need to learn that America is "the best country in the world."

And it's just as much indoctrination as those who claim the US is more racist, sexist, etc. than it was 20 or 30 years ago.

And this often includes either removing discussion of historical events that don't fit with this worldview, or a hefty heap of soft-pedaling and apologetics.

As I said, it happens on both ends of the spectrum. My point is that people who are dedicated to promoting a specific view of history are more of a problem than the history itself. And parents who don't share that view will always be concerned.

[mahagonny]

Many Americans think that teaching history must involve teaching American exceptionalism, else it's indoctrination. They are not subtle about it; they outright state that kids need to learn that America is "the best country in the world."

Every POTUS in my lifetime has trumpeted that message. Are you suggesting we elect one who doesn't? Or that we disavow the concept of citizenship.
Although I can't imagine the mental gymnastics involved in Joe Biden's believing it. (Then again i have never been able to indentify anything he actually believes, other than that he knows how to win elections.)
Not to mention there are strong arguments to support the claim. Though our patriotic left has tried to equate whiteness with oppression, the slavery that does remain today is mostly black-on-black.

https://journalnow.com/joe-biden-we-are-by-far-the-greatest-powerful-decent-nation-in-the-world/article_40c7d0e8-558e-5c30-af54-0f8ed95d2abb.html

[dismalist]

This is bullshit. Critical Race Theory isn't being taught in elementary or secondary schools ... .

Then there's no problem if it's forbidden there. :-)

It's inefficient, which alone should suffice for you to think it's a bad idea.

But it's also clearly a pretext to ban teaching aspects of US history which fragile parents might find distressing.

I don't think many people find the teaching of history distressing; what people may be more concerned about is added commentary about what "ought" to be done in the present as a consequence of events in history. Sticking to the established facts is fine; moralizing about the present isn't.

[...]

People who object to sticking to established facts do exist (and they exist on school boards and other governing entities).

Some people object to ideological indoctrination only if it is a flavor of ideology they don't like.

Many Americans think that teaching history must involve teaching American exceptionalism, else it's indoctrination. They are not subtle about it; they outright state that kids need to learn that America is "the best country in the world."

And this often includes either removing discussion of historical events that don't fit with this worldview, or a hefty heap of soft-pedaling and apologetics.

Choose one's preferred flavor! I choose mine; everybody else chooses theirs. All we are doing is disagreeing. Let's make the world safe for disagreement.

[Memes are selected like genes. In the end, Charlie Darwin will determine which memes prosper, but there will be no end [of history or anything else].

[Aster]

If you think eliminating tenure will stop the radicalizing of academia, well...

So radicalizing academia is a good thing, I guess. That's exactly the attitude that turns people off.

There is no "radicalizing" of academia. That is a manufactured story, pushed by talk show entertainers whose viewership model is derived from inciting divisiveness.

If people would stop watching that garbage and would pick up a newspaper or listen to AP reports, society would be the much the better for it.

Something that surprises me a bit is these educators'* and their unions' reluctance to even acknowledge or explain that there have been dramatic revisions in their view of what needs to be taught in public school, and how, and why these revisions are necessary. Their response seems to be one of the following:

1. Attack the attacker - what you did. "These ignoramuses are getting brainwashed by divisive Trump-loving right wing news outlets."
2. "It's not CRT, and you're so dumb you think it is. You wouldn't understand anyway. Just forget it."

*that is, those educators who even want to teach their subjects in the new way, which the unions would have you believe is everyone of them, obviously a lie.

The demonizing of unions is itself another manufactured story. Schoolteacher unions represent the collective voice of schoolteachers. They are the professional educators that we certify and entrust over anybody else to take responsibility for our children's education. They are the ones entrusted to evolve curriculum, because they have the most knowledge and expertise. So yes, they get to make the vast majority of decisions about curriculum.

A TV/radio infotainer does not. Unless the infotainer is his/herself an expert in the discussion topic and/or behaving like a professional journalist, he/she is no more credible in his/her shows that any other wonk celebrity.

The same argument goes for anything else in society. Tenure is bad? Well, let's consult with the experts about that. Is the governor an expert about tenure? No. Did he consult with university leaders about tenure? No. Did he consult with professional educators about that? No. Did he consult with historians about that? No. Do his arguments hold any water with the professional experts who do study this topic? Largely not. So why is the governor even talking about this? Well, most every political scientist will give the same professional answer to that, and that answer will not put the governor in a flattering light.

[marshwiggle]

Schoolteacher unions represent the collective voice of schoolteachers. They are the professional educators that we certify and entrust over anybody else to take responsibility for our children's education. They are the ones entrusted to evolve curriculum, because they have the most knowledge and expertise. So yes, they get to make the vast majority of decisions about curriculum.

School teachers, by their training actually have fairly limited expertise about pedagogy, cognitive development, etc. in many (most?) jurisdictions where teacher's college only requires a year after a previous degree.

Also, curriculum is often (usually?) imposed by government bureaucrats in Education departments/ministries. Teachers rarely make significant decisions about it.

Finally, unions are run by the most politically active of any group. Whether their views reflect those of the often silent majority is open for debate.

[mahagonny]

Correct me if I'm wrong: purveyors of the new, dramatically revised social justice-infused K-12 education are not interested in any kind of public relations efforts to get parents and citizens on board. They seek to defy and overpower them by asserting the rights that Aster sees as legitimately theirs and using government, Merrick Garland, for example, to back them up. Because if they didn't anticipate pushback (itself hard to believe) they should be well aware of it by now.
ETA: As union member, I don't see how this builds a good future for us. We butt heads with people now and then, but there has to be some recognition of the 'working together' idea.

[jimbogumbo]

Correct me if I'm wrong: purveyors of the new, dramatically revised social justice-infused K-12 education are not interested in any kind of public relations efforts to get parents and citizens on board.


They seek to defy and overpower them by asserting the rights that Aster sees as legitimately theirs and using government, Merrick Garland, for example, to back them up.

In comment one you reference something that doesn't exist.

In comment two you have confused teachers and their unions with the National School Board Association.

[dismalist]

Schoolteacher unions represent the collective voice of schoolteachers. They are the professional educators that we certify and entrust over anybody else to take responsibility for our children's education. They are the ones entrusted to evolve curriculum, because they have the most knowledge and expertise. So yes, they get to make the vast majority of decisions about curriculum.

Who's this "we"?

I want my curriculum; anyone can have their own. There is no reason to not disagree.

[mahagonny]

Correct me if I'm wrong: purveyors of the new, dramatically revised social justice-infused K-12 education are not interested in any kind of public relations efforts to get parents and citizens on board.


They seek to defy and overpower them by asserting the rights that Aster sees as legitimately theirs and using government, Merrick Garland, for example, to back them up.

In comment one you reference something that doesn't exist.

In comment two you have confused teachers and their unions with the National School Board Association.

Your problem then. My money's on the Lt. Gov. of Texas.

[jimbogumbo]

Correct me if I'm wrong: purveyors of the new, dramatically revised social justice-infused K-12 education are not interested in any kind of public relations efforts to get parents and citizens on board.


They seek to defy and overpower them by asserting the rights that Aster sees as legitimately theirs and using government, Merrick Garland, for example, to back them up.

In comment one you reference something that doesn't exist.

In comment two you have confused teachers and their unions with the National School Board Association.

Your problem then. My money's on the Lt. Gov. of Texas.

The current one or the next one? I'm also confused as to in what way your errors of fact are my problem.