3 ms·

With the above, it doesn’t make sense to be teaching this at a grade school level and would be expected to be introduced in late high school and more thoroughly

With the above, it doesn’t make sense to be teaching this at a grade school level and would be expected to be introduced in late high school and more thoroughly in college. As and ideology it would be good to introduce when one is reading Adam Smith, Marx and Mussolini. But I think a lot of the concern is that CRT isn’t being taught as an ideology amongst others, but it is being employed as the underlying “unseen” lens that is being applied to all aspects of curriculum and the classroom. I also think CRT like a lot of more modern movements lacks a central authority that then allows the practitioners to take it in all sorts of directions that may or may not have been intended. You can see in many CRT zealots that race predetermines everything. Like when talking to a Marxist. Everything is understood if you just apply the right lens. If only the world was so simple. Like so much of education it is just another passing fad applied badly. My concern is that the opportunity to make the needed change is going to be missed due the extremes fighting and not getting to meaningful improvements.

woofie11 5y ago
And if you go to school in a Christian community, Christianity will be the unseen lens that underlies the curriculum. And so on with any other culture. It's not ideal, but it is what is. CRT is a helpful lens, much like Marxism, Smith-style capitalism, and many other lenses. Like all of those, it has its limits. I want my kids to have as many lenses as possible, and to be able to use them critically. I'll mention -- even elementary school kids have no problems understanding these lenses. I'd argue Smith, CRT, and Marx ought to be taught around 3rd-5th grade, not high school. My problem is CRT is being taught in kindergarten.
- test_epsilon 5y ago
  What evidence is there that it is helpful? What measurable improvements is it responsible for? I don't agree any of those things should be taught in 3rd-5th grade because I think it is much more important to exercise the fundamentals of critical and creative thinking, logic, imagination, etc. at those ages. I also have a big problem at any level of schooling with these unscientific and unproven "theories" (if you can even call them that) being taught by people who have entirely bought into the cult thinking and have no ability to critically reason about them let alone the desire to. Would lessons about socialism and collectivism teach why the system can generally only sustain itself at a state level by devolving into a single party police state dictatorship in which the people most certainly do not own the means of production? Doubtful. Would the teaching of CRT expose it for the unproven religious-like propaganda that it is? Or would it teach the horrific hurtful and racist pseudoscientific lies about toxic whiteness or children bearing some responsibility for things done by other people due to their race? Probably the latter, right? It's like inviting a white supremacist to teach children lessons about nazism. Or a creationist to teach biology. Or a flat earther to each geology. Not a helpful lens at all.
  - woofie11 5y ago
    > I don't agree any of those things should be taught in 3rd-5th grade because I think it is much more important to exercise the fundamentals of critical and creative thinking, logic, imagination, etc. at those ages. That's exactly how you develop it. You teach complex concepts which require kids to sort truth from fiction. You don't teach one. You teach many. > I also have a big problem at any level of schooling with these unscientific and unproven "theories" (if you can even call them that) being taught by people who have entirely bought into the cult thinking and have no ability to critically reason about them let alone the desire to. I agree. > Would lessons about socialism and collectivism teach why the system can generally only sustain itself at a state level by devolving into a single party police state dictatorship in which the people most certainly do not own the means of production? Doubtful. You're generalizing an awful lot from n=1. We had the Soviet Block. That's the only time it's been tried. It'd be like evaluating liberal democracy from the French Revolution or the current collapsing Afghani government. > It's like inviting a white supremacist to teach children lessons about nazism. Or a creationist to teach biology. Or a flat earther to each geology. Not a helpful lens at all. I teach my kid those alternative theories too. I do a sincere job of it too. He doesn't believe me, in part due to other adults in his life.
    - test_epsilon 5y ago
      > That's exactly how you develop it. I disagree. > You teach complex concepts which require kids to sort truth from fiction. You don't teach one. You teach many. And there are many. Take away nazism, flat eartherism, and CRT, and there are still many. Many more interesting useful and fruitful things to teach at that age. For sure teach them to beware of said charlatans and snake oil peddlers, but there's really no need to spend any amount of time on the bullcrap they believe. There are countless unscientific cult beliefs like this, you're going to pollute your child's mind with all of them when they are like 8-10 years old?? > You're generalizing an awful lot from n=1. I'm not, I'm talking about the basic human nature behind it (and resulting in not only CPSU but CPC, and WPK, CPK, etc.) But I'm not here to litigate the merits of socialism so much as to say it's unproven and unscientific at best. Looks like snake oil no matter how you look at it -- promises to be all things to all people, and has no proven results behind it and arguably many spectacular failures. > I teach my kid those alternative theories too. I do a sincere job of it too. He doesn't believe me, in part due to other adults in his life. That doesn't mean it's good for your kid though. An if it is, you're the one generalizing an awful lot from n=1.

woofie11 5y ago

And if you go to school in a Christian community, Christianity will be the unseen lens that underlies the curriculum. And so on with any other culture. It's not ideal, but it is what is. CRT is a helpful lens, much like Marxism, Smith-style capitalism, and many other lenses. Like all of those, it has its limits. I want my kids to have as many lenses as possible, and to be able to use them critically. I'll mention -- even elementary school kids have no problems understanding these lenses. I'd argue Smith, CRT, and Marx ought to be taught around 3rd-5th grade, not high school. My problem is CRT is being taught in kindergarten.

test_epsilon 5y ago
What evidence is there that it is helpful? What measurable improvements is it responsible for? I don't agree any of those things should be taught in 3rd-5th grade because I think it is much more important to exercise the fundamentals of critical and creative thinking, logic, imagination, etc. at those ages. I also have a big problem at any level of schooling with these unscientific and unproven "theories" (if you can even call them that) being taught by people who have entirely bought into the cult thinking and have no ability to critically reason about them let alone the desire to. Would lessons about socialism and collectivism teach why the system can generally only sustain itself at a state level by devolving into a single party police state dictatorship in which the people most certainly do not own the means of production? Doubtful. Would the teaching of CRT expose it for the unproven religious-like propaganda that it is? Or would it teach the horrific hurtful and racist pseudoscientific lies about toxic whiteness or children bearing some responsibility for things done by other people due to their race? Probably the latter, right? It's like inviting a white supremacist to teach children lessons about nazism. Or a creationist to teach biology. Or a flat earther to each geology. Not a helpful lens at all.
- woofie11 5y ago
  > I don't agree any of those things should be taught in 3rd-5th grade because I think it is much more important to exercise the fundamentals of critical and creative thinking, logic, imagination, etc. at those ages. That's exactly how you develop it. You teach complex concepts which require kids to sort truth from fiction. You don't teach one. You teach many. > I also have a big problem at any level of schooling with these unscientific and unproven "theories" (if you can even call them that) being taught by people who have entirely bought into the cult thinking and have no ability to critically reason about them let alone the desire to. I agree. > Would lessons about socialism and collectivism teach why the system can generally only sustain itself at a state level by devolving into a single party police state dictatorship in which the people most certainly do not own the means of production? Doubtful. You're generalizing an awful lot from n=1. We had the Soviet Block. That's the only time it's been tried. It'd be like evaluating liberal democracy from the French Revolution or the current collapsing Afghani government. > It's like inviting a white supremacist to teach children lessons about nazism. Or a creationist to teach biology. Or a flat earther to each geology. Not a helpful lens at all. I teach my kid those alternative theories too. I do a sincere job of it too. He doesn't believe me, in part due to other adults in his life.
  - test_epsilon 5y ago
    > That's exactly how you develop it. I disagree. > You teach complex concepts which require kids to sort truth from fiction. You don't teach one. You teach many. And there are many. Take away nazism, flat eartherism, and CRT, and there are still many. Many more interesting useful and fruitful things to teach at that age. For sure teach them to beware of said charlatans and snake oil peddlers, but there's really no need to spend any amount of time on the bullcrap they believe. There are countless unscientific cult beliefs like this, you're going to pollute your child's mind with all of them when they are like 8-10 years old?? > You're generalizing an awful lot from n=1. I'm not, I'm talking about the basic human nature behind it (and resulting in not only CPSU but CPC, and WPK, CPK, etc.) But I'm not here to litigate the merits of socialism so much as to say it's unproven and unscientific at best. Looks like snake oil no matter how you look at it -- promises to be all things to all people, and has no proven results behind it and arguably many spectacular failures. > I teach my kid those alternative theories too. I do a sincere job of it too. He doesn't believe me, in part due to other adults in his life. That doesn't mean it's good for your kid though. An if it is, you're the one generalizing an awful lot from n=1.