I want to discuss an issue that came up in a different thread. I think it is worth a thread of its own.
On the current events board, there is a thread about a book in which it is claimed that trump praised Hitler as having done good things.
I was a bit shocked to read many board members agreeing with this and it got me thinking about the teaching,or proposed teaching, of CRT in American schools.
I have no wish to go into the boring detail of CRT but my understanding is that it is a revisionist view of American history that shows a darker view of America than most people grew up with.
It has caused a great deal of upset amongst people who are actually quite happy with their history just the way it is. But that is a political stance and not one that takes account of actual history. And that seems to be the same attitude that I see when it comes to judging Hitler.
It means that CRT will not be judged through any historical or academic perspective. It will be judged purely on its perceived political stance and its possible impact on the youngsters who are taught it.
There is a fear that kids will grow to hate their country and for that reason the truth must be suppressed. But this is covered up in ignorant bluster because to admit that would be admitting that the US should come clean on its history.
Surely honesty is the best policy ? There isnt a country on earth that has not got some episodes that they would rather not discuss. I know all about that. People who can find the good in Hitler should not dictate the education of the kids.
Teachers' union president says CRT is NOT being taught in schools
It's fun asking them what part of CRT they object to and to link it for us to show what's bad about it.
I think its hilarious how you goons try to act like other people dont know, when you yourselves dont know shit about it. The media says its good, and you repeat it.
You cultists fool no one.
All Bodecia know about the entire world is what team she is on.
Why should she ever strain her tiny little brain by thinking when others are doing it for her and telling her what to say?
I dunno. I don't have any problem with someone asking me what I don't like about CRT or 1619. I'm not totally clear on the difference between the two, btw.
Obviously.
CRT is not teaching history. CRT seeks to examine and address inequality and racism in our system. That’s it.
While some of the history of the 1619 project is flawed, there is nothing wrong with the idea and the premise…that American history started before 1776 and that African Americans contributed more blood, sweat and tears than our whitewashed (pun intended) history portrayed.
If you are suggesting that the CRT program includes NOTHING MORE than a factual
rendition of USA history------you are deluded.
No, that isn’t what I was implying. Actually I wasn’t implying anything. I was stating a fact that CRT is not a history course. I was pointing out that CRT and the 1618 project have nothing to do with each other.
So why is Political indoctrination being forced into the schools?
Political indoctrination has been in public schools since the 1890s. Schools expanded to facilitate getting children of immigrants in on the notions of meritocracy and capitalism.
The social elite in many cities in the 1890s led the reform movement. Their goal was to permanently end political party control of the local schools for the benefit of patronage jobs and construction contracts, which had arisen out of ward politics that absorbed and taught the millions of new immigrants. New York City elite led progressive reforms. Reformers installed a bureaucratic system run by experts, and demanded expertise from prospective teachers. The reforms opened the way for hiring more Irish Catholic and Jewish teachers, who proved adept at handling the civil service tests and gaining the necessary academic credentials. Before the reforms, schools had often been used as a means to provide patronage jobs for party foot soldiers. The new emphasis concentrated on broadening opportunities for the students. New programs were established for the physically handicapped; evening recreation centers were set up; vocational schools were opened; medical inspections became routine; programs began to teach English as a second language; and school libraries were opened.
[91] New teaching strategies were developed, such as the shifting the focus of secondary education towards speaking and writing, as outlined by the
Hosic Report in 1917.
[92]
Dewey and progressive education[edit]
The leading educational theorist of the era was
John Dewey (1859–1952), a philosophy professor at the
University of Chicago (1894–1904) and at Teachers College (1904 to 1930), of
Columbia University in New York City.
[93] Dewey was a leading proponent of "
Progressive Education" and wrote many books and articles to promote the central role of democracy in education.
[94] He believed that schools were not only a place for students to gain content knowledge, but also as a place for them to learn how to live. The purpose of education was thus to realize the student's full potential and the ability to use those skills for the greater good.
There is no debate that we have not taught what blacks contributed in colonial times or to the revolution. Or of native americans and people of mexican descent in the SE. And we did that to teach the social structure of the United States.
en.wikipedia.org