Is this the end for public schools?

[Morning Glory]

Meanwhile its unlikely that any kids were killed by books in 2020. Where is the outrage over this?:

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2201761

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

I can't remember if it's been explicitly discussed in these threads, but surely many of you are aware of the current Florida math textbook drama. They finally released a couple of examples of this "indoctrination" that they're all up in arms about.

https://www.fldoe.org/academics/standards/instructional-materials/

My mind is blown. THESE are the best (worst) examples of indoctrination they can find, and their grounds for prohibiting the use of certain textbooks? That's insane.

I don't know about indoctrination, but that is odd stuff to put in a math textbook. It seems very shoehorned in.

I didn't see it that way, because word problems and understanding charts and graphs is always going to require some sort of scenario. Sure, you could do something about car sales or rainfall amounts or whatever, but this seems like a reasonable example of a real-word data set that students should be comfortable working with.

As for the social-emotional learning component, the "Growth Mindset" is big in both educational and corporate circles. Why wouldn't you try to work that into all subjects? I've done a good bit of math tutoring for middle school students, as well as teaching SAT/GRE prep classes, and probably my biggest job as a tutor was to help students overcome their mental hurdles surrounding math and develop a growth mindset approach, although I didn't realize until recently that there was an actual name for what I was doing. (My goal was to take students from "I stink at math" to "Math is a game and, like any other game, it's a game that I can learn to win."

This article, which was published a few minutes ago, gives a bit more detail/background: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/22/us/florida-rejected-textbooks.html

I think that there is a valid complaint to make about the first example shown:


The right-most example lists conservatives as being more racially prejudiced.  Now, I get where this is coming from (pretty much every study I've seen of the US population will give this same result), but don't think there's any educational value in singling out a group like that.  It's wrong, and I can't see a purpose that it serves.  There is some valid concern there.  (If you disagree, imagine that there were real statistics used to show a graph of . . . say crime broken down by race . . . it would show black people have a significantly higher bar.  How would you feel about that popping up in a math problem?)

That said, I don't see an issue with any of the other stuff depicted.

I'm not saying that it's a perfectly conflict-free math problem, but it's not something that I personally would dedicate any mental energy to. If the FL DOE singled this out as their one best and most egregious example of CRT in a school math textbook, meaning that the others are even more "meh" that this, that definitely strikes me as much ado about nothing.

But, as with so many other things in Florida, it's really not about education at all. It's about appearances and campaigning for a wider national audience.

I think that there's valid reason for concern about the second part of the question for the reasons mentioned, but agree with you that all of the other 'bad parts' they listed are utterly trivial and inconsequential.  Banning the text seems like a significant over-reaction to the problem.  Worst case scenario they could just get the page removed or something.  It is just a single part of a single page in the book that they were able to find a problem with.

Should textbook authors be forced to make up fake data rather than fascinating students with actual research results?

When it comes time for the students to study the actual research in a social sciences class, should it be banned from there too?

How about we just ban research on racial prejudice? Seems more straightforward and gets right to the root of the problem of people's feelings being hurt by facts. It's just not politically correct.

Just to echo what GuitarStv said, throwing this in as a, what, explanation on bar graphs? polynomials?... and having something as contentious as this as the means to teach the concept is pretty ridiculous. You'd need significant context to have any hope of doing anything good with this kind of thing, and even if the textbook tried to provide it, math class is not the place for that. You can definitely talk about math in light of how to be aware of things in the world around you - tons of applicable lessons in statistics, for example, in terms of correlation not being causation and how people can misuse statistics. Something like this, though, is misguided at best, and should be removed from the textbook. That being said, as was said, it's one page. By itself, certainly not enough to ban a textbook. Just a simple request for revision.

[Abe]

States routinely ask for minor edits to textbooks for various political and non-political reasons. Usually if the requesting state has a large enough school population, the publishers and authors comply.

The book banning is a very over-the-top response specifically geared to winning troll points.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

States routinely ask for minor edits to textbooks for various political and non-political reasons. Usually if the requesting state has a large enough school population, the publishers and authors comply.

The book banning is a very over-the-top response specifically geared to winning troll points.

No doubt it's political theater overall. That's all that seems to make the news anymore.....

[zolotiyeruki]

So, I have to start by saying that "CRT" actually refers to a 40-year old graduate-school-level field of study:
https://www.edweek.org/leadership/what-is-critical-race-theory-and-why-is-it-under-attack/2021/05
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory
https://www.nytimes.com/article/what-is-critical-race-theory.html

So to actually be CRT, first the participants have to know enough American (or, I guess, wherever) history that they can go back and re-examine decisions and events in history through the lens of race and racism.

Somehow, the far right wing has taken this advanced academic idea and spread it around to mean ... I guess, any discussion of racism? Or anything that might make certain people feel bad? Any talk about BLM or why black people are disproportionately arrested, imprisoned, killed, etc. etc. ? I mean, the Virginia Governor's tip line was pretty vague: https://www.newsweek.com/glenn-youngkin-sets-tip-line-parents-report-crt-despite-not-being-curriculum-1672741

Sure, "proper" CRT is one of those only-in-postgraduate things.  What parents are up in arms about, and what states are banning, isn't CRT-proper, but is wholly in line with the tenets of CRT, and didn't have its own label, so it got lumped under the same umbrella.  It has since taken on some of its own terms--"culturally responsive teaching," "anti-racism," etc. 

Since I try to make sure I'm on a factual standing before making claims, I looked up the text of Texas' anti-CRT legislation.  Here's the relevant section that I found:

                  (4)  a teacher, administrator, or other employee of a state agency, school district, or open-enrollment charter school may not:
                        (A)  require or make part of a course inculcation in the concept that:
                              (i)  one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex;
                              (ii)  an individual, by virtue of the individual's race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously;
                              (iii)  an individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of the individual's race or sex;
                              (iv)  an individual's moral character, standing, or worth is necessarily determined by the individual's race or sex;
                              (v)  an individual, by virtue of the individual's race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex;
                              (vi)  an individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of the individual's race or sex;
                              (vii)  meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are racist or sexist or were created by members of a particular race to oppress members of another race;
                              (viii)  the advent of slavery in the territory that is now the United States constituted the true founding of the United States; or
                              (ix)  with respect to their relationship to American values, slavery and racism are anything other than deviations from, betrayals of, or failures to live up to the authentic founding principles of the United States, which include liberty and equality;
                        (B)  teach, instruct, or train any administrator, teacher, or staff member of a state agency, school district, or open-enrollment charter school to adopt a concept listed under Paragraph (A); or
                       (C)  require an understanding of the 1619 Project.

From this text, it sounds like the ideas they object to are things like:

ii) "if you're white, you're racist"
v) reparations
vi) "check your privilege"
vii) meritocracy is racist (there's some talking-past-each-other here, I think.  Isn't the argument that implicit bias overcomes efforts at meritocracy?)
viii) this one seems to be aimed squarely at the 1619 project

I don't see anything in this list that prohibits a thorough study of racism, slavery, and the generational effects thereof.

[charis]

Racial bias is a fancy version of racist, so people don't get offended immediately. I'm white and I don't have a problem with the concept that if you grew up white in the United States, you are probably a little racist or occasionally make racist decisions (usually in housing and education) through no fault of your own (unless you are an active or overt racist). We are all fully capable of micro-agressions and bias. I make a conscious effort to notice when I do this or am about to so I can do better. I never feel guilt about trying to improve in this area.

People who insist that they have no bias and nothing to learn from anti-racist theory have zero credibility in my book.

[maizefolk]

I'm white and I don't have a problem with the concept that if you grew up white in the United States, you are probably a little racist or occasionally make racist decisions (usually in housing and education) through no fault of your own (unless you are an active or overt racist). We are all fully capable of micro-agressions and bias.

This is as good a distillation of the issue both sides are actually arguing about as any. It's not an argument about whether or not to teach about slavery or that slavery was bad. It was bad, almost all (though admittedly not all) americans agree that it was and we should learn about the mistakes of our history to avoid repeating them and children across the USA do learn about the history and evils of slavery. It's not an argument about whether or not to teach about racisms or that racism is bad. It is bad. Almost all americans agree it is bad (though admittedly not all), in significant part because we learn it year after year in school. If people across the political spectrum didn't agree that racism was evil, those same people wouldn't respond so negatively to being accused of being racists themselves.

Instead, the disagreement about what children should learn in school fundamentally boils down to exactly what you are saying: Should we teach children that, living in the United States today, the color of their skin determines whether or not they are likely to be inherently racist? Are we all born fundamentally equal and the same as human beings and then shaped by the choices we make in life? Or are some people inherently guilty of racism no matter what choices they make in life and you can tell who the racist people are by the color of their skin?

Conservatives call this concept CRT. People who subscribe to this worldview see the concept as a fact so obvious it doesn't get its own name. But whatever you want to call the concept, it truly is a big and fundamental split in how different people look at the world and a fundamental divergence in our own moral compasses. That split is separate from those same people's views on the evils of slavery or racism.

I don't see a good way to get back towards a consensus worldview/moral view in our country. But it helps to at least be clear about the core point people are actually disagreeing about. Thank you for that.

[waltworks]

That's a great way to sum it up, Maizefolk.

I think it's perfectly possible to understand/teach that people of color (and others) have been disadvantaged and persecuted in lots of way in the United States without also saying that a white 7 year old is automatically a racist, which just seems stupid.

That said, I don't know that any public schools are really teaching anything like that, so the anti-CRT laws are probably just political performance art.

And again, the real problem isn't teaching that kids are racist or not, it's that the system is so badly run and underfunded that nobody is learning.

-W

[DadJokes]

That's a great way to sum it up, Maizefolk.

I think it's perfectly possible to understand/teach that people of color (and others) have been disadvantaged and persecuted in lots of way in the United States without also saying that a white 7 year old is automatically a racist, which just seems stupid.

That said, I don't know that any public schools are really teaching anything like that, so the anti-CRT laws are probably just political performance art.

And again, the real problem isn't teaching that kids are racist or not, it's that the system is so badly run and underfunded that nobody is learning.

-W

Last Thanksgiving, my wife's aunt asked my wife if she knew that schools were teaching children to be ashamed for being white. My wife, a teacher, told her that's not happening and that auntie needs to take it easy on watching Fox News.

As is the case with most issues, one or both sides find a way to blow things way out of proportion. It seems that every issue is political performance art anymore.

[maizefolk]

And again, the real problem isn't teaching that kids are racist or not, it's that the system is so badly run and underfunded that nobody is learning.

Agreed.

Although I would put the growing difficulty of convincing competent and smart people that they want to be teachers as a substantial part of why the schools are being increasingly badly run. And being put at the center multiple political fault lines in our society is probably a non-zero part of why convincing good people to talk those jobs is getting harder and harder (although obviously pay rates and the changes in working conditions from lockdowns and new public health measures play big roles too).

That said, I don't know that any public schools are really teaching anything like that, so the anti-CRT laws are probably just political performance art.

Outside of isolated incidents (you can find a least a couple examples of almost anything in a country of 350M people if you look hard enough) I imagine you're probably right.

That said the key thing that makes it effective performance art is the contingent on the other side screaming about how terrible laws like the one zolotiyeruki posted are. Passing a law banning the teaching of children that water is dry (not true but harmless) or that fire isn't dangerous (not true and dangerous) wouldn't be effective political theater because no one would be upset about not being able to teach children those things.

I believe the angry response to these laws has played a big role in convincing some people that children are either being taught today that, depending on the color of their skin, they are born inherently racist, or that people are hoping to start teaching children in the future.

But again this, at best, is a 2nd or maybe 3rd order player in your original point about the declining quality of public education, but I believe it is playing a role. I think back to my own time in public school when evolution was never mentioned because of the fear of the parental backlash it might have provoked. I would have liked to learn about it in school. However, given the type of community I grew up in, a school district that drew a line in the sand about teaching evolution would probably have been one with angry school board meetings and petitions and teachers being confronted in the parking lot or at home and budget cuts. All sorts of stuff that would have made it more likely the best teachers I learned from as a student would have moved on to another district or another career before I took their classes.

[zolotiyeruki]

@maizefolk Wow, I think you've hit the nail on the head.

On getting more people into teaching--Thinking back to my growing up years, I get the impression that my teachers were given wide latitude to create their own curricula.  Teachers coordinated amongst themselves, and I'm sure there were district standards, and science and math followed textbooks, but it sure "felt" like the teachers were the ones in control.  And they did a fabulous job IMO.  They seemed to genuinely enjoy their work.  My British Literature teacher was so good, I ended up taking three classes from her.  And she was a tough teacher.  I can't imagine her style fitting in with current administrative trends.  Nowadays, teachers are caught between micromanagement on one side, insufficient resources on another, increased teacher workload on a third, and concerned parents on the fourth. 

With respect to the CRT or CRT-adjacent issues and bans and whatnot, I think you're spot-on.  For example, if nobody is teaching or planning to teach CRT, then the law has no effect, and there's no cause for all the uproar.  Since there is an uproar, there is a strong suggestion that CRT is being taught (or planned), in which case the anti-CRT laws are exactly what is called for (assuming you're anti-CRT). 

The same sequence of events applied to the recent Florida parental rights law.  Here is the paragraph that caused all the hoopla:

3.  Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.

What is the story that parents and politicians are reacting to?  Stories like this or this, or official policies that explicitly allow school staff to hide information from parents.  Or they hear about LibsOfTikTok, and see teachers openly bragging about teaching their kids CRT or sexuality at an inappropriate age.  In response, Florida passes a law that says "you have to keep parents in the loop, and you can't teach sexuality inappropriately before grade 4." Opposition to such a law strongly suggests that opponents favor gender transitioning children without their parents' knowledge or permission, and want to teach sexuality to kindergartners.  It's a "thanks for proving my point" situation.

Unfortunately, politicians and activists are prone to hyperbole, and so "keep parents in the loop and don't teach sexuality before 4th grade" is portrayed as "don't say gay," and anti-CRT laws are characterized as a ban on any discussion of racism, neither of which bear any resemblance to the truth.

[chemistk]

What is the story that parents and politicians are reacting to?  Stories like this or this, or official policies that explicitly allow school staff to hide information from parents.  Or they hear about LibsOfTikTok, and see teachers openly bragging about teaching their kids CRT or sexuality at an inappropriate age.  In response, Florida passes a law that says "you have to keep parents in the loop, and you can't teach sexuality inappropriately before grade 4." Opposition to such a law strongly suggests that opponents favor gender transitioning children without their parents' knowledge or permission, and want to teach sexuality to kindergartners.  It's a "thanks for proving my point" situation.

Trying not to derail the thread, but also kind of in the line of the original topic, I'd like to believe that this kind of an example has always been around, in every profession. Rabble-rousers are going to rabble-rouse.

But the difference now, perhaps, is that it's all just exposed in its gory, complex, and unfortunate truth thanks to social media. I can certainly say from following our district's election last year that social media was a massive part in influencing the outcome of those races. It had nothing to do with advertising, just the sharing of anecdotes regardless of how true they were - both in retelling some of these same examples as well as immediate reactionary posts and videos about given subjects.

When you can reach an audience ready to be angry about perceived injustices with a simple 10 second video, you're going to easily make mountains out of whatever molehill you want to be angry towards.

[Morning Glory]

So, I have to start by saying that "CRT" actually refers to a 40-year old graduate-school-level field of study:
https://www.edweek.org/leadership/what-is-critical-race-theory-and-why-is-it-under-attack/2021/05
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory
https://www.nytimes.com/article/what-is-critical-race-theory.html

So to actually be CRT, first the participants have to know enough American (or, I guess, wherever) history that they can go back and re-examine decisions and events in history through the lens of race and racism.

Somehow, the far right wing has taken this advanced academic idea and spread it around to mean ... I guess, any discussion of racism? Or anything that might make certain people feel bad? Any talk about BLM or why black people are disproportionately arrested, imprisoned, killed, etc. etc. ? I mean, the Virginia Governor's tip line was pretty vague: https://www.newsweek.com/glenn-youngkin-sets-tip-line-parents-report-crt-despite-not-being-curriculum-1672741

Sure, "proper" CRT is one of those only-in-postgraduate things.  What parents are up in arms about, and what states are banning, isn't CRT-proper, but is wholly in line with the tenets of CRT, and didn't have its own label, so it got lumped under the same umbrella.  It has since taken on some of its own terms--"culturally responsive teaching," "anti-racism," etc. 

Since I try to make sure I'm on a factual standing before making claims, I looked up the text of Texas' anti-CRT legislation.  Here's the relevant section that I found:

                  (4)  a teacher, administrator, or other employee of a state agency, school district, or open-enrollment charter school may not:
                        (A)  require or make part of a course inculcation in the concept that:
                              (i)  one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex;
                              (ii)  an individual, by virtue of the individual's race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously;
                              (iii)  an individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of the individual's race or sex;
                              (iv)  an individual's moral character, standing, or worth is necessarily determined by the individual's race or sex;
                              (v)  an individual, by virtue of the individual's race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex;
                              (vi)  an individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of the individual's race or sex;
                              (vii)  meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are racist or sexist or were created by members of a particular race to oppress members of another race;
                              (viii)  the advent of slavery in the territory that is now the United States constituted the true founding of the United States; or
                              (ix)  with respect to their relationship to American values, slavery and racism are anything other than deviations from, betrayals of, or failures to live up to the authentic founding principles of the United States, which include liberty and equality;
                        (B)  teach, instruct, or train any administrator, teacher, or staff member of a state agency, school district, or open-enrollment charter school to adopt a concept listed under Paragraph (A); or
                       (C)  require an understanding of the 1619 Project.

From this text, it sounds like the ideas they object to are things like:

ii) "if you're white, you're racist"
v) reparations
vi) "check your privilege"
vii) meritocracy is racist (there's some talking-past-each-other here, I think.  Isn't the argument that implicit bias overcomes efforts at meritocracy?)
viii) this one seems to be aimed squarely at the 1619 project

I don't see anything in this list that prohibits a thorough study of racism, slavery, and the generational effects thereof.

Meritocracy isn't racist in the same way that Santa Claus isn't racist.  Some kids get more toys than others because their families have more money, and some families have more or less money because of previous racist policies.  Saying we have Meritocracy and that everyone who is rich just worked harder is like saying the rich kids deserve to get more toys from Santa because they behaved better.

[waltworks]

"People are really mad about it" isn't a strong justification for a law, though. Politicians on both sides love to try to piss off the "other side" and people love to hate on politicians.

The anti-CRT laws are stupid. Full stop. And they contribute to driving educators out of the field, because who wants to get sued by parents because you tried to explain that it's ok for Susy to have 2 moms? Nobody is teaching explicit sexual matters to elementary students. By the time we *do* try to teach them the basics in middle school, they've already been looking at hardcore porn on their phones anyway.

Even if you think 1st graders should learn nothing about sex at all, which would you prefer, a great teacher who will openly tell them what a lesbian is, or a crappy teacher who can't because of a state law? I'll accept all the Jesus prosthelytizing and/or open CRT teaching someone wants if they are good at their job, because I'm not big on making the perfect the enemy of the good.

Sigh.

-W

[zolotiyeruki]

Meritocracy isn't racist in the same way that Santa Claus isn't racist.  Some kids get more toys than others because their families have more money, and some families have more or less money because of previous racist policies.  Saying we have Meritocracy and that everyone who is rich just worked harder is like saying the rich kids deserve to get more toys from Santa because they behaved better.

Can you explain this a bit further? I'm having trouble making the connection.

"People are really mad about it" isn't a strong justification for a law, though. Politicians on both sides love to try to piss off the "other side" and people love to hate on politicians.

The anti-CRT laws are stupid. Full stop. And they contribute to driving educators out of the field, because who wants to get sued by parents because you tried to explain that it's ok for Susy to have 2 moms? Nobody is teaching explicit sexual matters to elementary students. By the time we *do* try to teach them the basics in middle school, they've already been looking at hardcore porn on their phones anyway.

Even if you think 1st graders should learn nothing about sex at all, which would you prefer, a great teacher who will openly tell them what a lesbian is, or a crappy teacher who can't because of a state law? I'll accept all the Jesus prosthelytizing and/or open CRT teaching someone wants if they are good at their job, because I'm not big on making the perfect the enemy of the good.

Hang on, you're conflating the anti-CRT laws and the parental rights laws.  And it seems you're falling into the trap I described before:  not reading the laws, and believing the hyperbole instead.

--If teaching kids that they're racist by virtue of being white* is such a high priority for a teacher that they're willing to quit over it, then you'll have to excuse me for not shedding many tears.  Likewise, if a teacher leaves the field because they can't teach sexuality to kids who are barely learning to read and tie their shoelaces, or because they can't shut parents out of their own child's education, then the kids are probably better off without that teacher.
--There's a difference between acknowledging that families vary in their composition and teaching about sexuality in an age-inappropriate manner.**
--Just because some kids will access pornography by middle school doesn't mean the school should encourage/enable it.
--You're creating a false choice between the two types of teachers.  That's a logical fallacy.  It's also a "package deal" fallacy.

* - One of the issues actually addressed in the TX law
** - See the text of the FL parental rights law

[charis]

Teachers are not teaching kids that they are racist because their skin color is white and they aren't teaching age-inappropriate sexual content because teaching inappropriate content is already grounds for disciplinary action or termination. As stated above, anti-crt laws are stupid. Any resulting litigation will result in a huge waste of money and time. Who's paying for this litigation? Where's the $ coming from? Even the stink of legal action, even if it's meritless, will cause good professionals to nope their way out of the low paying teaching field.

[GuitarStv]

What is the story that parents and politicians are reacting to?  Stories like this

There's a lot to unpack in this story.

A school nurse was fired after she posted a list of student names on social media in order to out them.  One 11 year old student was on puberty blockers.  12 other students identified as non-binary.

The mother of the 11 year old student was the one who found the post and reported the nurse to the school . . . and then said that she was satisfied when the nurse was fired for the outing.  The story mentions that the nurse claimed the school was hiding this information from parents - but there's no evidence at all that this was the case.

Is the outrage we're supposed to feel that there's punishment for publicly outing trans and non-binary minors?

--If teaching kids that they're racist by virtue of being white* is such a high priority for a teacher that they're willing to quit over it, then you'll have to excuse me for not shedding many tears.

* - One of the issues actually addressed in the TX law

If this is such a big issue, when asked earlier how come you weren't able to find a single case of this happening?  It's almost like . . . this is not a problem.

So exactly what is the problem that the Texas law is solving?

--There's a difference between acknowledging that families vary in their composition and teaching about sexuality in an age-inappropriate manner.**

** - See the text of the FL parental rights law

"Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards."
  - https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557/BillText/er/PDF

So let's parse what the language actually says.
"Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3"

No instruction of any kind that covers sexual orientation or gender identity can occur by school personnel prior to the fourth grade.  A strict reading of this would indeed mean that ANY discussion of homosexuality and gender would be a violation.  That includes:
- a teacher mentioning a gay spouse and then explaining why both people in the marriage are the same sex (discussion of sexual orientation)
- a teacher hearing some kids in grade three calling an older trans kid names, and trying to explain why it's wrong to call that student names (discussion of gender identity)
- a teacher acknowledging that families vary in composition (discussion of sexual orientation)

That's the "Don't say gay" part of the law, and I suspect is the driver of most of the justified outrage about the law.


Then we have "or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards."

The crux of this part of the law (which covers all grades after 3) comes down to the definition of "age appropriate" and "developmentally appropriate" instruction.  It seems reasonable to assume that this is not going to be defined by the schools . . . because if a school felt that their teacher was not instructing students in an "age appropriate" and "developmentally appropriate" way, the teacher would be fired before the passing of this law.  So where exactly is this specified?  Who is responsible for defining it? Courts maybe?  What a nightmare for teachers.

[LonerMatt]

"Age appropriate" is just a dog whistle for censorship.

Kids ask hard questions at very young ages - they'll ask where babies come from, why this kid has two dads, what gay is, what trans means - that's to be expected, that's age appropriate.

The moving goal post of 'age appropriate' just allows conservative governments a grey area in which to rile up outrage. Of course some people are going to be a bit more open than others, some people will be more closed - we rarely get annoyed when someone under-explains, despite that being basically as bad as over-explaining. This grey area is all about exerting control through keeping things flexible.

People may not think teachers should be having sex ed lessons with 5 year olds, but realistically 'sex ed' at that age is answering some of the questions mentioned above, or having a very basic lesson on 'pride', or sharing that some people have not always been treated well, or correcting bullying/slurs used by kids.

As a former teacher, adult commentators consistently under-estimate, overly-coddle and patronise students - most students respond exceptionally well to being talked up to, treated like they are intelligent and approached with openness. As someone who has taught sex education, drug education and things like date safety/sexting laws numerous times, I am confident that students, regardless of age, are much better off when we are clear with them, treat them with respect, and stop this 'what about the children' hysteria that assumes kids are angelic and incapable of hearing about complexity without being corrupted.

[maizefolk]

"Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3"

No instruction of any kind that covers sexual orientation or gender identity can occur by school personnel prior to the fourth grade.  A strict reading of this would indeed mean that ANY discussion of homosexuality and gender would be a violation.  That includes:
- a teacher mentioning a gay spouse and then explaining why both people in the marriage are the same sex (discussion of sexual orientation)
- a teacher hearing some kids in grade three calling an older trans kid names, and trying to explain why it's wrong to call that student names (discussion of gender identity)
- a teacher acknowledging that families vary in composition (discussion of sexual orientation)

That's the "Don't say gay" part of the law, and I suspect is the driver of most of the justified outrage about the law.

Yeah, it is much easier to understand why teachers would be afraid of the Florida anti-sex ed law than the Texas anti-inherently-racist law.

I will say that a truly strict reading the the Florida law would also prohibit any discussion of heterosexuality before the 4th grade. An enterprising if ruthless Floridian could probably generate an awful lot of press by suing their local school for reading a book where a princess marries a prince or some such. I imagine (hope) they'd lose, but it'd be useful to establish the precedent, whether that was overturning the law entirely or just establishing a court precedent that references to romantic or family relationships (whether across or within genders) were not a violation so all the other teachers could sleep easier at night.

It's really crazy how little the people we elect to state government seem to understand about writing laws, especially given how many of them are lawyers or businesspeople themselves. You'd think anyone who has ever had to read through a contract or write a piece of code would be able to come up with better and clearer language than the stuff that comes out of most state capitals.

[GuitarStv]

"Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3"

No instruction of any kind that covers sexual orientation or gender identity can occur by school personnel prior to the fourth grade.  A strict reading of this would indeed mean that ANY discussion of homosexuality and gender would be a violation.  That includes:
- a teacher mentioning a gay spouse and then explaining why both people in the marriage are the same sex (discussion of sexual orientation)
- a teacher hearing some kids in grade three calling an older trans kid names, and trying to explain why it's wrong to call that student names (discussion of gender identity)
- a teacher acknowledging that families vary in composition (discussion of sexual orientation)

That's the "Don't say gay" part of the law, and I suspect is the driver of most of the justified outrage about the law.

Yeah, it is much easier to understand why teachers would be afraid of the Florida anti-sex ed law than the Texas anti-inherently-racist law.

I will say that a truly strict reading the the Florida law would also prohibit any discussion of heterosexuality before the 4th grade. An enterprising if ruthless Floridian could probably generate an awful lot of press by suing their local school for reading a book where a princess marries a prince or some such. I imagine (hope) they'd lose, but it'd be useful to establish the precedent, whether that was overturning the law entirely or just establishing a court precedent that references to romantic or family relationships (whether across or within genders) were not a violation so all the other teachers could sleep easier at night.

It's really crazy how little the people we elect to state government seem to understand about writing laws, especially given how many of them are lawyers or businesspeople themselves. You'd think anyone who has ever had to read through a contract or write a piece of code would be able to come up with better and clearer language than the stuff that comes out of most state capitals.

It would certainly be entertaining to see how a complaint about heterosexual content in children's books (as there is a large quantity of such) would be addressed.

But I don't believe that the elected officials are stupid or confused while writing these laws in any way - it's a choice being made.  As you said, they're lawyers and businesspeople who are very familiar with this style of language.  Ambiguity provides a cover of plausible deniability while also ensuring that targeted groups will still be negatively impacted as people lower down the chain come up with their own interpretations of the law.

[chemistk]

"Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3"

No instruction of any kind that covers sexual orientation or gender identity can occur by school personnel prior to the fourth grade.  A strict reading of this would indeed mean that ANY discussion of homosexuality and gender would be a violation.  That includes:
- a teacher mentioning a gay spouse and then explaining why both people in the marriage are the same sex (discussion of sexual orientation)
- a teacher hearing some kids in grade three calling an older trans kid names, and trying to explain why it's wrong to call that student names (discussion of gender identity)
- a teacher acknowledging that families vary in composition (discussion of sexual orientation)

That's the "Don't say gay" part of the law, and I suspect is the driver of most of the justified outrage about the law.

Yeah, it is much easier to understand why teachers would be afraid of the Florida anti-sex ed law than the Texas anti-inherently-racist law.

I will say that a truly strict reading the the Florida law would also prohibit any discussion of heterosexuality before the 4th grade. An enterprising if ruthless Floridian could probably generate an awful lot of press by suing their local school for reading a book where a princess marries a prince or some such. I imagine (hope) they'd lose, but it'd be useful to establish the precedent, whether that was overturning the law entirely or just establishing a court precedent that references to romantic or family relationships (whether across or within genders) were not a violation so all the other teachers could sleep easier at night.

It's really crazy how little the people we elect to state government seem to understand about writing laws, especially given how many of them are lawyers or businesspeople themselves. You'd think anyone who has ever had to read through a contract or write a piece of code would be able to come up with better and clearer language than the stuff that comes out of most state capitals.

It would certainly be entertaining to see how a complaint about heterosexual content in children's books (as there is a large quantity of such) would be addressed.

But I don't believe that the elected officials are stupid or confused while writing these laws in any way - it's a choice being made.  As you said, they're lawyers and businesspeople who are very familiar with this style of language.  Ambiguity provides a cover of plausible deniability while also ensuring that targeted groups will still be negatively impacted as people lower down the chain come up with their own interpretations of the law.

Shamelessly playing the 'what if...?' game, I've been thinking recently about what kind of reactions would occur if my child started talking about things we discussed at home if we lived in both Texas or Florida.

We've talked about same-sex marriages, the trans movement, and just generally that people may be gender nonconforming at home at a level that our first grader seems to understand. So if he brings it up in a classroom in Florida, does the teacher just have to ignore him? Send him to the principal? And would we as parents face some form of wrist-slapping?

And the same thing goes for discussions about race. We've talked about it at home, so if he asks in the classroom why white people think it was okay to own slaves, or why the civil war was fought, or other similar (and frankly, age-appropriate) lines of discussion, would that also incur discipline?

[charis]

People (not particularly bright ones) make a big deal about how gay and straight teachers don't need to refer to being married or their significant others because their personal lives aren't their students' business. Apart from it being ludicrous that teachers shouldn't share basic information about themselves the students, most of my children's teachers are Mrs. So and So.  Thus, who they are (probably) sleeping with is right there in the name.

And kids still use sexual slurs like "gay" as an insult. Ignore that too?

[GuitarStv]

People (not particularly bright ones) make a big deal about how gay and straight teachers don't need to refer to being married or their significant others because their personal lives aren't their students' business. Apart from it being ludicrous that teachers shouldn't share basic information about themselves the students, most of my children's teachers are Mrs. So and So.  Thus, who they are (probably) sleeping with is right there in the name.

And kids still use sexual slurs like "gay" as an insult. Ignore that too?

Yes, I think that this is one of the more troubling aspects of the law.  Instruction regarding sex and gender tends to often be used to explain why slurs/name calling is hurtful.  Without the leeway to do this, it hinders a teacher's ability to mitigate these attacks.

It really is a terrible law.  Hurts the ability of teachers to educate, hurts the ability of children to learn, attempts to closet and other gay/trans people even more than they already are in society, and appears to solve no real world problem.

[maizefolk]

We've talked about same-sex marriages, the trans movement, and just generally that people may be gender nonconforming at home at a level that our first grader seems to understand. So if he brings it up in a classroom in Florida, does the teacher just have to ignore him? Send him to the principal? And would we as parents face some form of wrist-slapping?

And the same thing goes for discussions about race. We've talked about it at home, so if he asks in the classroom why white people think it was okay to own slaves, or why the civil war was fought, or other similar (and frankly, age-appropriate) lines of discussion, would that also incur discipline?

Just to clarify as I know I often make small mistakes when typing and then don't catch them because I read what I meant to say rather than what I ended up typing, are you teaching your kid that "white people" (all? most? some?) currently think that owning slaves was okay? Or that some people in the past thought it was okay (and were wrong to do so)?

Entirely independently of the law in Texas, I'd imagine the reaction to asking about why people in the south before/during the civil war were in favor of slavery would provoke a very different reaction in the classroom from asking why white people today think slavery was okay (and so conveying to the classroom that this is a thing white people as a group believe).

[chemistk]

We've talked about same-sex marriages, the trans movement, and just generally that people may be gender nonconforming at home at a level that our first grader seems to understand. So if he brings it up in a classroom in Florida, does the teacher just have to ignore him? Send him to the principal? And would we as parents face some form of wrist-slapping?

And the same thing goes for discussions about race. We've talked about it at home, so if he asks in the classroom why white people think it was okay to own slaves, or why the civil war was fought, or other similar (and frankly, age-appropriate) lines of discussion, would that also incur discipline?

Just to clarify as I know I often make small mistakes when typing and then don't catch them because I read what I meant to say rather than what I ended up typing, are you teaching your kid that "white people" (all? most? some?) currently think that owning slaves was okay? Or that some people in the past thought it was okay (and were wrong to do so)?

Entirely independently of the law in Texas, I'd imagine the reaction to asking about why people in the south before/during the civil war were in favor of slavery would provoke a very different reaction in the classroom from asking why white people today think slavery was okay (and so conveying to the classroom that this is a thing white people as a group believe).

Good catch, I am absolutely referring to past practices. While a first grader won't be able to do so, an easy logical leap (unless the teacher cut it off) would be the discussion about the economic engine that was the South and with that, the admission that prosperity was carried on the backs of enslaved peopled. Then it's an easy hop, skip, and a jump to "Mrs. Smith, why is it that my neighbor still thinks that the South should have won the Civil war?".

[maizefolk]

Ah good. I was about two sentences into a much different response before the obvious (and it turns out correct) explanation occurred to me. Thanks!

I completely agree your point about with the thread of questions that could potentially result from a question about slavery. I don't think any of that discussion, up to and including "Why is it that my neighbor still thinks that the South should have won the Civil war?" would fall afoul of the Texas law as written.

Which is not to say it might not still be a big source of stress to teachers worried about what is or isn't going to violate the law. There are at least two potential solutions to this. The one that is entirely outside of my power would be for the Texas legislature to not pass the law in the first place. The other is to try to push back at the folks who have tried to frame it as a law banning the discussion of slavery or the fact that slavery is bad (it is) or a law banning the discussion of racism or the fact that racism is evil (it is).

Framing it that way might or might not put additional pressure on Texas lawmakers to repeal the law. I'm not optimistic but who knows. However it certainly adds additional and unnecessary stress and worry to the job of teaching in the state of Texas, a job I imagine isn't particularly relaxing and carefree under even the best of circumstances.

[GuitarStv]

(4)  a teacher, administrator, or other employee of a state agency, school district, or open-enrollment charter school may not:
   (A)  require or make part of a course inculcation in the concept that:
      (i)  one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex;
      (ii)  an individual, by virtue of the individual's race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously;
      (iii)  an individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of the individual's race or sex;
      (iv)  an individual's moral character, standing, or worth is necessarily determined by the individual's race or sex;
      (v)  an individual, by virtue of the individual's race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex;
      (vi)  an individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of the individual's race or sex;
      (vii)  meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are racist or sexist or were created by members of a particular race to oppress members of another race;
      (viii)  the advent of slavery in the territory that is now the United States constituted the true founding of the United States; or
      (ix)  with respect to their relationship to American values, slavery and racism are anything other than deviations from, betrayals of, or failures to live up to the authentic founding principles of the United States, which include liberty and equality;
   (B)  teach, instruct, or train any administrator, teacher, or staff member of a state agency, school district, or open-enrollment charter school to adopt a concept listed under Paragraph (A); or
   (C)  require an understanding of the 1619 Project.

The Texas laws are pretty problematic in and of themselves.


Depending on how you read it, 4A(ii) would seem to make it impossible to discuss privilege in any way in the classroom.  This would cover anything from the common redlining practices, to the wealth gap caused by the inability of black people to get loans, to the current state where people with black sounding names are less likely to get hired when submitting the same resume as people with white sounding names.  All of these could be interpreted to be 'unconscious oppression'.  4A(v) would again prevent discussion of redlining / the wealth gap mentioned.

4A(ix) is a really weird one.  Most of the founding fathers owned slaves.  Slavery was implicitly condoned in the constitution - Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 for example, or the fugitive slave clause.  I guess you can't study/teach the original constitution in Texas as the document written and passed by the founding fathers doesn't live up to the "authentic founding principles of the United States"?

[maizefolk]

(4)  a teacher, administrator, or other employee of a state agency, school district, or open-enrollment charter school may not:
(A)  require or make part of a course inculcation in the concept that:
...
(ii)  an individual, by virtue of the individual's race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously;

Depending on how you read it, 4A(ii) would seem to make it impossible to discuss privilege in any way in the classroom.  This would cover anything from the common redlining practices, to the wealth gap caused by the inability of black people to get loans, to the current state where people with black sounding names are less likely to get hired when submitting the same resume as people with white sounding names.  All of these could be interpreted to be 'unconscious oppression'.

Edited down to the relevant part of the law.

As written, discussing unconscious oppression in society is completely fine. Take the examples you just listed where you discussed several very real phenomena, very real problems, and which could arguably qualify as "unconscious oppression".

What you didn't do was single out specific individuals based solely on their race or sex as the ones to blame for those very real problems. You're discussing the problems in a way that would be permitted by the law.

[GuitarStv]

(4)  a teacher, administrator, or other employee of a state agency, school district, or open-enrollment charter school may not:
(A)  require or make part of a course inculcation in the concept that:
...
(ii)  an individual, by virtue of the individual's race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously;

Depending on how you read it, 4A(ii) would seem to make it impossible to discuss privilege in any way in the classroom.  This would cover anything from the common redlining practices, to the wealth gap caused by the inability of black people to get loans, to the current state where people with black sounding names are less likely to get hired when submitting the same resume as people with white sounding names.  All of these could be interpreted to be 'unconscious oppression'.

Edited down to the relevant part of the law.

As written, discussing unconscious oppression in society is completely fine. Take the examples you just listed where you discussed several very real phenomena, very real problems, and which could arguably qualify as "unconscious oppression".

What you didn't do was single out specific individuals based solely on their race or sex as the ones to blame for those very real problems. You're discussing the problems in a way that would be permitted by the law.

Thank you, I missed the 'individual' bit.  That sounds much more reasonable.

I still think it's weird that teachers have to say that the constitution drafted by America's founding fathers and the actions of the founding fathers themselves were failures to live up to the authentic founding principles of the United States though.  Certainly seems like doublethink.

[maizefolk]

Thank you, I missed the 'individual' bit.  That sounds much more reasonable.

I still think it's weird that teachers have to say that the constitution drafted by America's founding fathers and the actions of the founding fathers themselves were failures to live up to the authentic founding principles of the United States though.  Certainly seems like doublethink.

Eh. I agree it's a bit weird. I don't think it creates any harm in terms of actually teaching children to aspire to and word towards a better future society but it's not something I'd write into a law if I was in a position to do so.

The attribution of ideas about equality and attribution back to the founding principles written down by flawed human beings who likely didn't think through or even intend all of the implications of those ideas been an important part of thought and rhetoric in the USA across the political spectrum for my entire adult life. Consider this quote from Barack Obama's speech having won his second presidential election:

"I believe we can keep the promise of our founders, the idea that if you're willing to work hard, it doesn't matter who you are or where you come from or what you look like or who you love. It doesn't matter whether you're black or white or Hispanic or Asian or Native American or young or old or rich or poor, able, disabled, gay or straight, you can make it here in America if you're willing to try."

Now, to pick a random signer,  wasJohn Jay really motivated by establishing a nation where it ultimately wouldn't matter if a person was gay or straight? ... I don't know much about the fellow but if I had to guess I'd say it probably wasn't at the top of his mind. Yet politicians make these appeals because, at least in America where love of country still seems to matter much more than "first world" countries, because it works and it helps to get buy-in from many people who otherwise would be indifferent or opposed.

And so, while, like I said, I don't think the ban should have been written into the law, I do think that strategically teaching children that racism is a fundamental betrayal of american values is a much more effective way to inoculate them against racism (and so secure a better society for the next generation) than teaching those same children that the values of their country are racist.

[GuitarStv]

Eh. I agree it's a bit weird. I don't think it creates any harm in terms of actually teaching children to aspire to and word towards a better future society but it's not something I'd write into a law if I was in a position to do so.

The attribution of ideas about equality and attribution back to the founding principles written down by flawed human beings who likely didn't think through or even intend all of the implications of those ideas been an important part of thought and rhetoric in the USA across the political spectrum for my entire adult life. Consider this quote from Barack Obama's speech having won his second presidential election:

"I believe we can keep the promise of our founders, the idea that if you're willing to work hard, it doesn't matter who you are or where you come from or what you look like or who you love. It doesn't matter whether you're black or white or Hispanic or Asian or Native American or young or old or rich or poor, able, disabled, gay or straight, you can make it here in America if you're willing to try."

Now, to pick a random signer,  wasJohn Jay really motivated by establishing a nation where it ultimately wouldn't matter if a person was gay or straight? ... I don't know much about the fellow but if I had to guess I'd say it probably wasn't at the top of his mind. Yet politicians make these appeals because, at least in America where love of country still seems to matter much more than "first world" countries, because it works and it helps to get buy-in from many people who otherwise would be indifferent or opposed.

And so, while, like I said, I don't think the ban should have been written into the law, I do think that strategically teaching children that racism is a fundamental betrayal of american values is a much more effective way to inoculate them against racism (and so secure a better society for the next generation) than teaching those same children that the values of their country are racist.

If the choices are "your country is racist" and "your country has great values to be lived up to" then yeah.
 You've definitely outlined the best choice of the false dichotomy presented!  But those aren't the only choices.  There's also "The people who built our country were human.  They had some good ideas that we want to keep building on, and they did some terrible things that we should never forget."  To me, that's infinitely more preferable to both of the other suggestions.

Lying to people through misrepresentation (even with the best of intentions) is still lying to them, and it always seems to be a bad way to go about doing things.  Because either people start to believe the lie (bad) or people realize they've been lied to and stop trusting the liar (bad - if the ones lying are educators).

I would definitely not argue that the values of the United States today are racist.  But to fail to acknowledge the truth of the past only undermines and cheapens the multi-century struggle that America has (to a great extent) been winning on this front.  It also benefits the liars who pretend that race is no longer an issue in order to deny that there still exists some work to be done on that front by sweeping the crimes of the past under the rug.  It only benefits the cheerleaders of 'team racism' who fly their confederate flags and pine for the good ole days of widespread oppression while pretending that the civil war was about something other than race.

Also, it's very important to note that the founders of the United States were politicians.  Exactly the same as the politicians of today.  Putting them on a pedestal denigrates the people in charge today and undermine trust in them - increasing divisiveness (after all, if the founders could be so perfect . . . then why can't the politicians of today?).  It's important to remember that they were as human and flawed as anyone else, and to examine/correct the bad ideas as well as the good.  Because when you veer into pseudo-religious worship (as seems too common these days regarding the US founders) you naturally tend to silence critical examination of the dogma.  And critical examination of things is how we change for the better.

So yeah, I see plenty of harm in the choice you're arguing for.  Truth over lies - even if the truth is sometimes uncomfortable.  Occasionally bitter medicine over a diet of confectionary.

[maizefolk]

....written down by flawed human beings who likely didn't think through or even intend all of the implications of those ideas...

Putting them on a pedestal denigrates the people in charge today and undermine trust in them - increasing divisiveness (after all, if the founders could be so perfect . . . then why can't the politicians of today?).  It's important to remember that they were as human and flawed as anyone else...

Respectfully, if you read my last post and your take away was that I was arguing the founders of the USA were NOT flawed human beings, I fear you are disagreeing more with an caricature of what you believe someone who doesn't share your point of view must think and disagreeing less not the things I am actually saying, or actually believe.

[GuitarStv]

....written down by flawed human beings who likely didn't think through or even intend all of the implications of those ideas...

Putting them on a pedestal denigrates the people in charge today and undermine trust in them - increasing divisiveness (after all, if the founders could be so perfect . . . then why can't the politicians of today?).  It's important to remember that they were as human and flawed as anyone else...

Respectfully, if you read my last post and your take away was that I was arguing the founders of the USA were NOT flawed human beings, I fear you are disagreeing more with an caricature of what you believe someone who doesn't share your point of view must think and disagreeing less not the things I am actually saying, or actually believe.

Sorry, I don't think I'm communicating well tonight.

I read your post as arguing that the Texas law was not going to cause any harm to children, and as roundabout support for something that seems to be an attempt to whitewash the past.  These are both things that I disagree with.

"Strategically teaching children that racism is a fundamental betrayal of American values" is a good idea.  The dishonest approach of the Texas law doesn't seem likely to me to result in that goal though.

[JGS1980]

People, you are getting stuck in the weeds!

The point is not what's "Legal" or not.

The point is to purposely obfuscate about what's legal, so that teachers avoid the topic entirely!

In addition, there will be lawsuits of individual teachers soon that will deeply demoralize the entire profession in those states even further, thus pushing the "best and brightest" in Texas, Florida, and all other states into different careers.

End result of that, of course, is -> a less well-educated populace [who politicians will manipulate more easily] and less support for Unions [who generally support the opposition]. That's the endgame.

JGS

[nessness]

Meritocracy isn't racist in the same way that Santa Claus isn't racist.  Some kids get more toys than others because their families have more money, and some families have more or less money because of previous racist policies.  Saying we have Meritocracy and that everyone who is rich just worked harder is like saying the rich kids deserve to get more toys from Santa because they behaved better.

Can you explain this a bit further? I'm having trouble making the connection.

I'll give another example of the point I think @Morning Glory is trying to make (Morning Glory, feel free to correct me if this isn't what you meant).

If you're hiring for a job, and your most qualified candidates are white so you hire one of the white candidates, you have not individually made a racist decision. But the reasons why your most qualified candidates are white might be rooted in structural racism - for example, maybe they got into an Ivy League school as a legacy, or maybe they grew up in a better-funded school district than the black candidates due to racist housing policies like redlining.

So even though the concept of meritocracy is not racist, it can lead to unequal outcomes due to past and present structural inequalities. If you teach only the virtues of meritocracy without teaching about structural racism, it can lead to racist conclusions like, "anyone who works hard can be successful, and most successful people are white, therefore black people must be lazy."

[startingsmall]

People, you are getting stuck in the weeds!

The point is not what's "Legal" or not.

The point is to purposely obfuscate about what's legal, so that teachers avoid the topic entirely!

In addition, there will be lawsuits of individual teachers soon that will deeply demoralize the entire profession in those states even further, thus pushing the "best and brightest" in Texas, Florida, and all other states into different careers.

End result of that, of course, is -> a less well-educated populace [who politicians will manipulate more easily] and less support for Unions [who generally support the opposition]. That's the endgame.

JGS

Exactly. All this. You could maybe argue that this legislation will have less impact on conservative teachers than progressive teachers, but most teachers are now going to be hesitant to continue teaching.... or, at the very least, they'll be hesitant to discuss anything other than the exact script they've been provided. I don't know many good teachers who will last in that environment for long.

We're big public education supporters in this family. As Florida residents, though, we're finding ourselves increasingly considering homeschooling, online school, and other options. Our county already has massive teacher shortages (like many other areas), and I can't imagine that this is going to help.

Here's a localish story that happened to make the news: https://www.heraldtribune.com/story/news/education/2022/04/22/coexist-flag-rainbow-colors-other-items-political-stances-must-be-removed-sarasota-florida-school/7400961001/

[zolotiyeruki]

Meritocracy isn't racist in the same way that Santa Claus isn't racist.  Some kids get more toys than others because their families have more money, and some families have more or less money because of previous racist policies.  Saying we have Meritocracy and that everyone who is rich just worked harder is like saying the rich kids deserve to get more toys from Santa because they behaved better.

Can you explain this a bit further? I'm having trouble making the connection.

I'll give another example of the point I think @Morning Glory is trying to make (Morning Glory, feel free to correct me if this isn't what you meant).

If you're hiring for a job, and your most qualified candidates are white so you hire one of the white candidates, you have not individually made a racist decision. But the reasons why your most qualified candidates are white might be rooted in structural racism - for example, maybe they got into an Ivy League school as a legacy, or maybe they grew up in a better-funded school district than the black candidates due to racist housing policies like redlining.

So even though the concept of meritocracy is not racist, it can lead to unequal outcomes due to past and present structural inequalities. If you teach only the virtues of meritocracy without teaching about structural racism, it can lead to racist conclusions like, "anyone who works hard can be successful, and most successful people are white, therefore black people must be lazy."

That's what I was hoping Morning Glory meant.  The point of view to which I object is the one that states that meritocracy or capitalism are inherently racist by their very nature.*  Absolutely, we see disparate outcomes within those systems, but such disparity occurs despite them (due to bias, historical effects, and a myriad of other factors), rather than because of them.  In fact, I would argue that meritocracy and capitalism diminish, rather than amplify, the effects of racism.

* a quick google search turns up articles like this, which states that "We are witnessing a system built not only within and on capitalism, but one whose practices and standards are inherently racist."

[jeninco]

Well, when you have situations like the Prince Edwards County (VA) CLOSING SCHOOLS (while providing grants to white children to attend "private" (white) schools) from 1959 - 1964, it's a little hard to argue that strict "meritocracy" is all that. (https://motonmuseum.org/learn/prince-edward-school-closings/).

Plus, it's pretty well established that various kinds of "intelligence tests" (and standardized tests in general) actually measure whether or not you belong to an upper-class or upper-middle-class family (think about your experience with the metaphor section...) (https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195188059.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195188059-e-34) I'm reminded of a friend with a bilingual kid who took her to get tested for inclusion in English-language classrooms and was telling me about the vocabulary section: they showed silhouettes and had the kid say the English word for what they were. When they got to a stagecoach, the parent took the kid and left -- what 7-year-old knows the word for that, in any language?

So I'm not sure what kind of "meritocracy" you're thinking of? The part where upper-middle-class kids of educated parents test well? The part where kids of parents who can afford the time and money to pay for test preparation classes test well?

And, although unregulated and unfettered Capitalism may not be inherently racist, since part of the point is to have a class of "have nots" that the system can grind through, it certainly has a side-effect of promulgating existing racism (and classism, too). Who would agree to work, say, in an un-unionized Starbucks knowing that they have legal rights and other options?

[GuitarStv]

Meritocracy isn't racist in the same way that Santa Claus isn't racist.  Some kids get more toys than others because their families have more money, and some families have more or less money because of previous racist policies.  Saying we have Meritocracy and that everyone who is rich just worked harder is like saying the rich kids deserve to get more toys from Santa because they behaved better.

Can you explain this a bit further? I'm having trouble making the connection.

I'll give another example of the point I think @Morning Glory is trying to make (Morning Glory, feel free to correct me if this isn't what you meant).

If you're hiring for a job, and your most qualified candidates are white so you hire one of the white candidates, you have not individually made a racist decision. But the reasons why your most qualified candidates are white might be rooted in structural racism - for example, maybe they got into an Ivy League school as a legacy, or maybe they grew up in a better-funded school district than the black candidates due to racist housing policies like redlining.

So even though the concept of meritocracy is not racist, it can lead to unequal outcomes due to past and present structural inequalities. If you teach only the virtues of meritocracy without teaching about structural racism, it can lead to racist conclusions like, "anyone who works hard can be successful, and most successful people are white, therefore black people must be lazy."

That's what I was hoping Morning Glory meant.  The point of view to which I object is the one that states that meritocracy or capitalism are inherently racist by their very nature.*  Absolutely, we see disparate outcomes within those systems, but such disparity occurs despite them (due to bias, historical effects, and a myriad of other factors), rather than because of them.  In fact, I would argue that meritocracy and capitalism diminish, rather than amplify, the effects of racism.

It seems like a stretch to me for someone to argue that capitalism is inherently racist.  Capitalism is an economic system where private actors own and control property for their own interests (typically in the pursuit of greater capital) and prices are freely set by market demand.  There's no discussion of race in there.

That said, capitalism is definitely compatible with racism.  Adherence to capitalist principles certainly didn't stop the enslavement of black people in the US (that required anti-capitalist market control by the government).  Capitalism didn't prevent common place racism from occurring against minorities after the slave market was no longer free in the country either.  That said . . . despite the many instances in history that worked to the contrary, it's also possible for capitalism to be incompatible with racism (at least in theory, if not often practice).  A company that hires black and white people will have more candidates to select from than one that hires only white people . . . so on a long enough timeline, they could end up with a competitive advantage that means their company does better and the whites only company goes under.  So, on the whole I'd rate capitalism as a race neutral economic policy.

Meritocracy is quite different and distinct from capitalism.  (Capitalism is certainly no guarantee of meritocracy . . . I can point to many times where the concentration of capital into the hands of the few does quite the opposite.)  I'd agree with you though that measuring success based upon merit (skill/success) tends to be one of the least racist ways to do anything - it can really only be perverted if the criteria used for measuring success are inherently biased. 

* a quick google search turns up articles like this, which states that "We are witnessing a system built not only within and on capitalism, but one whose practices and standards are inherently racist."

Not entirely sure this article proves what you think it does.  Even a careful reading of the quoted section you posted is illuminating.  It's arguing the system is built on capitalism, but also has inherently racist practices and standards.  This is a far cry from saying that capitalism is racist.

[zolotiyeruki]

That's what I was hoping Morning Glory meant.  The point of view to which I object is the one that states that meritocracy or capitalism are inherently racist by their very nature.*  Absolutely, we see disparate outcomes within those systems, but such disparity occurs despite them (due to bias, historical effects, and a myriad of other factors), rather than because of them.  In fact, I would argue that meritocracy and capitalism diminish, rather than amplify, the effects of racism.

It seems like a stretch to me for someone to argue that capitalism is inherently racist.  Capitalism is an economic system where private actors own and control property for their own interests (typically in the pursuit of greater capital) and prices are freely set by market demand.  There's no discussion of race in there.

That said, capitalism is definitely compatible with racism.  Adherence to capitalist principles certainly didn't stop the enslavement of black people in the US (that required anti-capitalist market control by the government).  Capitalism didn't prevent common place racism from occurring against minorities after the slave market was no longer free in the country either.  That said . . . despite the many instances in history that worked to the contrary, it's also possible for capitalism to be incompatible with racism...

Meritocracy is quite different and distinct from capitalism.  (Capitalism is certainly no guarantee of meritocracy . . . I can point to many times where the concentration of capital into the hands of the few does quite the opposite.)  I'd agree with you though that measuring success based upon merit (skill/success) tends to be one of the least racist ways to do anything - it can really only be perverted if the criteria used for measuring success are inherently biased. 

* a quick google search turns up articles like this, which states that "We are witnessing a system built not only within and on capitalism, but one whose practices and standards are inherently racist."

Not entirely sure this article proves what you think it does.  Even a careful reading of the quoted section you posted is illuminating.  It's arguing the system is built on capitalism, but also has inherently racist practices and standards.  This is a far cry from saying that capitalism is racist.

Eh, I don't agree that capitalism is "compatible" with racism.  Certainly they have coexisted, but I would argue that racism can only exist in a capitalist system to the extent culture allows it to.  E.g. a business own might only hire people of one skin color because it makes his customers more comfortable and likely to patronize his business, so that's how he can make more money.  But that's a flaw in the culture, not in capitalism or meritocracy.

WRT the article I quoted, you're right that a careful reader will indeed pick up on the distinction.  However, if the problem is that the system is built on practices and standards which are inherently racist, why even mention capitalism (and only mention it in this final line!), if you do not intend to tie capitalism to racism?  I see this all over the place--there is a prominent trend lately to mix up correlation and causation: "I see capitalism in our economy, and I see racially disparate outcomes in our economy, so therefore capitalism must cause racially disparate outcomes."

In the short term, can capitalism enable racist behavior?  Absolutely--to put it bluntly, a rich white person can choose to hire only white people.  But in the long term, that comes at a cost, as you say, and other, more meritocratic and colorblind businesses have the opportunity to beat out the racist.  And the very real issue of rich people buying their kids into the elite school of their choice is one that deserves scrutiny.  But that's a class issue, not a race or capitalism issue.  As for underqualified kids of rich parents..., well, the "idiot prince" problem far pre-dates capitalism.

[nessness]

One could argue that white societies have historically valued competition and exploitation of resources, whereas some non-white societies (e.g. many Native American ones) have historically valued cooperation and caring for the earth, and that capitalism rewards the former at the expense of the latter. Does that make capitalism inherently racist? Not necessarily, but I think it's worth mulling over.

[GuitarStv]

That's what I was hoping Morning Glory meant.  The point of view to which I object is the one that states that meritocracy or capitalism are inherently racist by their very nature.*  Absolutely, we see disparate outcomes within those systems, but such disparity occurs despite them (due to bias, historical effects, and a myriad of other factors), rather than because of them.  In fact, I would argue that meritocracy and capitalism diminish, rather than amplify, the effects of racism.

It seems like a stretch to me for someone to argue that capitalism is inherently racist.  Capitalism is an economic system where private actors own and control property for their own interests (typically in the pursuit of greater capital) and prices are freely set by market demand.  There's no discussion of race in there.

That said, capitalism is definitely compatible with racism.  Adherence to capitalist principles certainly didn't stop the enslavement of black people in the US (that required anti-capitalist market control by the government).  Capitalism didn't prevent common place racism from occurring against minorities after the slave market was no longer free in the country either.  That said . . . despite the many instances in history that worked to the contrary, it's also possible for capitalism to be incompatible with racism...

Meritocracy is quite different and distinct from capitalism.  (Capitalism is certainly no guarantee of meritocracy . . . I can point to many times where the concentration of capital into the hands of the few does quite the opposite.)  I'd agree with you though that measuring success based upon merit (skill/success) tends to be one of the least racist ways to do anything - it can really only be perverted if the criteria used for measuring success are inherently biased. 

* a quick google search turns up articles like this, which states that "We are witnessing a system built not only within and on capitalism, but one whose practices and standards are inherently racist."

Not entirely sure this article proves what you think it does.  Even a careful reading of the quoted section you posted is illuminating.  It's arguing the system is built on capitalism, but also has inherently racist practices and standards.  This is a far cry from saying that capitalism is racist.

Eh, I don't agree that capitalism is "compatible" with racism.  Certainly they have coexisted

Compatible - able to exist or occur together without conflict.

?

but I would argue that racism can only exist in a capitalist system to the extent culture allows it to.  E.g. a business own might only hire people of one skin color because it makes his customers more comfortable and likely to patronize his business, so that's how he can make more money.  But that's a flaw in the culture, not in capitalism or meritocracy.

I mean, I guess I agree with you here . . . racism is a cultural construct.  Racism of any form can't exist without a culture that supports it.  But this seems like a meaningless distinction, and certainly isn't evidence of an incompatibility with racism/capitalism.

Capitalism is race neutral.  It exists with and supports whatever a society wants - it cannot be used to fix an existing societal problem.  Societal problems tend to be very slow to change, and it's rare that they change spontaneously.  To fix them you usually need non-capitalist market interventions - like the banning of slaves, the passing of laws to end 'equal but separate' practices, etc.  Once established in a society, then capitalism can be used to reinforce them.

WRT the article I quoted, you're right that a careful reader will indeed pick up on the distinction.  However, if the problem is that the system is built on practices and standards which are inherently racist, why even mention capitalism (and only mention it in this final line!), if you do not intend to tie capitalism to racism?  I see this all over the place--there is a prominent trend lately to mix up correlation and causation: "I see capitalism in our economy, and I see racially disparate outcomes in our economy, so therefore capitalism must cause racially disparate outcomes."

I assumed they were tied together to counter the unfortunately common misapprehension that capitalism would somehow prevent or stop racism.

As mentioned - capitalism doesn't cause racism . . . but it often reinforces it when present.  Related, but distinct concepts.

In the short term, can capitalism enable racist behavior?  Absolutely--to put it bluntly, a rich white person can choose to hire only white people.  But in the long term, that comes at a cost, as you say, and other, more meritocratic and colorblind businesses have the opportunity to beat out the racist.  And the very real issue of rich people buying their kids into the elite school of their choice is one that deserves scrutiny.  But that's a class issue, not a race or capitalism issue.  As for underqualified kids of rich parents..., well, the "idiot prince" problem far pre-dates capitalism.

Be careful not to conflate capitalism with meritocracy here.  They are not the same.

Capitalism tends to start off meritocratic but in practice it always leads to wealth disparity in a short period of time.  You've got 100 people in your society.  You say "hey guys, we're going capitalist now!".  Everyone starts from a roughly level playing field.  At the end of the first generation you have maybe 5% of people owning about 20% of the total wealth due to their superior merit.  All good.

Five or ten generations of this though, and you'll definitely have class separation.  The upper class will have used their wealth to consolidate and increase it - becoming market leaders.    Some with merit will be born too poor to be able to capitalize on their natural gifts, they won't be able to get the loans and startup money necessary to compete with the established market leaders.  They'll now be in a position to use their wealth to crush opposition upstarts (dumping, price fixing, exclusive dealing, dividing territories, tying products, refusal to deal, or dirtier tactics).  Their kids will have the best schooling, but even if they suck at that they'll still get the best opportunities because of who they know (Trump and Bush both inherited a tremendous amount of money - and this money allowed them to succeed pretty well at life despite repeated personal failures).  Long lasting dynasties will be set up - an effective nobility.  And this nobility will have an outsized influence on the law and political system because of the power the wealth gives them - further able to de-meritocratize the capitalist society they live in.  Your 'idiot prince' problem certainly pre-dates capitalism . . . it tends to occur whenever there's a tremendous disparity of wealth (which capitalism creates).

These aren't new ideas.  In practice, capitalism always causes this class separation, leading to a loss of meritocracy . . . that's why all successful countries have learned to temper it with socialism.  Ideally the socialist elements (things like public schooling, to bring us tangentially back on topic) work to level the playing field to reduce the negative consequences of the excesses of capitalism while keeping the profit motive.

[Morning Glory]

Meritocracy isn't racist in the same way that Santa Claus isn't racist.  Some kids get more toys than others because their families have more money, and some families have more or less money because of previous racist policies.  Saying we have Meritocracy and that everyone who is rich just worked harder is like saying the rich kids deserve to get more toys from Santa because they behaved better.

Can you explain this a bit further? I'm having trouble making the connection.

I'll give another example of the point I think @Morning Glory is trying to make (Morning Glory, feel free to correct me if this isn't what you meant).

If you're hiring for a job, and your most qualified candidates are white so you hire one of the white candidates, you have not individually made a racist decision. But the reasons why your most qualified candidates are white might be rooted in structural racism - for example, maybe they got into an Ivy League school as a legacy, or maybe they grew up in a better-funded school district than the black candidates due to racist housing policies like redlining.

So even though the concept of meritocracy is not racist, it can lead to unequal outcomes due to past and present structural inequalities. If you teach only the virtues of meritocracy without teaching about structural racism, it can lead to racist conclusions like, "anyone who works hard can be successful, and most successful people are white, therefore black people must be lazy."

That's what I was hoping Morning Glory meant.  The point of view to which I object is the one that states that meritocracy or capitalism are inherently racist by their very nature.*  Absolutely, we see disparate outcomes within those systems, but such disparity occurs despite them (due to bias, historical effects, and a myriad of other factors), rather than because of them.  In fact, I would argue that meritocracy and capitalism diminish, rather than amplify, the effects of racism.

* a quick google search turns up articles like this, which states that "We are witnessing a system built not only within and on capitalism, but one whose practices and standards are inherently racist."

Hey guys I love that there is a side discussion about my example, and I apologize for the delayed response (wanted to type on the computer instead of my phone): @nessness illustrated my point well although I had in mind how we talk about people like Elon Musk who hold thousands of times more wealth than anyone else can ever hope to have, and how there is no way they can have that many times more "merit" or "hard work" than the average person. @zolotiyeruki  I think that while the idea of meritocracy is not racist itself, it is somewhat racist to lie and say we have a meritocracy when in reality we have huge amounts of inequality that are partially to do with previous racist policies. I don't think there is a way to create a meritocracy without resorting to some kind of totalitarianism which nobody wants (a gentle redistribution of wealth via high inheritance taxes and maybe a small tax on capital or financial transactions would be fine with me. Such revenue could be used to fund programs like better public schools, national healthcare, even a UBI: that would bring us closer to a meritocracy!).

It's interesting that the drafters of the Texas law specifically want to defend meritocracy as it is so fanciful an idea as to not be worth mentioning otherwise. I think the elites might want the average person to believe that we have such as system so that they don't question why some people have so much more wealth than others, and they have an issue with critical race theory because it pokes a huge hole in their "meritocracy is real" argument.  There is also a long history of wealthy landowners in this country pitting poor whites against Black and indigenous people to draw attention away from themselves and avoid popular uprising.

I don't believe that capitalism diminishes the effects of racism (remember that slavery was a result of unfettered capitalism!), as racism among the populace has historically been a convenient tool for the capitalist class to keep the lower classes from joining together against them.  I read somewhere that racism as we know it today (the idea of one race being "superior" to another on account of skin color) was started as propaganda from a bunch of wealthy white landowners in the 1700s who were worried that poor whites would join in slave rebellions and overthrow them. A more modern example is the belief among lower class whites that "Mexicans are coming over the border and taking our jobs".  (For an oversimplified example, if a worker can be as productive in 30 hours as they previously could in 40, the owner could either reduce hours to 30 and keep everyone's salary the same, sharing the gains, or they could lay off 25% of the workers and shift blame to the Mexicans. Which would your average billionaire capitalist choose? Probably the one that makes the share price go up). Much easier for the factory owner if the workers are angry at the Mexicans instead of the owners who are refusing to share their productivity gains. 

[chemistk]

The title of this thread really reinforces this tidbit:

https://www.khou.com/article/news/education/gov-abbott-says-texas-could-challenge-scotus-education-case/285-b64384ea-035a-4e86-b701-623bd8c3d49d

"Texas already long ago sued the federal government about having to incur the costs of the education program, in a case called Plyler versus Doe," Abbott said. "And the Supreme Court ruled against us on the issue. I think we will resurrect that case and challenge this issue again, because the expenses are extraordinary. And the times are different than when Plyler versus Doe was issued many decades ago."

[GuitarStv]

The title of this thread really reinforces this tidbit:

https://www.khou.com/article/news/education/gov-abbott-says-texas-could-challenge-scotus-education-case/285-b64384ea-035a-4e86-b701-623bd8c3d49d

"Texas already long ago sued the federal government about having to incur the costs of the education program, in a case called Plyler versus Doe," Abbott said. "And the Supreme Court ruled against us on the issue. I think we will resurrect that case and challenge this issue again, because the expenses are extraordinary. And the times are different than when Plyler versus Doe was issued many decades ago."

Keep 'em dumb and full of unwanted pregnancies.

[joe189man]

That's funny ^^^ Sad but funny

a buddy in public ed. gave me some more insight recently. He said "its F*cked". Its being attacked from both sides of the aisle for culture war nonsense, salary's are too low for the work/effort, the retirement is taking a hit - and was always a big draw to education in the first place, and its very hard to hire teachers, and its impossible to find qualified candidates let alone candidates in general. one school in his area has 20 openings with 5 total applicants, he hired a math teacher with teaching or education experience - just so another school wouldn't hire him to teach math there. he is going international trying to find language teachers as a 6 week old job posting has 0 applicants.

[ChpBstrd]

Isn't it funny how the solution to making public education awesome is obvious: Tell politicians to take a hands-off approach, and adequately fund schools.

Yet nobody wants to do these things because we don't actually care about having an educated populace - we only care about low taxes and putting our political messages in front of young people.

[DadJokes]

Isn't it funny how the solution to making public education awesome is obvious: Tell politicians to take a hands-off approach, and adequately fund schools.

Yet nobody wants to do these things because we don't actually care about having an educated populace - we only care about low taxes and putting our political messages in front of young people.

Or maybe people do care about having an educated populace and have different opinions about the best way to go about that.

[chemistk]

Isn't it funny how the solution to making public education awesome is obvious: Tell politicians to take a hands-off approach, and adequately fund schools.

Yet nobody wants to do these things because we don't actually care about having an educated populace - we only care about low taxes and putting our political messages in front of young people.

Or maybe people do care about having an educated populace and have different opinions about the best way to go about that.

But it's frankly unethical to say "ESL children are too expensive to accommodate so let's just not fund that aspect of school, or by extension any other aspect that we, the transient politicians, don't politically agree with"

It's been brought up here in this thread and around the forum in general - the one thing that consistently occurs with education is inconsistency. Curricula change constantly, far beyond what would be considered reasonable, mostly because of the whims of political leaders who generally won't even be around to witness the fruits of their decision. I would like to think that Abbott won't actually drag this out to the Supreme Court again but if it does, that's a massive blow to a foundational public institution.

The answer to something like the rising costs of education shouldn't be "let's just not fund it".

[JGS1980]

...but if there is no ESL program, than the children who can't speak English will be in the regular classes and won't be able to learn. In addition, the other children who can speak English will get a lot less teacher time because the teachers will have to spend all their energy explaining/repeating themselves to the non-English speakers.

End result -> NO ONE learns as much as they could AND teachers go crazy and leave in droves.