Teachers sign pledge not to lie to students.

[Valjean]

Your far left ideology and activism does not belong in the classroom, and if you break the law, you deserve whatever comes your way.

But what if this "far left ideology" actually reflects a reasonable opinion, given a fair assessment of US history?
Are you in favor of jingoistic propaganda over actual truth?

 

[Valjean]

An extension of my other thread regarding critical race theory.

Unfortunately right-wing conservatives have been circulating untruths about teachers teaching about U.S. history and proclaiming teachers are teaching CRT (which is lie) also indoctrinating kids, in particular, white kids and kids of color that whites kids should be ashamed for being white and kids of color are oppressed. All of which are untrue, which has lead to parents reaching out to school boards complaining that the teaching of U.S. history and most specifically critical race theory will lead to the conditioning and demonization of white kids (emphasis on the complaining of potentially hurting white children). The major problem with this are lies spread by republicans which in all respect, essentially goes back to the lies Trump has spread to his party regarding CRT. Because many conservatives don't use their brain, they eat this up with a herd mentality and are parroting and circulating the same lies regarding CRT. Before Trump even mentioned CRT, nobody and I mean nobody even know what it was nobody here on this forum nor anyone else. Soon as Trump mentioned it the lies began thus lead to the OP's thread. Congratulations people of the U.S. we have proven we are among some of the dumbest on the planet and the most disingenuous.

Everybody's indoctrinated -- by family, by community, by schools. The only question is whether our indoctrination reflects actual truth, or politically convenient propaganda.

 

[fantome profane]

I grew up with Schoolhouse Rock as a kid in the 1970s, and this kind of sums up many Americans' perceptions of how this country got started. I've since come to understand that the British remember these events quite differently.

And this one.

Cool upbeat catching song and funny cartoon. It is fun to sing about genocide.

 

[Valjean]

Frankly,....

I'll believe it when I see it.

That means everything good or bad must be disclosed unbiased and not smacking of activism.

What constitutes activism? Does teaching actual history constitute activism?

 

[Audie]

Pledge to Teach the Truth: Despite New State Bills Against It | Zinn Education Project

We, the undersigned educators, refuse to lie to young people about U.S. history and current events — regardless of the law.

Comments? Thoughts?

Should teachers lie to students? Should teachers who refuse to lie to students be fired? Do you support legislation that requires teachers to lie to students?

The current Ms Universe has crooked teeth,
and a lopsided face. So did all past winners.
Undeniably true.

This " tell the truth" deal should be a lot of fun.

Any teacher with integrity should refuse
to sign.

 

[Valjean]

There's also the concern about the material by which the teachers themselves were taught which might not be accurate in its own right.

"...Might not?"

A teacher who was taught lies will teach lies as well although I wouldn't fault a teacher for that.
I think its a duty to make sure information is correct and as accurate as humanly possible.

Hear, hear!

 

[Valjean]

Question: Should teachers lie to students?
First are you limiting the question to teachers or are you including professors.
However, since you specified teachers I will follow that line.

Is see no problem with presenting the facts. Where I see the problem is when the teacher interjects their or someone elses opinion into the subject matter.
I do not see K-12 education expanding into a discussion period of a subject matter unless the class is a "college prep" class for those that wish to take said class.
For instance would there be any value for a high school class studing world history to get into a discussion, for instance, about the use of atomic weapons during WWII?

What's wrong with political discussion? Politics affects our lives, and students are being prepped to be participants in the political process.
A history class that doesn't cause serious thought among students is a pretty insipid class.

Question: Should teachers who refuse to lie to students be fired?
If they lied about the "facts" in the subject matter then yes.

But they're doing that now. They're misrepresenting history and cherry-picking facts. We'd have to fire almost everyone.
But, as Twilight Hue pointed out, the teachers themselves have been indoctrinated. They don't really know American history.

Question: Do you support legislation that requires teachers to lie to students?
Answer: Has their ever been legislation put forward that requires teachers to lie to students about the facts? If so produce the legislation.
If the legislation specifies that teachers must lie about the facts then no I do not support that legislation.

I say tell the truth and shame the Devil. Let the chips fall where they may.

Teachers, as far as I know, are required to teach an approved curriculum, from approved texts. Any deviation could cost them their jobs.

 

[esmith]

Would you have an issue with teachers telling their students that slavery is actually bad, or that Nazism was a horrible ideology? Those are value judgements, after all, not factual statements (even though they can be justified with facts)

Opinions are opinions. It is my opinion that if the facts are presented in a straight forward manner the student should be intelligent enough to come to their own conclusion.
Your two examples are basically "gotchas".
For example would you have a problem with telling students that the use of the atomic bombs were right or wrong?

 

[Twilight Hue]

"...Might not?"

I consider some of it as half truths in cases where the full account is not told.

 

[Valjean]

What specific lies are teachers being legally obliged to tell students?

Motivations. Foreign policy actions. Laws. Actions, motivations and statements of politicians.

 

[esmith]

What's wrong with political discussion? Politics affects our lives, and students are being prepped to be participants in the political process.

How would you present politics to a high school students without an opinion being presented?

A history class that doesn't cause serious thought among students is a pretty insipid class.

Yes I agree, but given the facts of whatever topic is being presented should not student be able to reach their own conclusion about the outcome of the topic without the teaches opinion being injected into the topic? Remember there is only 1 hour a day that history is being taught. How can the entire history of the world be covered by allowing discussion of the topic. However, there is no reason the students on their own shouldn't be given the opprotunity outside of normal school hours to do so.

But they're doing that now. They're misrepresenting history and cherry-picking facts. We'd have to fire almost everyone.

Example

But, as Twilight Hue pointed out, the teachers themselves have been indoctrinated. They don't really know American history.
I say tell the truth and shame the Devil. Let the chips fall where they may.

If they do not know the subject matter then why are they being allowed to teach?

Teachers, as far as I know, are required to teach an approved curriculum, from approved texts. Any deviation could cost them their jobs.

As well as it should be.

 

[Augustus]

Motivations. Foreign policy actions. Laws. Actions, motivations and statements of politicians.

What would be some specific examples of things teachers have to lie about though?

I'm not familiar with what is taught in US schools.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Everybody's indoctrinated -- by family, by community, by schools. The only question is whether our indoctrination reflects actual truth, or politically convenient propaganda.

No disagreement there.

 

[Stevicus]

And this one.

Cool upbeat catching song and funny cartoon. It is fun to sing about genocide.

I like the bit at the end where it hints that, if we need any more elbow room, we'll find it on the moon.

I'm not sure if Jefferson approached Napoleon about purchasing Louisiana, or if it was the other way around. I think Napoleon had his hands full at the time and probably didn't think he could hold on to Louisiana.

These silly cartoons gloss over so much history, but I don't think they're as much to teach history as much as they're instruments of propaganda.

John Wayne movies also had a similar flavor, but John Wayne has been viewed as a national icon, a symbol of American grit and determination.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

I'm not familiar with what is taught in US schools.

I find that interesting considering you had such an opinion with CRT with little to no knowledge of what is being taught in our scholastic institutions but you had the audacity in my thread to tell me a professor who taught CRT for five years was in essence, mistaken. Boy you're amazing me more and more.

 

[Valjean]

How would you present politics to a high school students without an opinion being presented?

How would you present anything, except mathematics, without some degree of interpretation? History? evolution? civics?
Present the facts and let the discussion begin.

Yes I agree, but given the facts of whatever topic is being presented should not student be able to reach their own conclusion about the outcome of the topic without the teaches opinion being injected into the topic? Remember there is only 1 hour a day that history is being taught. How can the entire history of the world be covered by allowing discussion of the topic. However, there is no reason the students on their own shouldn't be given the opprotunity outside of normal school hours to do so.

These students should be able to reach their own conclusions. I think you're overestimating the teacher's role.
The teacher presents facts, then mediates the ensuing discussion.

Example

Indian wars. Slavery. Indian Removal Act -- and motivations. Mexican-American war. Spanish American war. Annexation of Hawaii, Chinese exclusion act. Palmer raids. Bananna wars. American nation-builing in Latin American and the Middle East. Motivations for same. Motivations for WWI, Japan's offer of surrender -- before atomic bombings. Motivations for the Vietnam war. Nixon's interference with Paris Peace Talks, Middle East wars, and motivations. Taliban offer to surrender Bin-Laden, and American refusal,

I could go on for pages. These are simply not covered, or are completely misrepresented in History classes.

If they do not know the subject matter then why are they being allowed to teach?

They serve America's political purposes? They're all we have? Without them we'd have no history classes at all?

As well as it should be.

Even when the facts and texts are misleading or outright wrong? Even when teachers are being used as political pawns?
How are citizens to make good political choices from a skewed representation of history?

 

[Augustus]

I find that interesting considering you had such an opinion with CRT with little to no knowledge of what is being taught in our scholastic institutions but you had the audacity in my thread to tell me a professor who taught CRT for five years was in essence, mistaken. Boy you're amazing me more and more.

I find it interesting that despite being corrected twice on this point, you still insist on such an obvious misrepresentation.

What I said was that the prof was misrepresenting the person he was interviewing, and that this reflects a common misunderstanding in the discussion of this issue.

As it is relevant in this thread, I'll repeat it:

People end up talking past each other as one group focus on defining CRT as a graduate topic in its original legal context and then
(correctly) claim that it's not taught in k-12. Whereas others (also correctly) note its influence has spread into other areas. One of these is teaching, and critical race pedagogy does indeed influence what happens in k-12 classrooms.

For example:

Some educators distill the aforementioned [CRT] principles into a pedagogical approach referred to as critical race pedagogy. Critical race pedagogy encapsulates the teaching practices and content that Educators of Color employ for Students of Color (Jennings & Lynn, 2005; Leonardo, 2009; Lynn, 1999, 2004, 2005; Lynn & Jennings, 2009; Solórzano & Yosso, 2000b) in order to center race and racism, validate the experiential knowledge of Students of Color, and deconstruct dominant ideologies in their class- rooms. In other words, critical race pedagogy is characterized by the ‘emancipatory teaching practices of People of Color’who utilize multiple‘liberatory strategies as a vehicle for counteracting the devaluation of racially oppressed students’ (Lynn, 2004, p. 155). These approaches include – but are not limited to – critical pedagogy (Freire, 2003), anti-racist pedagogy (Sleeter & Delgado Bernal, 2004), decolonial pedagogy (Asher, 2009), feminist pedagogy (Trinh, 1989), border pedagogy (Giroux, 1988), Afro-centric pedagogy (Lynn, 2004), culturally responsive pedagogy (Ladson-Billings, 1995), and engaged pedagogy (hooks, 1994). Critical race scholars describe these varied teaching stances and curricular choices as not only a form of ‘dissent’ towards the inequities that subordinate marginalized students (e.g. poli- cies, curriculum, funding structures, and testing standards), but also a source of ‘affirmation’ that helps develop positive cultural/racial/ethnic identities (Jennings & Lynn, 2005, p. 192). Such approaches and class material challenge color-blindness, whiteness, meritocracy, assimilation, and conformity in K-12 schools; they also critique deficit thinking about the educability of Students of Color. Moreover, critical race pedagogy aims to revolutionize classrooms into sites where marginalized students flourish (Leonardo, 2004, 2009; Lynn, 1999; Robinson, 1997; Stovall, 2006a). Thus, critical race pedagogy utilizes various instructional approaches and race-based content that, at minimum, both challenge mainstream discourses and legitimize the experiential knowledge of Students of Color...

Most of the literature documenting challenges to pedagogies – like critical race pedagogy – that unmask and dismantle systems of oppression concern the reactions and sentiments of white students. In particular, much emphasis is placed on how both white and non-white educators face multiple challenges in their efforts to name and interrogate race and whiteness among the nation’s predominantly white college students (Johnson, Rich, & Cargile, 2008). Simpson, Causey, and Williams (2007) argue that classroom spaces mirror contemporary society’s dysfunctional color-blind or post-racial discourses (Johnson & Bhatt, 2003; Roberts, Bell, & Murphy, 2008), resulting in ‘heightened tension, resistance to or denial of raced readings of reality, rigorous avoidance of race issues’ (Simpson et al., 2007, p. 34). Notably, the current millennial generation of college students present a particular challenge to these types of pedagogical approaches, because although they may have more tolerant racial attitudes, they are invested in a post-racial world which they believe is better integrated and more egalitarian than years past, resulting in a skewed understanding of racism (Mueller, 2013).

Sonya M. Alemán & Sarita Gaytán (2016): ‘It doesn’t speak to me’: understanding student of color resistance to critical race pedagogy, International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, DOI: 10.1080/09518398.2016.1242801


CRT and K-12 Education

Here, our discussion highlights works that emphasize what we believe are the important contributions of CRT in K-12 education, keeping in mind the important precautions offered by Ladson-Billings (2005). This discussion is not intended to exclude other work; rather, the work we highlight here can be characterized as a deeply engaged application of CRT. Accordingly, the work we review here demonstrates how CRT is used to locate how race and racism manifest themselves throughout the K-12 pipeline, and more importantly, this work offers us tools that allow us to engage these issues in the classroom, in the context of policy, and in community work. From issues of pedagogy, curriculum, to leadership, policy, and school politics, CRT in education highlights the persistence of racism across education...

The depth of this work demonstrates the necessity of CRT in education, illuminating that we cannot truly assess, respond, and promote educational research and praxis devoid of the deep and entrenched nature of White supremacy in U.S. Society. Certainly, the shared themes explored by these texts are the analyses and responses to the continuing inequities (Ladson-Billings, 2009) found in K-12. Furthermore, current educational climate dictates that no matter a democratic or republican agenda, the neoliberalization of education, the increasing onslaught of corporate interests in controlling public education (Au, 2011; Pierce, 2012), we continue to be on a fast track in which education continues to privilege the rich and underserve the poor (Au, 2014; Cook & Dixon, 2013; Giroux, 2004; Pierce, 2012; Stovall, 2013).

Critical Race Theory in Education: A Review of Past Literature and a Look to the Future María C. Ledesma and Dolores Calderón
https://www.researchgate.net/profil...-Past-Literature-and-a-Look-to-the-Future.pdf


I never even made an argument about whether it was good or bad, just that it is correct to say that CRT has influenced k-12 pedagogy to some extent.

Is your position still that these pro-critical race pedagogy peer-reviewed journals articles written by progressives are ''nonsense' written by right wing pseudo-scholars and that CRT has had absolutely no impact on K-12 education?

 

[esmith]

How would you present anything, except mathematics, without some degree of interpretation? History? evolution? civics?
Present the facts and let the discussion begin.

The only problem with that is that world history and US history is at most a 1 year course of instruction and a schoold year has on average 180 hours; so at most you would have 180 hours
How would one decide what topic should be open for discussion.

These students should be able to reach their own conclusions. I think you're overestimating the teacher's role.
The teacher presents facts, then mediates the ensuing discussion.

It may have changed since I attended high school but there was no discussions in the class.

Indian wars. Slavery. Indian Removal Act -- and motivations. Mexican-American war. Spanish American war. Annexation of Hawaii, Chinese exclusion act. Palmer raids. Bananna wars. American nation-builing in Latin American and the Middle East. Motivations for same. Motivations for WWI, Japan's offer of surrender -- before atomic bombings. Motivations for the Vietnam war. Nixon's interference with Paris Peace Talks, Middle East wars, and motivations. Taliban offer to surrender Bin-Laden, and American refusal,

99.9% of those topics are not even addressed in high school.

I could go on for pages. These are simply not covered, or are completely misrepresented in History classes.
They serve America's political purposes? They're all we have? Without them we'd have no history classes at all?
Even when the facts and texts are misleading or outright wrong? Even when teachers are being used as political pawns?
How are citizens to make good political choices from a skewed representation of history?

That is the problem. Most voters have no idea what is going on and have no desire to learn. They vote depending on what media tells them and what directly affects them not what affects the country. The majority of US voters have the mentallity of children.

 

[JustGeorge]

There's also the concern about the material by which the teachers themselves were taught which might not be accurate in its own right.

A teacher who was taught lies will teach lies as well although I wouldn't fault a teacher for that.

I think its a duty to make sure information is correct and as accurate as humanly possible.

I agree. I think it would be best if all materials to be taught were reviewed by a neutral third party, but those are hard to find anymore.

 

[Kooky]

Opinions are opinions.

Your response which consisted of calling out my question as a "gotcha question" tells a different tale. You very clearly distinguish certain opinions from others - as would anybody.

It is my opinion that if the facts are presented in a straight forward manner the student should be intelligent enough to come to their own conclusion.

What facts do you want to see presented, though? You can't cover everything in class, so you have to prioritize.

So what facts are to be prioritized?

The millions of deaths and enslaved caused by the Transatlantic slave trade, or the cutesy legends surrounding George Washington, who could not tell a lie and once chopped down a cherry tree?
The genocidal massacres of the Native population, or the lives of "great" Presidents?
The misery of the working class during the Gilded Age, or the charity works of the robber barons who profited from them?

These are rhetoric questions, of course - but I hope you can see that it's not so simple as to have facts "presented in a straight forward manner".

We cannot tell everything, but what we tell and what we leave obscured can be just as manipulative as any straightforward attempt at forcing an opinion down somebody's throat - and potentially more insidious, since the person who is being taught will not realize which facts have been omitted for a long time.

Your two examples are basically "gotchas".

Only if we adhere to ridiculous blanket statements like "don't teach opinions", which is evidently self-contradictory and breaks down at the slightest contact with reality.