Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (202713)	6/20/2021 3:40:01 PM
From: Lane3	2 Recommendations Recommended By combjelly Terry Maloney Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 360688

So, you can't give me a statement of just what it is that has you all exercised but you want me to write an essay if not a thesis about the intersection of CRT and education? That doesn't seem an equitable distribution of work to me. I will say, though, that there is a lot about race and education that is not CRT but has to do with how you teach and how kids learn. There is a racial awareness component to that not unlike a teacher being about to differentiate, for example, kids who learn by doing vs by reading about, or introverts vs extroverts, or myriad other learning differences. There are lots of programs and practices having to do with that, totally outside my wheelhouse and/or under my radar. I respect, that teachers now are trying to customize teaching to how kids learn and create a successful learning environment. My fifth trade teacher taught history by dictating an outline of various battles for us to copy down. In fairness, it did teach me to outline, which is an important analytical tool that has served me well. (Some folks hereabouts still don't understand compartmentation.) But it didn't teach me much history. It seems to me that CRT, OTOH, is about not how one teaches but about the curriculum, mostly the history curriculum. CRT is about the intersection of race with law, regulation, and practices over history. It is an analytical approach that connects government acts with race such that we can identify which acts had a racial motive, which had racial consequences, unintended or otherwise, and how that matters. When those topics come up in history class, the racial element should not be airbrushed out. I recall clearly being taught about George Washington and the cherry tree, at best fluff. Redlining had both motive and deleterious consequences on a racial cohort. You have oft mentioned some aspects of welfare that had, if not intent, then consequences. Honest history should be taught. It would seem that some prefer to ramp up the airbrush, instead.