National Education Association votes in favour of teaching ''White Fragility'', turns down ''increased student learning''

[conon394]

Intelligent design isn't a theory that says ''group A is oppressive and we should dismantle social institutions because it was done by them''.

No (but I do not agree that that is an accurate summation of CRT) but it is rubbish hiding religion that some evangelicals and conservatives would force into school curriculum to undermine real science - thus an attack on education. Yet this seems not to bother you? But a social science methodology that like I dunno Marxism or Substantivism, or Webberian approaches or more broadly just Critical Theory in all it multi faceted variants... which none of them can be said to dominate a field or be in particular used by your generic liberal as a mantra - you dislike? I if you what to hate a school of thought try Supply side economics.

[Basil II the B.S]

CRT is nothing but a social science that uses critical theory to examine society and culture and how it relates to power, race, and law. Its nowhere comparable to the curriculum in Islamic schools. And i called it. You distorting the definition of CRT to suit your own bias. Nothing ever changes with you Basil.

You forgot the little detail of Marxist framework of oppressor/oppressed, which is actually what makes it bad, because then you end up with students saying ''you can't be racist against white people because white people hold institutional power''.

Something that ironically meets the dictionary definition of racism and at the same time applies a typical social constructionist reframing of words to meet ideological needs.

[mongrel]

he Liberal-Islamic alliance to destroy the West from within.

Already proven this to be bollocks in the case of the UK. If I peered at US migration policy will I find the same thing?

[Coughdrop addict]

It really is amazing just how desperate some white men are to be victims. They spend all day sniffing around the internet, searching for the slightest hint of offense. And when they find something that would be a non-issue to anyone else, it quickly gets passed around as the latest evidence that the whole world is out to get him. Imagine being so damaged that you cannot function unless you can convince yourself you're a victim.

[Aexodus]

I don’t think we should be talking as much about what intersecionality is and why it is intellectual cancer, and asking why, in a Union meant to represent teachers of whom 60% aren’t Democrats, do the delegates skew so hugely left on most of the issues? Now sure you don’t need to be left wing to vote a particular way, but it is indicative of the political leanings of the median NEA delegate. They voted favourably on black lives matter, slave ing reparations, and teaching white fragility in ‘NEA professional development’ (which means teaching it to teachers I presume) which sounds like they want to indoctrinate teachers to a certain ideology. Say what you want about white fragility theory but why is the NEA wanting teachers to learn something which has nothing to do with education?

Not to mention, this is thrown into sharp relief as the article said they voted against a resolution for the NEA to “re-dedicate itself to the pursuit of increased student learning in every public school in America”, and make “education the priority for students”. Seriously? What the hell IS their priority? It looks like the NEA isn’t about improving the education of American children in public schools and instead is about a) Progressive ideology b) as per the article:

One would think that this motion’s defeat would be a public relations nightmare, because it could fuel the perception — a perception long denied by unions — that teachers unions look out primarily for teachers rather than students.

You know, I’ve not been bothered posting a lot in the mudpit because I come here and I look at who (multiple “who”) started most of the active threads, which reduces my interest in them quite quickly.

[conon394]

Not to mention, this is thrown into sharp relief as the article said they voted against a resolution for the NEA to “re-dedicate itself to the pursuit of increased student learning in every public school in America”, and make “education the priority for students”. Seriously? What the hell IS their priority? It looks like the NEA isn’t about improving the education of American children in public schools and instead is about a) Progressive ideology b) as per the article:

I'm pretty sure that at my fathers UAW meeting anything that rededicate yourself to quality craftsmanship would get voted down as in what the he11 you think I not dedicated now? When is the board going re dedicate itself to not outsourcing jobs?

[Heathen Hammer]

It really is amazing just how desperate some liberal leftists are to be victims. They spend all day sniffing around the internet, searching for the slightest hint of offense. And when they find something that would be a non-issue to anyone else, it quickly gets passed around as the latest evidence that the whole world is out to get him. Imagine being so damaged that you cannot function unless you can convince yourself you're a victim.

There, fixed it to make your post factual.

[Common Soldier]

This thread conceals the bleeding obvious. This is clearly a union conference, not an education policy forum. Anyone with a scintilla of workplace knowledge would know that union delegates can and indeed table motions of a political nature as well as some relating to their trade.

So in plain English please,what the blazes has this got to do with what is taught in the classroom?

It has everything o do with what is taught in the classroom. It represents the views of those who will be responsible for implementing whatever education policy there is, and if they don't agree with the policy, there are a thousand ways they can sabotage that policy, and subtlety implement their own ideas, especially if they are given a lot of leeway in setting up their curriculum as is often the case.

If the NEA were honest, and admit they are only interested in the economic interest of their members, that would be one thing, but they claim to be interest in education itself, and the NEA has often been the leading critic in standardize agendas, at least the ones they don't like, because it restricts their ability to submit their own agenda.

What kind of history do you think these NEA teachers will be teaching the students, you don't think they won't be teaching their students that it is all the US fault for the conditions in Latin America, and all these illigel immigrants are the US own fault? That they aren't going to try to teach their students what they supported in their resolutions? Grow up and stop living in fantasy land.

Truth is these are exactly why growing numbers of Americans have opted out of the public school system, and gone to home schooling, despite the great deal of commitment it requires. They don't want their kids be indoctrinated with ideology they oppose. SAT scores used to be accepted for joining MENSA, but no longer, since under NEA influence the SAT scores were renormalized so they would stop showing declining scores. Despite the claim otherwise, today's students do know a lot less than those of the past. Just take a look at episodes of Jay Leno's Jaywalking to see how awfully educated Americans really are, including some teachers.

And despite the attempt to blame people banning the teaching of evolution as the cause, that does not explain why people.couldnt even explain such basic facts as when the Civil War was fought. That is ignorant was due to educators insisting it was more important to know about Harriet Tubbman than who Abraham Lincoln was or when the Civil War was fought.

Either you are not a details person, or yet again you consider the forum to be made up of fools.

The Berlin Wall fell in 1989.

Anyway what's wrong with having female scientists? Are you some Saudi prince?

Nothing is wrong.with female.scientist, but you have to accept the possibility that treating male and female exactly the same, might not lead to.an equality of outcome. Biological differences could make males.just more interested in some fields.like engineering than women. An in balance in the ration of men and women in some fields does not necessarily prove bias in treatement, but liberals simply are not going to accept that possibility. Yet if we are willing to accept that some things are biologically determined, we must be willing to allow at least the possibility that it does in others.

When it comes to some fields, innately men and women might simply have different interest, even if their abilities are the same.

Ok

[conon394]

Nothing is wrong.with female.scientist, but you have to accept the possibility that treating male and female exactly the same, might not lead to.an equality of outcome. Biological differences could make males.just more interested in some fields.like engineering than women. An in balance in the ration of men and women in some fields does not necessarily prove bias in treatement, but liberals simply are not going to accept that possibility. Yet if we are willing to accept that some things are biologically determined, we must be willing to allow at least the possibility that it does in others.

When it comes to some fields, innately men and women might simply have different interest, even if their abilities are the same.

Ok

That makes little to no sense what would be the basis of a innate gender differences in interest Science or Engineering - you do realize those being abstract professions that in their modern form have existed for only a few hundred years at best (and that is generous). Do tell what evolutionary pressures from the bast hundreds of thousands of years affected interest in things that have existed for a micro blip in human history based on gender.

you don't think they won't be teaching their students that it is all the US fault for the conditions in Latin America

It might be nice counter balance to just ignoring the negative impact the US has had on Latin America. You kind of like teaching about the real Christopher Columbus the brutal fool (but lucky ) jerk he was.

And despite the attempt to blame people banning the teaching of evolution as the cause, that does not explain why people.couldnt even explain such basic facts as when the Civil War was fought. That is ignorant was due to educators insisting it was more important to know about Harriet Tubbman than who Abraham Lincoln was or when the Civil War was fought.

When was X always fun. But you can always verify when I be more interested to what the average American coughs up about why. Or if they get even close to telling what Avogadro constant is.

[Aexodus]

I'm pretty sure that at my fathers UAW meeting anything that rededicate yourself to quality craftsmanship would get voted down as in what the he11 you think I not dedicated now? When is the board going re dedicate itself to not outsourcing jobs?

You have a point that the delegates might be slightly miffed, but considering the NEA convention is dedicated to a lot political issues, I think they are not prioritising student learning. Perhaps it was a motion put forward by it’s majority conservative membership. At any rate the question is: were they right to vote it down?

https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/neaexit

The latest political spending from NEA is in line with the tenor of the convention. For example, 98.8 percent of its political contributions went to Democrats in the 2018 election cycle.

A 2005 NEA survey, consistent with previous results, found that its members are actually “slightly more conservative (50%) than liberal (43%) in political philosophy.” In 2017, Education Week conducted a poll and found that just 29 percent of teachers considered themselves “liberal” or “very liberal.”

This is the full motion

https://ra.nea.org/business-item/2019-nbi-002/

The National Education Association will re-dedicate itself to the pursuit of increased student learning in every public school in America by putting a renewed emphasis on quality education. NEA will make student learning the priority of the Association. NEA will not waiver in its commitment to student learning by adopting the following lens through which we will assess every NEA program and initiative: How does the proposed action promote the development of students as lifelong reflective learners?

They also rejected:

https://ra.nea.org/business-item/2019-nbi-003/

To work toward the goal of making every educator a great educator, NEA will promote the inclusion of the Five Core Propositions of National Board Certification in all teacher preparation programs and inservice trainings:1. Commitment to students and their learning;
2. Knowledge of their subjects and how to teach them to their students;
3. Responsibility for managing and monitoring student learning;
4. Thinking systematically about their practice and learning from experience;
5. Engagement in professional learning communities.

https://ra.nea.org/business-item/2019-nbi-022/

The NEA will develop and seek support for a U.S. constitutional amendment requiring that the United States provide all students with what in New York state, for example, is “A Sound Basic Education.” Said language can be modeled after what some state constitutions provide and can be used in the courts to ensure that our students are guaranteed the funding they need to succeed. Once developed, candidates seeking the NEA’s support can be asked if they will support said amendment.

But they voted for this:

https://ra.nea.org/business-item/2019-nbi-011/

Using existing resources, NEA will incorporate the concept of "White Fragility" into NEA trainings/staff development, literature, and other existing communications on social, gender, LGBTQIA, and racial justice whenever and wherever context and expense allows.

Rationale/Background
White supremacy culture has fashioned a social norm insulating white people from the impact of racial stress, which consequentially constructs a social atmosphere that depresses the ability of society, in general, to tolerate racial stress, also known as “White Fragility”.

What the hell is white supremacy culture. At least they say it costs too much to be implemented.

At the convention they endorsed motions for:

The de-criminalization of illegal immigration and the shutdown of ‘concentration camps the latter of which they will find difficult as those don’t exist anywhere in the 1st world.

Ending all deportations by ICE.

Making materials available for ‘non-english speaking populations’.

Literal diversity quotas.

Kids to be taught preK-12 ethnic studies.

Adding preferred pronouns to nametags (?)

Diversity ambassadors?

Slave reparations.

Abortion as a fundamental right.

And they rejected teaching about the Armenian genocide. Huh.

When is the board going re dedicate itself to not outsourcing jobs?

They did that.

In her address to the convention, the NEA president talked more about politics than about education. In fact she was very one-sided. How on Earth is she the President of a majority conservative labour union?

They do, however, have a history of being aloof of its membership 1 2. And three.

That makes little to no sense what would be the basis of a innate gender differences in interest Science or Engineering

@Conon The basis would be the gender equality paradox, and the fact that men on average are more interested in things, and women on average are more interested in people.

[Common Soldier]

I'm pretty sure that at my fathers UAW meeting anything that rededicate yourself to quality craftsmanship would get voted down as in what the he11 you think I not dedicated now? When is the board going re dedicate itself to not outsourcing jobs?

The UAW never clained their primary goal.was the quality of the cars they produce, the NEA has claimed that education is a primary importance to them


Moreover, people are required to trust their children to UAW members all.day long, and have them indoctrinated on the ideas of the UAW members. But that is exactly the case with the NEA. If the NEA were honest, and had no more interest in the outcome of education than an UAW member in the quality of cars he makes, then that would be different


And UAW members work for private companies, and if they do a poor enough job, people will stop buying the.cars they make and they will lose their job, which is precisely what has happened to.many UAW workers. People have switched to buying cars made by non UAW workers since in many cases the quality of those cars were better. In the case of the NEA, the teachers are largely paid by tax payers, and it doesn't matter how poorly they teach, they will still get paid.

[Aexodus]

The UAW never clained their primary goal.was the quality of the cars they produce, the NEA has claimed that education is a primary importance to them


Moreover, people are required to trust their children to UAW members all.day long, and have them indoctrinated on the ideas of the UAW members. But that is exactly the case with the NEA. If the NEA were honest, and had no more interest in the outcome of education than an UAW member in the quality of cars he makes, then that would be different


And UAW members work for private companies, and if they do a poor enough job, people will stop buying the.cars they make and they will lose their job, which is precisely what has happened to.many UAW workers. People have switched to buying cars made by non UAW workers since in many cases the quality of those cars were better. In the case of the NEA, the teachers are largely paid by tax payers, and it doesn't matter how poorly they teach, they will still get paid.

And hence, Unions are opposed to school choice as it requires greater educational performance by teachers. With them in charge, I wouldn’t have been able to take my pick of the many secondary schools in my area and pick a shortlist of three.

[Common Soldier]

That makes little to no sense what would be the basis of a innate gender differences in interest Science or Engineering - you do realize those being abstract professions that in their modern form have existed for only a few hundred years at best (and that is generous). Do tell what evolutionary pressures from the bast hundreds of thousands of years affected interest in things that have existed for a micro blip in human history based on gender.

Sorry, simply because it doesn't fit your ideology, doesn't mean it doesn't make sense. Since innate biological tendencies might lead one sex to one field over another. For example studies have shown girls were more interested in personally relationships.than boys, but boys were more interested in things and objects. Males might have more interest in taking apart things to see how they work.women were. The instict to try to take something apart is more likely lead to a field in Engineering for example. The influencs.might be subtle, and it won't apply to all men and all women, but be a statistics thing, like men are taller than women. Not a men are taller than all women, there are plenty of women taller than a but the tallest men. But in every single human population, when you average the height of all men and a women in the same population, the men will be significantly taller than the women on an average. Differences in outcome is not necessarily prove of inequality of treatment.which is a.fundemental belief of the left. It can be evidence inequality, but it might not absolutely be there he case. Equality of treatment does not necessarily lead to the same outcome. That some groups are more successful.and have a higher than average representation in some fields, such as doctors (say Jews) does not mean that things have been biased in their favor. Culture values can play a role, so that doesn't groups do better (or worse) than others.

It might be nice counter balance to just ignoring the negative impact the US has had on Latin America. You kind of like teaching about the real Christopher Columbus the brutal fool (but lucky ) jerk he was.

Thanks
It would be better not to push your ideology on halpless students. The issues in Latin America existed long be the US got involved.or even existed. For example, British American colonies had relatively high literacy ratez and income compare to Europe, and much better than Latin America, so your claim.of disparity is all the US is bunk. Also, the history of dictators and strong men in Latin America existed long before the US got involved. The devasting War of the Triple Alliance had nothing to do with the US, the US wasn't involved nor was it supporting either side. Latin America did that war all on it's own. And the leadership of Venuezala trashed its economy without help.from the US. US may have meddled in Latin America affairs, but it was merely exploiting problems that already existed. Robbing a blind man might not be a nice thing, but it is another thing to claim you made the man blind in the first placd.

And Columbus was not very nice, but contrary to what you imply, many of the natives were also not nice, cutting out hearts of your victims while they were still beating as the Aztecs did wasn't very nice either. Most people were not very nice back them, the only reason the Incas and Aztecs didn't invade Europe rather than the he reverse was lack of technology, not moral superiority. Cortez was able to conquer the Aztecs with relatively few men because the other natives of Mexico hated the Aztecs and joined the Spanish, but it will be clear you won't ever tell all the facts, just the ones that suit you.

If you want to talk about Columbus, then you need to talk about his whole story not just the bits you want to promote. Yes, Columbus calculations were off but that does not make him stupid, your bigoted and ignorant opinion notwithstanding. No one knew the exact size of the earth, and while there were estimates, no one knew how accurate they were for certain. The route Columbus pioneered was the same route used by sailors for centuries, and it took a lot of courage to put theory to the test, more courage than you will ever have, he literally put his life on the line. (Personally, I think Columbus had a good idea land existed to the West, and just mistakenly assumed it was Asia. He was governor of the farthest western Portugal island at the time, and could have obsevered flotsam arriving from the West, and made a reasonable estimate of how long it had been floating, and how far away the land it came from was. He massaged his estimates.of the eath distances to get the same result he estimate from the flotsam. It is no coincidence in my view that North America was at the same distance he said Asia would be.)

When was X always fun. But you can always verify when I be more interested to what the average American coughs up about why. Or if they get even close to telling what Avogadro constant is.

Clearly you want to push a political agenda. American education used to be among the best in the world, but no longer and people with your ideology are why. The people who dominate the NEA and by extension the teachers actually teaching the children, are more interested in.pushing an ideological agenda than actually teaching kids. You and they don't want kids to learn, they want them indoctrinated with your ideas.

The idea of concentrating on just teaching children to read and write for themselves and concentrate on math and science where we can be objective, and give them the facts.of history instead of subjective opions like years, doesn't even occur to you.
We
Typical of the debate, the left tried to blame the lack of spending by the US on its poor results in education, but the fact is the US is one of the higher spenders on education, fifth according to an Atlantic Article December 3, 2013.

And while there may be inequality between middle class and poor that is more likely because the American school system, dominated by leftist much like you as the NEA clearly shows, is failing everybody. What students from better income homes are learning (aside from politics indoctrination) is not due to the schools, but their parents. Students from poorer incomes don't have parents that can offset the poor performance of the NEA leftist school system and so do worse. But naturally, the left will blame the racism and the conservatives for the problems they themselves created.

[Vanoi]

You forgot the little detail of Marxist framework of oppressor/oppressed, which is actually what makes it bad, because then you end up with students saying ''you can't be racist against white people because white people hold institutional power''.

Except CRT developed out of a school of critical theory that originated in the US. CRT isn't basked on the Frankfurt school of thought so its not Marxist in nature.

[mongrel]

Leftist

No matter how long or carefully written or argued a post is, it is always fatally undermined by the inclusion of this word.

[Basil II the B.S]

Except CRT developed out of a school of critical theory that originated in the US. CRT isn't basked on the Frankfurt school of thought so its not Marxist in nature.

https://spacrs.wordpress.com/what-is...l-race-theory/

''What is critical race theory?'' according to an UCLA critical race theorist.

Intersectionality within CRT points to the multidimensionality of oppressions and recognizes that race alone cannot account for disempowerment. “Intersectionality means the examination of race, sex, class, national origin, and sexual orientation, and how their combination plays out in various settings.”[1] This is an important tenet in pointing out that CRT is critical of the many oppressions facing people of color and does not allow for a one–dimensional approach of the complexities of our world.

Another component to CRT is the commitment to Social justice and active role scholars take in working toward “eliminating racial oppression as a broad goal of ending all forms of oppression”. [4] This is the eventual goal of CRT and the work that most CRT scholars pursue as academics and activists.

Your claim: critical race theory does not stem from the Marxist critical theory.
Yet somehow uses the Marxist oppression/oppresed framework:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/critical-theory

Critical theory, Marxist inspired movement in social and political philosophy originally associated with the work of the Frankfurt school. Drawing particularly on the thought of Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud, critical theorists maintain that a primary goal of philosophy is to understand and to help overcome the social structures through which people are dominated and oppressed. Believing that science, like other forms of knowledge, has been used as an instrument of oppression, they caution against a blind faith in scientific progress, arguing that scientific knowledge must not be pursued as an end in itself without reference to the goal of human emancipation. Since the 1970s, critical theory has been immensely influential in the study of history, law, literature, and the social sciences.

So how exactly it is, dear Vanoi, that a philosophy that according to you has absolutely nothing to do with Marxist school of thought somehow uses the same exact language, the same exact concepts and borrows the same exact name?

Let's see the depth of liberal intellectual dishonesty. I already know there isn't. The core concept of liberalism is doublethink: hold two completely incompatible concepts as true. There isn't an inch of integrity in your argument. Not only you know nothing about the topic, but when the liberal ignorance about their own filthy genocidal excrement of an ideology is exposed, you straight up lie. Nonetheless it's always a pleasure to kick the skull of the garbage you post, leave it a bloody pulp and then carpet bomb it with nukes.

[Vanoi]

https://spacrs.wordpress.com/what-is...l-race-theory/

''What is critical race theory?'' according to an UCLA critical race theorist.

So the opinion of one? My source in the other thread i posted directly contradicts him. CT doesn't have to have ties to the Frankfurt school. We have been over the fact critical theory and even mote specfically Crenshaw's CRT theory which i proved to use wasn't based on Marxism. I can get the source again for you.

So how exactly it is, dear Vanoi, that a philosophy that according to you has absolutely nothing to do with Marxist school of thought somehow uses the same exact language, the same exact concepts and borrows the same exact name?

Same concepts and language? Yep you are just plain out ignoring our original discussion.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory

In sociology and political philosophy, the term "Critical Theory" describes the Western Marxist philosophy of the Frankfurt School, which was developed in Germany in the 1930s. This use of the term requires proper noun capitalization, whereas "a critical theory" or "a critical social theory" may have similar elements of thought, but not stress its intellectual lineage specifically to the Frankfurt School

The term "critical theory" is often appropriated when an author works within sociological terms, yet attacks the social or human sciences (thus attempting to remain "outside" those frames of inquiry). Michel Foucault is one of these authors.[17]

Jean Baudrillard has also been described as a critical theorist to the extent that he was an unconventional and critical sociologist;[18] this appropriation is similarly casual, holding little or no relation to the Frankfurt School.[19] Jürgen Habermas of The Frankfurt School is one of the key critics of postmodernism.[20]

Critical theory is focused on language, symbolism, communication, and social construction. Critical theory has been applied within the social sciences as a critique of social construction and postmodern society. [21]

This is too easy.

Let's see the depth of liberal intellectual dishonesty. I already know there isn't. The core concept of liberalism is doublethink: hold two completely incompatible concepts as true. There isn't an inch of integrity in your argument. Not only you know nothing about the topic, but when the liberal ignorance about their own filthy genocidal excrement of an ideology is exposed, you straight up lie. Nonetheless it's always a pleasure to kick the skull of the garbage you post, leave it a bloody pulp and then carpet bomb it with nukes.

Hilarious considering i just picked apart your post like nothing. Its easy to expose your alt-right ideology consisering how far you will go and how desperate you get to link anything to Marxism you don't like. Whats funny is you probably honestly think this stuff is going to start being taught everywhere. I don't think you know what the NEA actually does.

[Basil II the B.S]

Still dodging how exactly the Marxist categorization of oppressor/oppressed is used in both critical theory and critical race theory uh Vanoi?
This dishonest tactic might work in US liberal universities where liberal human garbage actively promotes it to make college students unable to think and recognize flaws in reasoning, but obviously has no value on this forum. The only thing you picked apart is your own credibility.

[Vanoi]

Still dodging how exactly the Marxist categorization of oppressor/oppressed is used in both critical theory and critical race theory uh Vanoi?

Opinion of one man doesn't trump my own source. Try again.

This dishonest tactic might work in US liberal universities where liberal human garbage actively promotes it to make college students unable to think and recognize flaws in reasoning, but obviously has no value on this forum. The only thing you picked apart is your own credibility.

I posted my own source. You going to address it or keep ranting like you usually do? And you call me dishonest. You can't even have an honest debate.

I'll ask this again too. Do you know what the NEA actually does?

[Basil II the B.S]

Dude, your own source has a ''Pedagogy of the Oppressed'' section.
Uhuahauhauhauahah, you didn't even read it, didn't you? It doesn't even address the issue, not supports your point at all. What a demented liberal argument.