I know that this doesn't represent all teachers, but it's concerning nonetheless.
Nicole Tabolt Da Silva
"Instead of putting energy into dangerous in person learning plans, districts needed to figure out how to better support LGBTQ+ students who do not feel supported or safe in their identities at home."
Matthew R. Kay
"Of course. Among the many things, I'm thinking about representation in the curriculum...many parents don't actually know the content of the books we teach, and don't see the discussions. Now many will actually have access."
Matthew R Kay
"So, this fall, virtual class discussions will have many potential spectators - parents, siblings, etc - in the same room. We'll never be quite sure who is overhearing the discourse. What does this do for out equity/inclusion work? How much have students depended on the (somewhat) secure barriers of our physical classrooms to encourage vulnerability? How many of us have installed some version of "what happens here stays here" to help this? While conversations about race are in my wheelhouse, and remain a concern in this no walls environment - I am most intrigued by the damage that "helicopter/snowplow" parents con do in honest conversations about gender/sexuality... And while "conservative" parents are my chief concern - I know that damage can come from the left too. If we are engaged in the messy work of destabilizing a kids racism or homophobia or transphobia - how much do we want their classmates' parents piling on?"
These are part of a Twitter conversation that has since been hidden. One of the responses to this discussed how participation in an exercise is "stunted" because "outsiders" are "listening". Another teacher said she plans to use the chat function in order to share information in a "parentless way", while another bluntly said that "Parents are dangerous".
I've got a radical idea, how about we let teachers stick to teaching academic subjects, without trying to hide things from the parents of their students.
As I said up front, I know plenty of teachers who'd be appalled at this sort of thing, but I can't help but wonder how widespread this sort of adversarial thinking is.
21 comments:
I think this kind of thing is favored by the teacher unions, too. They are what's wrong with education in this country.
There's plenty wrong with public sector unions, and if this is becoming more prevalent then our education system is in more trouble than I thought.
When I first saw that there are people trying to re order the notion of family away from biology I was skeptical, but the more I see things like this the more I suspect that there are people trying to move away from defining family by biology.
Have either of you all ever taught in the classroom? I have. Did you know that the reality is that there are some families where a child might be abused if certain information got home to them?
My brief experience in the school system as a teacher, and my long experience associated with teachers, my experience has been that teachers desperately want to communicate forthrightly and transparently with parents. And yet, on some topics we need to be careful or we will put people's lives and well-being in harm's way. It's a tricky balancing act and I'm sure there are some teachers who get it wrong. But for the most part, the teachers that I know... Let me change it, in EVERY instance, the teachers I know are doing their best to balance it well. Being transparent with families and at the same time not doing anything to put children in harm's way.
Teachers are heroes.
"Have either of you all ever taught in the classroom?"
No, but I've parented 2 kids through primary, secondary, and college. I've never once seen any situation where what is said in a public class room should be actively hidden from parents. Particularly when it's about an agenda.
"I have."
BFD, are you suggesting that this brief time in a classroom makes you an expert? Specifically an expert in the type of thing being described here?
"Did you know that the reality is that there are some families where a child might be abused if certain information got home to them?"
Yes. Are you really suggesting that those sorts of discussions regularly happen in a classroom setting where every student in the classroom will be privy to this sort of private information?
Given the prospect of bullying that is very real across the country, I'd suggest that any teacher who has a conversation with a student that could get them abused, within the hearing of the entire class is incompetent.
Further, it's clear that the teachers quoted are talking about teaching an agenda, not dealing with private concerns.
So, are you suggesting that the content of what's being taught in the classroom should be actively hidden from parents?
Are you aware that extrapolating from "teachers that you know, and your "brief experience in the education system", aren't really relevant to this specific conversation.
Are you saying that you agree with the teachers quoted that there is classroom instruction and content that should be intentionally hidden from parents based on assumptions about the reactions of parents?
Seems to me if a teacher suspects a child is endangered by the child's own family, the proper move is to report the situation to the proper authorities trained for dealing with such situations.
I also don't think what Craig has presented here refers to such situations. The quotes suggest an agenda.
BTW, the thought of Dan or his troll teaching kids fills me with a sense of horror.
Art,
Yes, the thought of Dan and his groupie teaching impressionable young children is a little scary. But, think how they'd be able to enforce their will on the poor kids.
Of course your right. If a teacher is in a position where they fear abuse, they should engage with the system designed to deal with child abuse. I'd think that a teacher who intentionally hid something significant from the parents and failed to report it properly would be open to a significant amount of liability if something happened. Of course, that's not what's being discussed here and is just a way to dodge what is being discussed.
Craig... "are you suggesting that this brief time in a classroom makes you an expert? Specifically an expert in the type of thing being described here?"
Well, I DID go through the School of Ed and have numerous teacher friends who did the same (and other teacher friends who did not go through an Education college) and I attended public schools and universities and shepherded my two children through public school and been a mentor with other students, so, I am not unfamiliar with the nature of schools and teachers. Of the three of us here, I have the most first and second hand experience and training specifically in this field ON that topic.
Did you know that this type of thing is covered in colleges of Education?
Craig... "Are you really suggesting that those sorts of discussions regularly happen in a classroom setting where every student in the classroom will be privy to this sort of private information?"
Nope.
Craig... "Given the prospect of bullying that is very real across the country, I'd suggest that any teacher who has a conversation with a student that could get them abused, within the hearing of the entire class is incompetent."
Which is why educated teachers are trained to not let that sort of thing happen. You'd know that, if you were familiar with teachers and schools of education.
Craig... "Are you saying that you agree with the teachers quoted that there is classroom instruction and content that should be intentionally hidden from parents based on assumptions about the reactions of parents?"
As is your pattern, you've snipped out isolated quotes that may or may not be from real discussions and real people. I don't know what's happening here. But you would not be trained nor taught to hide information from parents and you'd get in trouble if you did UNLESS that information was somehow potentially harmful for the child/student.
"Of the three of us here, I have the most first and second hand experience and training specifically in this field ON that topic."
That's quite prideful of you. Except "that topic" isn't the topic of the post. So your answer is effectively, "No I'm not an expert.". But you just can't bring yourself to admit that going through the (unidentified but capitalized to make it sound official) "School of ED" at some point in the past doesn't give you any significant insight on teachers trying to hide what goes on in their classroom from parents.
"Did you know that this type of thing is covered in colleges of Education?"
Is "Hiding your curriculum from parents" required or an elective?
"Nope."
Given your agreement that sensitive conversations wouldn't be held in the classroom with other students, then your reason to support hiding what's being taught in the classroom from the parents vanishes.
"Which is why educated teachers are trained to not let that sort of thing happen. You'd know that, if you were familiar with teachers and schools of education."
Maybe you should have spent more time in "Understanding Basic English". Either that or you're just obfuscating. My point was literally to emphasize one reason why a teacher WOULD NOT have a sensitive conversation in front of the class. You're literally assuming that your straw man is correct, and trying to impose your straw man on others.
"As is your pattern, you've snipped out isolated quotes that may or may not be from real discussions and real people."
Actually, I've not "snipped out" anything. I've provided everything that is available since the people involved decided that they needed to hide this conversation.
"But you would not be trained nor taught to hide information from parents and you'd get in trouble if you did UNLESS that information was somehow potentially harmful for the child/student."
Clearly you need remedial "How to Understand the English Language", or to stop with the straw men logical fallacies.
I'll give you partial credit for answering a couple of the multitude of questions you've been ignoring for weeks.
But that's outweighed by your insistence of claiming "expertise" and constructing straw men.
Let's try it this way. Let's try to remove your assumptions and straw men, and hopefully get a straight answer.
Would you support a teacher deliberately hiding any of the curriculum that was being taught in a classroom full of students?
Do you understand how foolish you look when you trot out "I studied journalism 30 years ago." or I went through the "School of Ed" 30 years ago. As if that gives you some sort of secret knowledge about hiding curriculum from the parents in 2020.
"many parents don't actually know the content of the books we teach, and don't see the discussions. Now many will actually have access.""
Do you really think that parents should be denied access to the "content of the books" their kids are taught from and from the "discussion" around those topics?
Your ignorance and arrogance... your anti-expert bias, are an embarrassment for you. It's a shame that you don't recognize that.
Literally nothing in this comment has a basis in reality.
I've demonstrated neither ignorance nor arrogance, nor have I indicated an "anti-expert bias".
I'm sorry to break it to you but, my pointing out that you aren't an expert isn't a bias against experts in general.
But I'll give you creative. It's a creative way to avoid so much.
I'll also give you ignorance. The notion that you can simply make claims without proof and have them accepted uncritically is either ignorant or stupid.
I'm an educated expert in the field of education. I'm familiar with the teaching process and rules and what happens in public schools. I'm familiar with how education is taught in universities. My current job (employment specialist working with adults with disabilities) requires that I stay connected with both Jefferson County Public Schools and the schools of education in our local universities.
I last visited my alma mater, U of Louisville School of Education, in 2020, where I was engaged in ongoing conversations with educators and those who teach educators. I was last in a public school room in May of 2019. My children graduated from high school within the last ten years. More than a few of my church and best friends are teachers in public schools.
In the training for public school, some training is provided that deals specifically with civil rights matters like the ones in your post. I'm not an expert specifically in Education and LGBTQ matters - at least not in the sense that I have not attended college or done scholastic research specifically on that topic - but I've been involved in LGBTQ affairs in my community and I'm pretty well informed on the topic (at least by old straight white Baptist male standards...). Of the three of us, I'm have more experience and training and education specifically on these topics. That's not boasting, any more than saying that I've been using a DSLR camera for ten years now... it's just a fact.
How many LGBTQ rallies or trainings or informational gatherings have you attended?
How many years do you have of education in public schools training?
How many years do you have of teaching in schools?
I'm not saying I have the MOST education or expertise on this topic of anyone in the world. Of course. I'm merely stating that, of the three of us, I'm the one with the most educated expertise on the topic.
It's a bit arrogant and ignorant on your part to suggest you know better. You can see your arrogance in your misunderstanding of what I have and haven't said.
Craig... "Would you support a teacher deliberately hiding any of the curriculum that was being taught in a classroom full of students?"
No. Teachers aren't allowed to do that. You'd know that if you were informed or educated on the topic. But go ahead, embrace your ignorance and anti-expert arrogance.
Dan: “I’m an expert because I say I am.”
You say that “Teachers aren’t allowed to do that”, yet we’re seeing teachers discussing doing exactly what you say that they can’t do. You’re so obsessed with making yourself an “expert” that you’ve missed the fact that you just agreed with me that what these teachers are discussing is wrong.
Because you might have more “formal” training, that Art or I, doesn’t make you an expert. It makes you overly proud of yourself.
This “anti expert” thing you’ve conjured up from thin air is absolutely hilarious. The fact that I don’t accept you as an expert, doesn’t mean I’m “anti expert”.
Have you ever actually been legally certified as an expert?
You see, the problem you have is that in your ignorance of how schools operate and your arrogance and anti-expert biases, you assume that some snippet of some alleged conversation you allegedly saw somewhere represents anything like the reality on the ground. Again, you can't do what you're suggesting.
Find the school policies where such a thing would be allowed. Cite it.
Wanna bet $100 that you can't do this? And why not? Because it doesn't exist.
Are there some isolated incidences of bad teachers being biased against conservatives or liberals? Of course there are. Are there instances of them speaking out in a rant-y sort of way in an offhand moment? Almost certainly. Does that mean this is a real world problem?
No.
And I can say that because I'm coming from a place of experience in ways that you are not.
Your anti-expert bias is not specifically about your words about me. It's about your attitude towards the heroes out there educating our children and getting no respect from biased jack-asses who think they know best and believe made-up conspiracy theories.
But go ahead and embrace your ignorance and anti-expert bias and conspiracy theories. That is the way of modern Trump conservatives. You may not have voted for him last time, but your allegiance to that style of ignorance-based partisan politics is evident.
But it's not too late for you. Repent. Read. Educate yourself. Why not begin by reading about this new book by a conservative GOP insider, Stuart Stevens...
"In his new book, It Was All a Lie: How the Republican Party Became Donald Trump, Stevens argues that the party's support for Trump isn't just a pragmatic choice. Instead, he says, it reflects the party's complete abandonment of principles it long claimed to embrace, such as fiscal restraint, personal responsibility and family values.
Stevens acknowledges his own role in the party's shift: "One of the things that drew me to the Republican Party was the concept of personal responsibility. So I don't know where to begin with personal responsibility except to take responsibility personally."
On why he believes the leaders of the Republican Party became more extreme and anti-intellectual
I think one of the conclusions you have to come to is that leaders really matter in helping shape the party. And I think that it's an abdication of leadership on behalf of Republican Party leaders that have allowed these kooks and lunatics and anti-intellectuals to become dominant in the party. It didn't have to be that way.
https://www.npr.org/2020/08/11/901274491/veteran-gop-strategist-takes-on-trump-and-his-party-in-it-was-all-a-lie
Be like Stuart. Repent. Change your anti-expert and conspiracy theory positions and start to honor black people and teachers and heroic conservatives who have truly stood against Trump (as opposed to vague and wishy washy half-condemnations that miss the point).
Reclaim the high ground, Craig.
Your obsession with making yourself an expert is kind of pathetic.
I’ve pointed out a specific instance of specific teachers with a specific agenda that they’re trying to hide from parents. You’re trying to divert attention from the specific to the general as if that’s important.
Beyond that, you agree with my point that teachers should not by trying to hide the classroom teaching/curriculum from the parents of the children in the classroom. You agree that discussions of delicate/private concerns shouldn’t take place in the public space of a classroom full of kids. Yet you’re so obsessed with making yourself an expert that you’ve deluded yourself.
I guess you’re back to hiding from questions and obfuscation.
If you’re going to play this “expert” card, you realize that you can’t bitch in the future when Art or I speak from our areas of expertise, or when we cite actual experts.
Still horrified by the thought of Dan having any influence on ANY kids...his OR the kids of others.
Matt Walsh opined on this seriously disturbing issue as well:
https://www.dailywire.com/news/teachers-openly-fret-parents-might-hear-them-brainwashing-children
Nothing at all unreasonable in anything he says. Indeed, reason looms large in his piece in a way that certain "experts" can't comprehend due to their self-impressed view of their own expertise.
It's not unreasonable to be even more horrified after this recent exchange. I'm wondering how he'd handle the whole "math is racist" controversy.
I saw Walsh's piece as well. One problem with Dan's approach is that in this case, he's arguing that we don't have enough information to draw a reasonable conclusion (I'd argue that the rush to hide the exchange once it gained wide attention is actually valuable in drawing a conclusion). Yet in other cases, (police shootings) he's tended to rush to conclusions that were later demonstrated to be false based on more evidence. It's another example of his double standard.
In this case, I think that everyone is saying that whatever conclusion one draws, it could be modified based on the unhiding of the entire conversation.
You'll note that Dan "answered" a couple of questions when he thought he could use the "answers" to advance his narrative, yet when the main question was rephrased, there's been no answer yet. There have been extensive comments, but no answer. I wonder if it's possible to draw a reasonable conclusion from that?
Art,
I do think that the bigger question that can come out of this situation is what exactly is the role and value of teachers. The discussions around home school pods and other alternatives (especially for elementary aged kids) seem interesting. It certainly allows teachers to set their own value, and class size while giving parents more significant involvement in their kid's education.
Post a Comment