Teacher unions are the principal mechanisms that turn normie suburban centists into right wingers. This has been true for a long time, going all the way back to when I was growing up in the 80s and the unions tried to eliminate gifted programs in favor of having the gifted kids do unpaid tutoring to the not-gifted kids as a "humbling learning experience"
I spent my entire 20s and early 30s as a Republican partly because of the nonsense I witnessed in public schools.
If you think teacher unions are good allies of science and reality - note that most of them opposed vaccine requirements, in the same manner that the cop unions did, until they got a ton of pressure upstream from mayors/governors in blue states. They are literally the left wing version of cop unions, who will justify, in bad faith, nearly anything that their worst performing member does.
Shamelessly copy-pasting a comment I left back in August on Matt's teacher compensation article:
1. The employer-employee relationship isn't always adversarial, but unions are created to be adversarial. So a unionized industry will almost inevitably have adversarial relations, especially a large unionized industry. It's baked into unions' principal-agent relationship. They are duty-bound to maximize the best interests of their members, just as corporate CEOs are duty-bound to increase shareholder value and lawyers are duty-bound to zealously represent their clients. It's very difficult for them to moderate their advocacy for their principals' interests for the sake of the greater good. It's not impossible, but it isn't how the system is designed to work. Their default setting is to represent their principals' interests to the exclusion of anyone else's.
2. This doesn't mean unions are bad. We have lawyers and business corporations for a reason, and we have unions for a reason too. Sometimes we as a society have to mediate between two competing legitimate points of view, and we decide the best way to ensure a just result is to "arm both sides." It's like checks and balances in government. If both sides fight vigorously, hopefully the outcome will land on the best/most truthful spot in the middle.
3. Because the process is adversarial, it is always in unions' interests to refuse to do whatever management wants their members to do. It is by refusing to do whatever management wants that the union can demand that management pay the union's members to do that thing.
4. That's generally fine in the private sector, but in the public sector there are two complications. First, in the public sector it is management's (i.e. the government's) job to seek the good of society, not to increase shareholder value. That doesn't mean it always does that, of course - not by a long shot. But it is supposed to, and so it often does. Therefore, because it is in unions' interests to refuse to do whatever management prioritizes, it is generally in public employee unions' interests to refuse to make any changes that would benefit society. Second, management also has a principal-agent dynamic, and while its agents (i.e. politicians) do have an incentive to seek the good of society, its principals (i.e. voters) don't always place the *highest* priority on that. So when push comes to shove, you'll often find that management would rather not pay unions extra to agree to stronger accountability for bad apples, but instead would rather lower taxes. In other words, if you "arm both sides" in the public sector hoping they'll eventually land on the most societally beneficial settlement, you may be disappointed.
5. This does not mean that public employee unions are bad. If they didn't exist at all, their members could be exploited. It does mean, however, that you shouldn't be surprised when they oppose changes that would require their members to do good things. That is, in fact, what you should always expect them to do.
That is an excellent summary, but I’m going to disagree with point 5. Public unions are bad. As a lifelong Chicagoan, public sector unions of every kind, transit, teachers, police, fire run counter to the interests of taxpayers / reformers every single time.
As a Democrat, I was viscerally against Scott Walker’s anti-union push back in the 2000s. In retrospect, it’s unfortunate he didn’t also include the GOP’s police union, because otherwise that would have been Wisconsin’s greatest achievement.
It is not the job of Teacher's(or other) Unions to benefit taxpayers. That is the job of the school district who negotiates their contract. The job of the union is to serve its members.
That may seem witty to you. In my city, parents have dealt with two lengthy strikes and an extended school shutdown, very much driven by the CTU, even after data on transmission rates in school with preventative measures showed very low risks (not to mention low risks to children, period.)
So I am very much angry at the cheese grater for only wanting to grate cheese under its very specific set of conditions.
yes at times there is corruption on the other side as well. I'm very willing to admit that crony capitalism is a problem.
But giving money and helping to elect politicians who then turn around and give you tax payer money so you can give the politicians their cut is IMHO corrupt.
There should be no public unions (I'm totally fine with private ones)
I don't understand how you think this an argument that would convince anyone. First off, the idea that you think sworn public servants aren't designed to benefit citizens is utterly surreal. Some of them, LEO & firefighters, literally take an oath to do so. If teachers wanted to maximize their earnings or job security they could've become investment bankers or something. They deliberately became public servants to help children & families, so it makes sense that we would hold them to some kind of social benefit standard.
If they're not benefitting society but simply themselves, no problem- we can cancel their union contract, mass fire all of them, and hire new teachers who will.
Try to visualize it this way- I'm a member of the 'taxpayer's union'. It is not the job of the taxpayer's union to benefit teachers. The job of the taxpayer's union is to serve its members. Does that kind of make sense?
In order for this to be realized, the government/public has to view any gains by the union as negatives that should be fought against because anything that the union gets for free will mean their costs are otherwise higher.
I have argued this before. I think that union negotiations are adversarial by their very nature. The problem is that boards of education are trying save money by offering vast amounts of power to the unions. I think this is dumb. I would even be in favor of legislating that they may not negotiate away their own responsibility.
I think there is a difference between a private company employees having an adversarial relationship with a companies' management and public sector employees having an adversarial relationship with the public's representation.
What you're missing is what the services are like in places that don't have public employee unions. Like there are several states where teachers unions either don't exist or are completely neutered, and I doubt you'd be any happier with the performance of schools (or transit or whatever) in states like that.
People who think that red states are much better at the whole 'running schools' thing should check out how great the school system is in Oklahoma, it's a real treat.
Agreed for most of this, but you missed an important point. The unions are helping to elect the politicians that then give the union members raises, who then donate to the politicians and on and on.
No I don't believe we should have public unions, or if we do. There role should be REALLY limited. Probably just pay and benefits. They shouldn't be serving in a role to protect bad cops, or bad teachers. If we did that it would only be the tax payers getting screwed.
Something I think that you imply but don't straight up say:
Because unions exist to zealously advocate for their members per se (and that's fine), it's bad for people and political movements to uncritically embrace and boost the positions of unions.
It's easy to blame unions, but note that public unions really only have the power to 1) force employees to join the union and charge dues, and 2) strike. And in many states, they are legally forbidden to strike. All of the things we complain about are in their contracts, which are agreed to by elected representatives whom we elect. Of course unions advocate for less oversight and higher pay, but they have next to no power to actually impose those things -- the people have that power. They should write better contracts!
They also have the power to get school board members, state superintendents of education and state legislators elected, through their donations and campaign canvassing troops. Those elected officials, in turn, make decisions that benefit them.
It’s ironic, that all the replies to this initial reply by me sort of illustrate why swing voters like me would vote Republican because of progressive democratic viewpoints.
I understand all the debate below. But stepping back, is it unreasonable for parents to just want their kids to be taught well. If you are a suburban parent, and your kid is spending a decent amount of time helping other kids instead of learning, no amount of justification is going to make that OK with them.
Their natural instinct is… Put my kid into a different class with students of the same ability so that they can learn at a faster pace.
It is perceived that Democrats are against that, therefore if they feel the governor is going to advocate for something they want… They’re going to switch parties.
Rory, can you elaborate on what you see as the "progressive" viewpoints in this thread that would make someone (not already decided) choose to vote Republican? Granted, I lean progressive but this feels like you had prejudged.
My view would be that Republican's efforts to "starve the beast" have left schools short staffed and unable to provide both for the average student and for the gifted.
Parents in general want their kids to succeed. They want what's best for their kids. They don't care about education gaps. They care how their kid is doing. Whether their kids is learning to his or her potential.
Most parents (middle class types) feel that education should be about the base R's. They are willing to accept a certain amount of non basics curriculum, but only if it doesn't hurt their own kid.
In general parents believe gaps are bad (which they are), but they have a suspicion that the progressive unspoken view is that progressives would like to reduce education gaps by holding back high achievers.
Evidence: Everyone in this thread feeling I am unreasonable that I would prefer my high achiever to learn more or faster instead of tutoring other kids.
- The move to eliminate tracking in math classes in California (I think its California).
- The move to eliminate magnet schools and or gifted programs.
- The move to get rid of test scores for those schools in NYC.
- The way not having schools in session was justified by the left.
Now yes. Democrats are generally better with school funding. But As Matt pointed out... Republicans are the party of Parents. Us parents see a lot of waste and mismanagement in schools. The typical middle class parent (remember we are talking swing voters here) goes into their kids school and its pretty nice. Funding isn't as big an issue.
Yes, you right that Republicans in some areas have tried to starve the beast... but that's only because they sort of feel that schools strayed from what they believe the core purpose should be (3 R's).
But in places like Virginia... the parents are generally progressive or at least moderate. However given all the other issues that Matt and I have mentioned... they are willing to vote for a moderate Republicans who hits on the key things they care about.
I am not sure it answers my question. It does satisfy me. Is it your impression that Republican's were the party of parents prior to this year? That was not my impression but I may well be wrong.
I absolutely _do_ agree that the Democrats seem lost and are bleeding voters right now. That union decisions on covid are black eye as is the handling of CRT. I guess agree that progressive handling of parents concerns may be problematic in general.
Addressing your list from my own perspective rather than plumbing the thread below:
1)I would be shocked if any member of this community didn't think that a kid who was sharp enough to be done with 75% of the time left, oughtn't be moved into a more challenging environment. My thoughts were that the teacher lacks the power to do that and that existing her to assist seemed not unreasonable. If there were advanced classes available and she opposed them, she should be sued and then fired. I am glad you found a suitable environment for her. I hope she excels.
2)I have no idea about tracking in math classes. My dad is a super left wing union organizing S.F. bay HS teacher and he never ceases to be amazed by the idiocy that occurs in some school boards.
3)The move to eliminate magnet schools. This is tough. Obviously with a fixed fiscal pie you have to make difficult choices. The optics are atrocious without them being spun by the opposition. And they are even worse when spun by the opposition.
4)NYC - No idea.
5) Justification of school stoppages - I am guessing we're talking covid. My thinking is that unions back teachers and that there are always a few dumb(or excessively risk averse) teachers (just like every other occupation). If I was running a union I would probably support my teachers and support stoppages just to keep the members from tearing each other to shreds. As a Democrat it seems disastrous and I strongly oppose it. As a parent I would be in school board meetings asking for consequences to be imposed.
Also... I spoke to my daughter... told her about this argument. She actually said that when she was in Middle School, the teacher would actually have her grade other kids tests, and that helping other kids was at least better than that.
I think this is fine if the school *asks* them to do this, and not fine if the schools *makes* them do it (and eliminates other programming so that they no alternative).
There is a power imbalance. Do you think my daughter at 15 has the choice to say no to a teacher who makes it clear... "go help blah, blah, blah with their homework"
I think you could have it as a "tutoring club" or something where it's not being assigned to you by your actual teacher.
In my high school there was a program where you could go around to the elementary schools and tutor some kids after school. You didn't get a grade for it and no one felt pressured to do it. I think I only ever went once but nobody cared. You did it to get honor society points or to put it on your college applications.
This is happening in the middle of class. Multiple classes.
You get time to work on something... random worksheet in whatever subject.
My daughter finishes quickly... hands the paper to teacher, teacher says to go help other kids.
She isn't learning anything more... she already knows whatever it is... she literally just did the assignment.
Basically she is just expected to explain what she already know to other kids.
The way it actually works though, is she is de facto just giving the other kids the answers.
If she wasn't doing this, she would go back to her desk, and read, or do homework in another class, or maybe do future assignments.
This last year she transferred to the South Carolina Governors School for Science and Math... highly selective public boarding school. (Basically a magnet school)
She no longer has to be an unpaid teacher... but this is exactly the sort of advanced gifted program that people are trying to get rid of.
Hmm. I don't think this is actually a bad thing, IF there is also some venue for enrichment on top of it. It is well-demonstrated that teaching a particular concept gives people a deeper and more intuitive understanding of that concept. Having a gifted student teach other students is not only for the benefit of the other students, and peer teaching is an effective learning tool.
The entirety of school is based on students doing work for free, including many things they do not want to do, so I'm not sure either of those arguments really make sense here.
The only relevant question is whether teaching the concepts to other students is or is not beneficial to both students. My understanding is the data is favorable on this question, or at least, the official position of education schools is that it is. If it isn't actually beneficial, of course, that would be a good reason to stop doing it, but the fact that your daughter finds it boring does not, in itself, mean that it is a bad idea.
How many hours a day should kids be asked to do that?
As one strategy among many, it’s probably fine. But if half or more of each class period is devoted to that, don’t you think that’s a little unfair?
More sides to this than Rory lets on. Free labor is bad, we all agree $15/hour. Learning stuff is good. Should we be paid for it or do it because we like learning. Getting on with other humans is also a useful skill, and we should we only do it if we're paid for it. Quickly gets complicated. I hope his daughter loves schools, learns enough to be the next Einstein and doesn't kick down her dumber classmates.
She does love school. And skipped 10th grade to be accepted to a public math and science boarding school in which she is loving. She still helps fellow students, and they occasionally help her. That is because they are all on the same relative level.
And my daughter would never ever talk bad about a student who was less academic then her. She is your typical young bright inclusive liberal with a diverse friend group.
Is your claim that students can never do anything that is beneficial to other students without being compensated? Should smart kids not be allowed to participate in group projects without being compensated?
If the teaching is beneficial to the student who is doing the teaching, then it is a learning strategy, i.e., it is appropriate for school.
After having read this entire sub-thread, I have a comment. I think that this type of thing can benefit her and if it isn't then the failure is in the teacher's ability to properly motivate or instruct her as to how she teaches.
One of my strongest skills is in communicating complex topics to lay audiences. As a young teen I used to try to explain Godel's Incompleteness Theory to random people on the public bus on my way to middle school. I believe that to a significant extent, this skill was honed by growing up with a (high functioning) Down syndrome brother (2 years junior).
Teaching, teaching is valuable. If the teacher is doing it poorly then that is poor teaching on their part. It does not seem to me that it is any kind of injustice perpetrated by the school system. (Assuming that the person being asked to do so is asked after finishing their studies but still on class time)
Not every kid wants to become a mathematician. We still teach them that. I am not a teacher. I am an engineering manager. Being better able to explain things benefits everyone.
I would even argue that being better able to explain things forces one to more thoroughly understand them.
I’m a “stats manager” let’s call it, and sure, yeah explaining is a valuable skill. It’s a question of proportion and time allocation. If this is something that happens for an hour or two a week or in a thoughtful way in a specific context, then, yeah, it’s good.
When kids learn for themselves for the first 10-15 minutes of each class then spend the remaining 45 minutes teaching others or sitting around, then that’s a serious problem and a failure of the education system.
Hey... I actually spoke to my daughter an hour ago... told her about this whole debate.
Apparently in Middle School, the teachers would have her grade other kids tests... she said helping the kids was at least better than that.
I also think everyone misses, that I am talking about where she was 12 and 13 years old. She was 14 during Covid. 15 Now and she is in a math and science magnet school.
I guess my issue is is that the time she is spending helping the other kids is inefficient.
The teacher is using her to make her job easier. All the talk about it be good for her is basically bullshit.
I know this because during Covid she was able to do self paced classes, and basically did two years in one.
She loved it. She learned Way more than she would of in typical classrooms.
If the school catered to kids like her, the education gas would be even larger than they are now. So they don’t do that. We’re only do it in a limited amount.
Of course they end up with the issues of what to do with these kids. They can just have them sitting around… So they used to make their job easier. They justify it by saying that she is actually learning something. Explaining concepts… Etc.
But I’ll say it again… Whatever benefits she gets from explaining stuff to other kids, pales compared to the marginal cost of not learning new stuff at a pace she is capable of.
When you put it that way, I feel slightly more mixed--society would probably be better overall if more people behaved this way! When I get done shoveling my sidewalk, if my neighbor is running behind (especially if they're old or infirm), of course I'll go help out.
But I can't ask you to commit your kid's well-being in this way. Tragedy of the commons, etc.
If it were my daughter, I would discuss with the teacher or maybe the principal first. But, before doing that, I would do my homework. Google "Is it best instructional practice for early finishers to be required to help other students?" I didn't see anything that said it was a good practice. Bring that with you to the principal or teacher.
I suspect the teacher is in need of some professional development on her instructional practices.
I mean, sure, kids should help other kids. But not as the stated policy, and certainly not as a replacement for a gifted program in order to presumably equalize outcomes.
A conundrum. What's better for the smart kid, learning more stuff or helping other dumber kids. What's better for society? The smart kids gave us nukes, but also much more productive agriculture. They also taught us how to pump hydrocarbons from earth to make life so much more pleasant, except yikes we're toast because life became so much more pleasant we're micro-waved.
Former teacher here. A good teacher provides what's called differentiated instruction, where not all students are doing the exact same thing. It's much more labor-intensive (and that's why good teachers should be paid more), requiring more lesson planning, more variation in instructional techniques, and lots of assessment which informs the lesson planning, and on and on.
In such a teacher's classroom, the only time the smart kid finishes before the dumber kids, as you put it, is during testing. Early finishers take out their free choice reading.
This last year she applied to the South Carolinas Governors School for Science and Math. It's a public boarding school for 11 and 12 graders. Highly selective. Top school in the state.
She applied as a Freshman because she was basically fed up being held back in normal classes.
Not only was she accepted (skipped a grade)... she is kicking ass and loving it.
No more helping other kids as a requirement. Now its a bunch of advanced kids helping each other actually learn.
Happening right now, and there is no sense that it’s a problem.
Quite to the contrary, this is what I was told on many school tours when I asked what they do do kids who finish faster or master the material more quickly - they can check their work and if they’re satisfied they can help others, because teaching other kids is a great way to learn. Also my entire public school career.
Throughout the Trump Administration, there was a constant refrain that he was gaslighting us. I think that it was sometimes true, but a lot of times it was clear that he was just bullshitting and didn't care if anyone believed him. This is a bad thing for the President to do, but at the same time, isn't really what the term "gaslighting" means. I always interpreted gaslighting as referring to a circumstance where you try to convince someone that you are more reliable than their own eyes.
Applying this definition, I have rarely felt as gaslit as I have in the context of the "CRT" debate. As pointed out in this article (and in the regular emails I receive from my kid's schools DEI advisor), it is clear that something is going on in the schools. However, the party line seems to basically be "nothing to see here, definitely no CRT, that's just taught in law schools, if you believe that, you must be racist" followed by DeBlasio banning advanced math, and Nicole Hannah Jones tweeting that if you don't feel shame for all of the awful things the US did decades or centuries before you were born, you're an immature asshole.
Ultimately, I think that systemic racism continue to be a problem in the US and schools in particular and its worth looking into ways to fight this problem. I also think that it is important to teach the bad things the US has done, along with the good. However, when people pretend the idea that CRT (or rather some sort of DEI/anti-racism program which most of the country now associates with CRT) is in schools, rather than defend the particular programs on the merits, I find it frustrating and politically suicidal (see e.g. VA).
I always balked at claims of a "liberal media." I think for most of my life these claims really were just GOP objections to reporting on facts which objectively supported liberal positions. However, over the past few years, and the past year or so in particular, between this, denials that "cancel culture" is a thing, and a few other issues, it increasingly seems like more and more media outlets have switched from Julia Galef's scout mindset to her soldier mindset on a lot of issues, and I've really lost faith in a lot of outlets I used to read. I know that I am now way more skeptical of anything I read in Slate, or Vox or hear on NPR than I ever was before. I really hope that this current bubble pops soon.
I did read a number of real, early-ish, CRT papers during an abortive attempt to major in sociology a couple decades ago. It was a confusing and demoralizing experience - they were simultaneously vague, densely referential, and over-elaborated in a way that made it frustratingly impossible to extract any underlying explanatory idea or concrete implication. Lots of "lenses" and "constructs." Later, more worldly and cynical, I recognized the writing style as "theory paper grist for the tenure mill," in which the trick is to appear erudite and topical without saying anything clear enough to be provably wrong. So yeah, that stuff obviously isn't taught in high schools. (And shouldn't be taught anywhere!)
But come on, Democrats and media members! You know perfectly well the types of school activities parents are complaining about when they complain about CRT. If you think those activities are defensible (many are!), then defend them. Performatively failing to understand the complaint, on the grounds that people picked an imperfect term to use when complaining, is totally unconvincing. And it looks elitist and rude - just seizing an opportunity to suggest that you know what CRT means and the complainers don't.
"You know perfectly well the types of school activities parents are complaining about when they complain about CRT. "
What are they? I hear parents complain about CRT, but then when we walk the list of things that are happening in the school they don't have issue with any one of them. But still have issue with CRT in the school.
See "Questionable DEI initiatives" subheading in the article we're all commenting on. "Questionable DEI initiatives" is a much better bucket term than "CRT" - broad enough to encompass both curricular and administrative interventions - but that's why Matt makes the big bucks as a writer I suppose.
The problem is that what Matt writes about is NOT what most parents are complaining about. Or maybe more accurately, that's what they say they are complaining about, but none of it is actually happening at their school. I'm sure there are schools where it is happening. Just like I'm sure there are still schools that say states rights had nothing to do with slavery. But they are lightning rods, not anything near the common case.
If the issue is "Courageous Conversation" training -- then I think we can get most people onboard with dismantling that. If the issue is reading Beloved or about Ruby Bridges or the impact of the FHA on POC in urban housing then I think we have an issue.
That said, I agree -- questionable DEI initiatives is a way better term and something I think myself and other progressives could get behind.
"You mean except for things like the 1619 project who's primary narrative is that the purpose of America is racism?"
This is a great example, one of the most outspoken critics of it, Wilentz, said this, "Far from an attempt to discredit the 1619 Project, our letter is intended to help it.” Are there factual mistakes in it, almost certainly, but even amongst historians that take issue with it, they tend to agree with the general direction. I take much less seriously those people that try to take down the 1619 project as a whole.
I think there is a fair case to be made that "CRT" is not exactly the right terminology, and is in fact being used by right-wingers to conflate a bunch of things so that normie parents and far-right racists feel OK about joining forces since they think they're fighting a common enemy.
However, it would be a more intellectually honest *and* politically effective response to disaggregate the various trends that "CRT" might refer to, concede that some of them are bad, and throw those overboard. Instead, progressives are trying to skate by with their own conflation because they want to keep the bad stuff in place without having to defend it on its merits. So they limit their response to "that stuff isn't CRT" (technically defensible, but misleading and ultimately counterproductive).
I agree that what most people mean when they say "CRT" isn't what was originally meant by CRT, and that the Right (and Ruffo in particular) intentionally conflated a bunch of things. However, I'm not sure that is really a fight worth having.
Essentially all of the efforts to explain this have come across as a disingenuous attempt to score rhetorical points while avoiding defending the merits of the attack. It's like when Conservatives object to "assault weapons" bans on the grounds that an AR-15 isn't technically an assault weapon. I'm not sure that either argument is convincing anyone other than a judge at a debate competition, and probably does more to undercut than advance the persuasive portions of your argument.
You aren't being gaslit, but you are being played -- but it is by the right. And very cleverly. You are right, there is something going on in some schools. But the vast majority of it is fairly innocuous -- although as Matt points out, its not clear how helpful it is. But what the right is doing is trying to conflate a bunch of things to DEI. And you have to fight back about that. Once you cede ground on the terms of the debate, you've largely already lost. If you let me define your party as the party of Hitler, everything else is uphill for you.
Curious, what is the DEI advisor sending home that is deeply objectionable? Almost everything I've received for my child makes a lot of sense and shows the values that I'd expect -- be respectful, be open minded, we value diversity/outreach, everyone is important, etc... I certainly haven't seen the types of thing on Fox News where they say that White people are the problem. Haven't seen that, have you?
"be respectful, be open minded, we value diversity/outreach, everyone is important, etc"
This message wouldn't happen without a DEI advisor? The principle and the teachers can't be trusted to deliver on those counts? Can children only pick up these kinds of values from school? What metrics is your school using to measure whether the advisor is successful?
"This message wouldn't happen without a DEI advisor? The principle and the teachers can't be trusted to deliver on those counts?"
No, they wouldn't. Teachers and principles are already asked to do a lot. And frankly struggle to deliver on other parts of their core job, much less pick this up as well.
"Can children only pick up these kinds of values from school?"
I'd hope not. But from the feedback I hear from the kids, for many these are very new concepts.
"What metrics is your school using to measure whether the advisor is successful?"
I'd say there is a lack of good metrics, and this is something they're working on. But I've heard ideas discussed -- nothing that's rocket science, but things like diversity in afterschool activities, student surveys on various aspects of schooling, %age of students in different groups that do re-tests (these are optional tests you can take to redo tests you performed below your desired result), etc...
An employee with a good salary who's job will be to... make sure after-school activities are diverse?
Improve test results by ethnicity or merely report on the results by ethnicity? The former seems a very hard lift for a single staff member. The latter seems like something existing staff could easily handle.
Teacher unions are the principal mechanisms that turn normie suburban centists into right wingers. This has been true for a long time, going all the way back to when I was growing up in the 80s and the unions tried to eliminate gifted programs in favor of having the gifted kids do unpaid tutoring to the not-gifted kids as a "humbling learning experience"
I spent my entire 20s and early 30s as a Republican partly because of the nonsense I witnessed in public schools.
If you think teacher unions are good allies of science and reality - note that most of them opposed vaccine requirements, in the same manner that the cop unions did, until they got a ton of pressure upstream from mayors/governors in blue states. They are literally the left wing version of cop unions, who will justify, in bad faith, nearly anything that their worst performing member does.
Shamelessly copy-pasting a comment I left back in August on Matt's teacher compensation article:
1. The employer-employee relationship isn't always adversarial, but unions are created to be adversarial. So a unionized industry will almost inevitably have adversarial relations, especially a large unionized industry. It's baked into unions' principal-agent relationship. They are duty-bound to maximize the best interests of their members, just as corporate CEOs are duty-bound to increase shareholder value and lawyers are duty-bound to zealously represent their clients. It's very difficult for them to moderate their advocacy for their principals' interests for the sake of the greater good. It's not impossible, but it isn't how the system is designed to work. Their default setting is to represent their principals' interests to the exclusion of anyone else's.
2. This doesn't mean unions are bad. We have lawyers and business corporations for a reason, and we have unions for a reason too. Sometimes we as a society have to mediate between two competing legitimate points of view, and we decide the best way to ensure a just result is to "arm both sides." It's like checks and balances in government. If both sides fight vigorously, hopefully the outcome will land on the best/most truthful spot in the middle.
3. Because the process is adversarial, it is always in unions' interests to refuse to do whatever management wants their members to do. It is by refusing to do whatever management wants that the union can demand that management pay the union's members to do that thing.
4. That's generally fine in the private sector, but in the public sector there are two complications. First, in the public sector it is management's (i.e. the government's) job to seek the good of society, not to increase shareholder value. That doesn't mean it always does that, of course - not by a long shot. But it is supposed to, and so it often does. Therefore, because it is in unions' interests to refuse to do whatever management prioritizes, it is generally in public employee unions' interests to refuse to make any changes that would benefit society. Second, management also has a principal-agent dynamic, and while its agents (i.e. politicians) do have an incentive to seek the good of society, its principals (i.e. voters) don't always place the *highest* priority on that. So when push comes to shove, you'll often find that management would rather not pay unions extra to agree to stronger accountability for bad apples, but instead would rather lower taxes. In other words, if you "arm both sides" in the public sector hoping they'll eventually land on the most societally beneficial settlement, you may be disappointed.
5. This does not mean that public employee unions are bad. If they didn't exist at all, their members could be exploited. It does mean, however, that you shouldn't be surprised when they oppose changes that would require their members to do good things. That is, in fact, what you should always expect them to do.
That is an excellent summary, but I’m going to disagree with point 5. Public unions are bad. As a lifelong Chicagoan, public sector unions of every kind, transit, teachers, police, fire run counter to the interests of taxpayers / reformers every single time.
As a Democrat, I was viscerally against Scott Walker’s anti-union push back in the 2000s. In retrospect, it’s unfortunate he didn’t also include the GOP’s police union, because otherwise that would have been Wisconsin’s greatest achievement.
It is not the job of Teacher's(or other) Unions to benefit taxpayers. That is the job of the school district who negotiates their contract. The job of the union is to serve its members.
That is correct. And that is exactly the issue. It’s members interests often are out of alignment with the public good.
It's a great excuse to get mad at Teacher's Unions. Just like it's a great excuse to get mad at your cheese grater for being shitty at opening cans.
I would indeed get mad at my cheese grater if it regularly lobbied to make it illegal to own a canopener
That may seem witty to you. In my city, parents have dealt with two lengthy strikes and an extended school shutdown, very much driven by the CTU, even after data on transmission rates in school with preventative measures showed very low risks (not to mention low risks to children, period.)
So I am very much angry at the cheese grater for only wanting to grate cheese under its very specific set of conditions.
The problem is the unions are helping to elect the politicians that then approve the rate increases.
IE this is corruption at it's finest
Electing politicians that support your priorities is not in and of itself corruption. Is Republicans electing politicians who cut taxes corruption?
yes at times there is corruption on the other side as well. I'm very willing to admit that crony capitalism is a problem.
But giving money and helping to elect politicians who then turn around and give you tax payer money so you can give the politicians their cut is IMHO corrupt.
There should be no public unions (I'm totally fine with private ones)
I don't understand how you think this an argument that would convince anyone. First off, the idea that you think sworn public servants aren't designed to benefit citizens is utterly surreal. Some of them, LEO & firefighters, literally take an oath to do so. If teachers wanted to maximize their earnings or job security they could've become investment bankers or something. They deliberately became public servants to help children & families, so it makes sense that we would hold them to some kind of social benefit standard.
If they're not benefitting society but simply themselves, no problem- we can cancel their union contract, mass fire all of them, and hire new teachers who will.
Try to visualize it this way- I'm a member of the 'taxpayer's union'. It is not the job of the taxpayer's union to benefit teachers. The job of the taxpayer's union is to serve its members. Does that kind of make sense?
In order for this to be realized, the government/public has to view any gains by the union as negatives that should be fought against because anything that the union gets for free will mean their costs are otherwise higher.
Do we really want this adversarial approach?
I have argued this before. I think that union negotiations are adversarial by their very nature. The problem is that boards of education are trying save money by offering vast amounts of power to the unions. I think this is dumb. I would even be in favor of legislating that they may not negotiate away their own responsibility.
I think there is a difference between a private company employees having an adversarial relationship with a companies' management and public sector employees having an adversarial relationship with the public's representation.
What you're missing is what the services are like in places that don't have public employee unions. Like there are several states where teachers unions either don't exist or are completely neutered, and I doubt you'd be any happier with the performance of schools (or transit or whatever) in states like that.
People who think that red states are much better at the whole 'running schools' thing should check out how great the school system is in Oklahoma, it's a real treat.
I mean wealthy areas having good schooling outcomes is basically a given, no matter where you are located.
I disagree. UPS is unionized and that is good. But if all of a sudden UPS was absorbed by the USPS, I would like the union to survive
Agreed for most of this, but you missed an important point. The unions are helping to elect the politicians that then give the union members raises, who then donate to the politicians and on and on.
No I don't believe we should have public unions, or if we do. There role should be REALLY limited. Probably just pay and benefits. They shouldn't be serving in a role to protect bad cops, or bad teachers. If we did that it would only be the tax payers getting screwed.
Something I think that you imply but don't straight up say:
Because unions exist to zealously advocate for their members per se (and that's fine), it's bad for people and political movements to uncritically embrace and boost the positions of unions.
Sounds fair.
This is excellent!
Thanks!
It's easy to blame unions, but note that public unions really only have the power to 1) force employees to join the union and charge dues, and 2) strike. And in many states, they are legally forbidden to strike. All of the things we complain about are in their contracts, which are agreed to by elected representatives whom we elect. Of course unions advocate for less oversight and higher pay, but they have next to no power to actually impose those things -- the people have that power. They should write better contracts!
They also have the power to get school board members, state superintendents of education and state legislators elected, through their donations and campaign canvassing troops. Those elected officials, in turn, make decisions that benefit them.
That sounds like a nice pat answer, but principal-agent problems rule everything around us.
I think this is going a little too far. Cop unions will justify murdering unarmed civilians. I haven't seen a teacher union do that yet
What about the damage bad teachers, protected by their union, do to a whole generation of children?
Yes. Recent moves in SF to do this here reminded me of it.
Literally, the maximalist position of some of these union leaders is to turn the job into a ghost payroll patronage op.
So... what governments across the developing world are trying to put a stop to?
Good, I feel much better about saying "public sector unions bad" with no caveats or asterisks now.
Looking at how Philadelphia's City Council and San Francisco's School Board run, I'm not sure there's a good answer there.
Yes. This is absolutely what happens. My 15 year-old is pretty bright. When she finishes her work early, she is expected to help the other kids.
It’s ironic, that all the replies to this initial reply by me sort of illustrate why swing voters like me would vote Republican because of progressive democratic viewpoints.
I understand all the debate below. But stepping back, is it unreasonable for parents to just want their kids to be taught well. If you are a suburban parent, and your kid is spending a decent amount of time helping other kids instead of learning, no amount of justification is going to make that OK with them.
Their natural instinct is… Put my kid into a different class with students of the same ability so that they can learn at a faster pace.
It is perceived that Democrats are against that, therefore if they feel the governor is going to advocate for something they want… They’re going to switch parties.
Rory, can you elaborate on what you see as the "progressive" viewpoints in this thread that would make someone (not already decided) choose to vote Republican? Granted, I lean progressive but this feels like you had prejudged.
My view would be that Republican's efforts to "starve the beast" have left schools short staffed and unable to provide both for the average student and for the gifted.
I am not sure if progressive is the right word.
Parents in general want their kids to succeed. They want what's best for their kids. They don't care about education gaps. They care how their kid is doing. Whether their kids is learning to his or her potential.
Most parents (middle class types) feel that education should be about the base R's. They are willing to accept a certain amount of non basics curriculum, but only if it doesn't hurt their own kid.
In general parents believe gaps are bad (which they are), but they have a suspicion that the progressive unspoken view is that progressives would like to reduce education gaps by holding back high achievers.
Evidence: Everyone in this thread feeling I am unreasonable that I would prefer my high achiever to learn more or faster instead of tutoring other kids.
- The move to eliminate tracking in math classes in California (I think its California).
- The move to eliminate magnet schools and or gifted programs.
- The move to get rid of test scores for those schools in NYC.
- The way not having schools in session was justified by the left.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Now yes. Democrats are generally better with school funding. But As Matt pointed out... Republicans are the party of Parents. Us parents see a lot of waste and mismanagement in schools. The typical middle class parent (remember we are talking swing voters here) goes into their kids school and its pretty nice. Funding isn't as big an issue.
Yes, you right that Republicans in some areas have tried to starve the beast... but that's only because they sort of feel that schools strayed from what they believe the core purpose should be (3 R's).
But in places like Virginia... the parents are generally progressive or at least moderate. However given all the other issues that Matt and I have mentioned... they are willing to vote for a moderate Republicans who hits on the key things they care about.
Did this answer your question?
I am not sure it answers my question. It does satisfy me. Is it your impression that Republican's were the party of parents prior to this year? That was not my impression but I may well be wrong.
I absolutely _do_ agree that the Democrats seem lost and are bleeding voters right now. That union decisions on covid are black eye as is the handling of CRT. I guess agree that progressive handling of parents concerns may be problematic in general.
Addressing your list from my own perspective rather than plumbing the thread below:
1)I would be shocked if any member of this community didn't think that a kid who was sharp enough to be done with 75% of the time left, oughtn't be moved into a more challenging environment. My thoughts were that the teacher lacks the power to do that and that existing her to assist seemed not unreasonable. If there were advanced classes available and she opposed them, she should be sued and then fired. I am glad you found a suitable environment for her. I hope she excels.
2)I have no idea about tracking in math classes. My dad is a super left wing union organizing S.F. bay HS teacher and he never ceases to be amazed by the idiocy that occurs in some school boards.
3)The move to eliminate magnet schools. This is tough. Obviously with a fixed fiscal pie you have to make difficult choices. The optics are atrocious without them being spun by the opposition. And they are even worse when spun by the opposition.
4)NYC - No idea.
5) Justification of school stoppages - I am guessing we're talking covid. My thinking is that unions back teachers and that there are always a few dumb(or excessively risk averse) teachers (just like every other occupation). If I was running a union I would probably support my teachers and support stoppages just to keep the members from tearing each other to shreds. As a Democrat it seems disastrous and I strongly oppose it. As a parent I would be in school board meetings asking for consequences to be imposed.
Also... I spoke to my daughter... told her about this argument. She actually said that when she was in Middle School, the teacher would actually have her grade other kids tests, and that helping other kids was at least better than that.
I think this is fine if the school *asks* them to do this, and not fine if the schools *makes* them do it (and eliminates other programming so that they no alternative).
There is a power imbalance. Do you think my daughter at 15 has the choice to say no to a teacher who makes it clear... "go help blah, blah, blah with their homework"
I think you could have it as a "tutoring club" or something where it's not being assigned to you by your actual teacher.
In my high school there was a program where you could go around to the elementary schools and tutor some kids after school. You didn't get a grade for it and no one felt pressured to do it. I think I only ever went once but nobody cared. You did it to get honor society points or to put it on your college applications.
This is happening in the middle of class. Multiple classes.
You get time to work on something... random worksheet in whatever subject.
My daughter finishes quickly... hands the paper to teacher, teacher says to go help other kids.
She isn't learning anything more... she already knows whatever it is... she literally just did the assignment.
Basically she is just expected to explain what she already know to other kids.
The way it actually works though, is she is de facto just giving the other kids the answers.
If she wasn't doing this, she would go back to her desk, and read, or do homework in another class, or maybe do future assignments.
This last year she transferred to the South Carolina Governors School for Science and Math... highly selective public boarding school. (Basically a magnet school)
She no longer has to be an unpaid teacher... but this is exactly the sort of advanced gifted program that people are trying to get rid of.
Hmm. I don't think this is actually a bad thing, IF there is also some venue for enrichment on top of it. It is well-demonstrated that teaching a particular concept gives people a deeper and more intuitive understanding of that concept. Having a gifted student teach other students is not only for the benefit of the other students, and peer teaching is an effective learning tool.
Expecting free labor is bad.
My daughter would rather spend that time learning more things instead of dumbing down things she already knows.
She does not enjoy it... she does it because she doesn't want the teacher to be be mad at her.
The entirety of school is based on students doing work for free, including many things they do not want to do, so I'm not sure either of those arguments really make sense here.
The only relevant question is whether teaching the concepts to other students is or is not beneficial to both students. My understanding is the data is favorable on this question, or at least, the official position of education schools is that it is. If it isn't actually beneficial, of course, that would be a good reason to stop doing it, but the fact that your daughter finds it boring does not, in itself, mean that it is a bad idea.
No. She does not learn from helping other kids do Algebra... she is (or was) already getting A's in Algebra. She is not learning anything new.
She is basically just giving the answers to the other kids. But in a step by step way.
This last year she got accepted to a public boarding school that is highly selective for math and science.
She no longer has to help the other kids, because everyone is advanced.
She loves it way more. Is learning way quicker.
This is exactly the sort of school / program that some districts are trying to eliminate.
Is this pedagogy beneficial for the brightest students or for median students, is the useful question?
If the latter, which I have some reason to believe, albeit only anecdotally, then this justification falls apart.
If even the brightest still benefit from teaching the material, then fine.
How many hours a day should kids be asked to do that?
As one strategy among many, it’s probably fine. But if half or more of each class period is devoted to that, don’t you think that’s a little unfair?
More sides to this than Rory lets on. Free labor is bad, we all agree $15/hour. Learning stuff is good. Should we be paid for it or do it because we like learning. Getting on with other humans is also a useful skill, and we should we only do it if we're paid for it. Quickly gets complicated. I hope his daughter loves schools, learns enough to be the next Einstein and doesn't kick down her dumber classmates.
She does love school. And skipped 10th grade to be accepted to a public math and science boarding school in which she is loving. She still helps fellow students, and they occasionally help her. That is because they are all on the same relative level.
And my daughter would never ever talk bad about a student who was less academic then her. She is your typical young bright inclusive liberal with a diverse friend group.
Can we unionize the kids then, since in this context, they are now workers?
Is your claim that students can never do anything that is beneficial to other students without being compensated? Should smart kids not be allowed to participate in group projects without being compensated?
If the teaching is beneficial to the student who is doing the teaching, then it is a learning strategy, i.e., it is appropriate for school.
These aren't group projects. She is simply helping the teacher do their job with no added benefit to herself.
She gladly does group projects (where she normally does an outsized share of the work.. .but we have no issue with that).
lol, putting that quote in my file of "wpps, said the quiet part out loud".
After having read this entire sub-thread, I have a comment. I think that this type of thing can benefit her and if it isn't then the failure is in the teacher's ability to properly motivate or instruct her as to how she teaches.
One of my strongest skills is in communicating complex topics to lay audiences. As a young teen I used to try to explain Godel's Incompleteness Theory to random people on the public bus on my way to middle school. I believe that to a significant extent, this skill was honed by growing up with a (high functioning) Down syndrome brother (2 years junior).
Teaching, teaching is valuable. If the teacher is doing it poorly then that is poor teaching on their part. It does not seem to me that it is any kind of injustice perpetrated by the school system. (Assuming that the person being asked to do so is asked after finishing their studies but still on class time)
Totally disagree. Not every kid wants to become a teacher. It’s fine for those who enjoy it, but not in place of having kids learn themselves.
Not every kid wants to become a mathematician. We still teach them that. I am not a teacher. I am an engineering manager. Being better able to explain things benefits everyone.
I would even argue that being better able to explain things forces one to more thoroughly understand them.
I’m a “stats manager” let’s call it, and sure, yeah explaining is a valuable skill. It’s a question of proportion and time allocation. If this is something that happens for an hour or two a week or in a thoughtful way in a specific context, then, yeah, it’s good.
When kids learn for themselves for the first 10-15 minutes of each class then spend the remaining 45 minutes teaching others or sitting around, then that’s a serious problem and a failure of the education system.
Hey... I actually spoke to my daughter an hour ago... told her about this whole debate.
Apparently in Middle School, the teachers would have her grade other kids tests... she said helping the kids was at least better than that.
I also think everyone misses, that I am talking about where she was 12 and 13 years old. She was 14 during Covid. 15 Now and she is in a math and science magnet school.
I guess my issue is is that the time she is spending helping the other kids is inefficient.
The teacher is using her to make her job easier. All the talk about it be good for her is basically bullshit.
I know this because during Covid she was able to do self paced classes, and basically did two years in one.
She loved it. She learned Way more than she would of in typical classrooms.
If the school catered to kids like her, the education gas would be even larger than they are now. So they don’t do that. We’re only do it in a limited amount.
Of course they end up with the issues of what to do with these kids. They can just have them sitting around… So they used to make their job easier. They justify it by saying that she is actually learning something. Explaining concepts… Etc.
But I’ll say it again… Whatever benefits she gets from explaining stuff to other kids, pales compared to the marginal cost of not learning new stuff at a pace she is capable of.
I would absolutely be annoyed(or possibly pissed) if I thought a teacher was using my child to try to make her job easier.
Yes, the teacher is using her to make her job easier. (I'm a former teacher.) It's part of her job to have something for "early finishers" to do.
Agree. It's poor teaching.
Was this written by a teacher? Really eye opening if it was.
Engineer/Engineering manager but son of 2 teachers (one was treasurer of a large school union)
When you put it that way, I feel slightly more mixed--society would probably be better overall if more people behaved this way! When I get done shoveling my sidewalk, if my neighbor is running behind (especially if they're old or infirm), of course I'll go help out.
But I can't ask you to commit your kid's well-being in this way. Tragedy of the commons, etc.
You choose to help your neighbor. My daughter doesn't choose it at all. She is expected too.
If she didn't have to, she would spend her time doing homework in other classes or reading and learning more.
If it were my daughter, I would discuss with the teacher or maybe the principal first. But, before doing that, I would do my homework. Google "Is it best instructional practice for early finishers to be required to help other students?" I didn't see anything that said it was a good practice. Bring that with you to the principal or teacher.
I suspect the teacher is in need of some professional development on her instructional practices.
I mean, sure, kids should help other kids. But not as the stated policy, and certainly not as a replacement for a gifted program in order to presumably equalize outcomes.
Absolutely, on balance it is horrible, horrible policy. Didn't want to imply otherwise.
A conundrum. What's better for the smart kid, learning more stuff or helping other dumber kids. What's better for society? The smart kids gave us nukes, but also much more productive agriculture. They also taught us how to pump hydrocarbons from earth to make life so much more pleasant, except yikes we're toast because life became so much more pleasant we're micro-waved.
Former teacher here. A good teacher provides what's called differentiated instruction, where not all students are doing the exact same thing. It's much more labor-intensive (and that's why good teachers should be paid more), requiring more lesson planning, more variation in instructional techniques, and lots of assessment which informs the lesson planning, and on and on.
In such a teacher's classroom, the only time the smart kid finishes before the dumber kids, as you put it, is during testing. Early finishers take out their free choice reading.
This last year she applied to the South Carolinas Governors School for Science and Math. It's a public boarding school for 11 and 12 graders. Highly selective. Top school in the state.
She applied as a Freshman because she was basically fed up being held back in normal classes.
Not only was she accepted (skipped a grade)... she is kicking ass and loving it.
No more helping other kids as a requirement. Now its a bunch of advanced kids helping each other actually learn.
At least presumably as a TA you get a stipend!
I read it as a TA asked a student(FrigidWind) to do it, not that a teacher asked a TA(FrigidWind) to do it.
Happening right now, and there is no sense that it’s a problem.
Quite to the contrary, this is what I was told on many school tours when I asked what they do do kids who finish faster or master the material more quickly - they can check their work and if they’re satisfied they can help others, because teaching other kids is a great way to learn. Also my entire public school career.
Throughout the Trump Administration, there was a constant refrain that he was gaslighting us. I think that it was sometimes true, but a lot of times it was clear that he was just bullshitting and didn't care if anyone believed him. This is a bad thing for the President to do, but at the same time, isn't really what the term "gaslighting" means. I always interpreted gaslighting as referring to a circumstance where you try to convince someone that you are more reliable than their own eyes.
Applying this definition, I have rarely felt as gaslit as I have in the context of the "CRT" debate. As pointed out in this article (and in the regular emails I receive from my kid's schools DEI advisor), it is clear that something is going on in the schools. However, the party line seems to basically be "nothing to see here, definitely no CRT, that's just taught in law schools, if you believe that, you must be racist" followed by DeBlasio banning advanced math, and Nicole Hannah Jones tweeting that if you don't feel shame for all of the awful things the US did decades or centuries before you were born, you're an immature asshole.
Ultimately, I think that systemic racism continue to be a problem in the US and schools in particular and its worth looking into ways to fight this problem. I also think that it is important to teach the bad things the US has done, along with the good. However, when people pretend the idea that CRT (or rather some sort of DEI/anti-racism program which most of the country now associates with CRT) is in schools, rather than defend the particular programs on the merits, I find it frustrating and politically suicidal (see e.g. VA).
I always balked at claims of a "liberal media." I think for most of my life these claims really were just GOP objections to reporting on facts which objectively supported liberal positions. However, over the past few years, and the past year or so in particular, between this, denials that "cancel culture" is a thing, and a few other issues, it increasingly seems like more and more media outlets have switched from Julia Galef's scout mindset to her soldier mindset on a lot of issues, and I've really lost faith in a lot of outlets I used to read. I know that I am now way more skeptical of anything I read in Slate, or Vox or hear on NPR than I ever was before. I really hope that this current bubble pops soon.
I did read a number of real, early-ish, CRT papers during an abortive attempt to major in sociology a couple decades ago. It was a confusing and demoralizing experience - they were simultaneously vague, densely referential, and over-elaborated in a way that made it frustratingly impossible to extract any underlying explanatory idea or concrete implication. Lots of "lenses" and "constructs." Later, more worldly and cynical, I recognized the writing style as "theory paper grist for the tenure mill," in which the trick is to appear erudite and topical without saying anything clear enough to be provably wrong. So yeah, that stuff obviously isn't taught in high schools. (And shouldn't be taught anywhere!)
But come on, Democrats and media members! You know perfectly well the types of school activities parents are complaining about when they complain about CRT. If you think those activities are defensible (many are!), then defend them. Performatively failing to understand the complaint, on the grounds that people picked an imperfect term to use when complaining, is totally unconvincing. And it looks elitist and rude - just seizing an opportunity to suggest that you know what CRT means and the complainers don't.
"You know perfectly well the types of school activities parents are complaining about when they complain about CRT. "
What are they? I hear parents complain about CRT, but then when we walk the list of things that are happening in the school they don't have issue with any one of them. But still have issue with CRT in the school.
See "Questionable DEI initiatives" subheading in the article we're all commenting on. "Questionable DEI initiatives" is a much better bucket term than "CRT" - broad enough to encompass both curricular and administrative interventions - but that's why Matt makes the big bucks as a writer I suppose.
The problem is that what Matt writes about is NOT what most parents are complaining about. Or maybe more accurately, that's what they say they are complaining about, but none of it is actually happening at their school. I'm sure there are schools where it is happening. Just like I'm sure there are still schools that say states rights had nothing to do with slavery. But they are lightning rods, not anything near the common case.
If the issue is "Courageous Conversation" training -- then I think we can get most people onboard with dismantling that. If the issue is reading Beloved or about Ruby Bridges or the impact of the FHA on POC in urban housing then I think we have an issue.
That said, I agree -- questionable DEI initiatives is a way better term and something I think myself and other progressives could get behind.
"but none of it is actually happening at their school"
You mean except for things like the 1619 project who's primary narrative is that the purpose of America is racism?
https://dc.medill.northwestern.edu/blog/2020/07/21/the-1619-project-curriculum-taught-in-over-4500-schools-frederick-county-public-schools-has-the-option/#sthash.9lpfavcR.dpbs
Or anti Asian attempts to transform the gifted schools in New York or Virginia?
Or all the schools that suddenly have departments of equity and inclusion???
"You mean except for things like the 1619 project who's primary narrative is that the purpose of America is racism?"
This is a great example, one of the most outspoken critics of it, Wilentz, said this, "Far from an attempt to discredit the 1619 Project, our letter is intended to help it.” Are there factual mistakes in it, almost certainly, but even amongst historians that take issue with it, they tend to agree with the general direction. I take much less seriously those people that try to take down the 1619 project as a whole.
Here's an article from the National Review about how the perception of what happened in Virginia is wrong: https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/no-virginia-did-not-eliminate-accelerated-math-courses-because-equity/
Again, I note that this is from the National Review, not some crazy left wing journal like the NY Times. ;-)
And even in the case of NYC, I'd grant those parents the right to complain -- again, for most parents no such thing is happening.
Lastly, what is the problem with having DEI programs at schools? Is it so bad to have DEI at our schools now?
I missed the part in your link that said racism was the purpose of America.
I think there is a fair case to be made that "CRT" is not exactly the right terminology, and is in fact being used by right-wingers to conflate a bunch of things so that normie parents and far-right racists feel OK about joining forces since they think they're fighting a common enemy.
However, it would be a more intellectually honest *and* politically effective response to disaggregate the various trends that "CRT" might refer to, concede that some of them are bad, and throw those overboard. Instead, progressives are trying to skate by with their own conflation because they want to keep the bad stuff in place without having to defend it on its merits. So they limit their response to "that stuff isn't CRT" (technically defensible, but misleading and ultimately counterproductive).
I agree that what most people mean when they say "CRT" isn't what was originally meant by CRT, and that the Right (and Ruffo in particular) intentionally conflated a bunch of things. However, I'm not sure that is really a fight worth having.
Essentially all of the efforts to explain this have come across as a disingenuous attempt to score rhetorical points while avoiding defending the merits of the attack. It's like when Conservatives object to "assault weapons" bans on the grounds that an AR-15 isn't technically an assault weapon. I'm not sure that either argument is convincing anyone other than a judge at a debate competition, and probably does more to undercut than advance the persuasive portions of your argument.
Whenever I hear political arguments like that, they remind me of this random Kumail Nanjiani joke at 3:00-4:30 of this NPR show which somehow stuck in my head all these years even though it's just OK: https://maximumfun.org/episodes/bullseye-with-jesse-thorn/kumail-nanjiani-kent-haines-sound-young-america/
You aren't being gaslit, but you are being played -- but it is by the right. And very cleverly. You are right, there is something going on in some schools. But the vast majority of it is fairly innocuous -- although as Matt points out, its not clear how helpful it is. But what the right is doing is trying to conflate a bunch of things to DEI. And you have to fight back about that. Once you cede ground on the terms of the debate, you've largely already lost. If you let me define your party as the party of Hitler, everything else is uphill for you.
Curious, what is the DEI advisor sending home that is deeply objectionable? Almost everything I've received for my child makes a lot of sense and shows the values that I'd expect -- be respectful, be open minded, we value diversity/outreach, everyone is important, etc... I certainly haven't seen the types of thing on Fox News where they say that White people are the problem. Haven't seen that, have you?
"be respectful, be open minded, we value diversity/outreach, everyone is important, etc"
This message wouldn't happen without a DEI advisor? The principle and the teachers can't be trusted to deliver on those counts? Can children only pick up these kinds of values from school? What metrics is your school using to measure whether the advisor is successful?
"This message wouldn't happen without a DEI advisor? The principle and the teachers can't be trusted to deliver on those counts?"
No, they wouldn't. Teachers and principles are already asked to do a lot. And frankly struggle to deliver on other parts of their core job, much less pick this up as well.
"Can children only pick up these kinds of values from school?"
I'd hope not. But from the feedback I hear from the kids, for many these are very new concepts.
"What metrics is your school using to measure whether the advisor is successful?"
I'd say there is a lack of good metrics, and this is something they're working on. But I've heard ideas discussed -- nothing that's rocket science, but things like diversity in afterschool activities, student surveys on various aspects of schooling, %age of students in different groups that do re-tests (these are optional tests you can take to redo tests you performed below your desired result), etc...
An employee with a good salary who's job will be to... make sure after-school activities are diverse?
Improve test results by ethnicity or merely report on the results by ethnicity? The former seems a very hard lift for a single staff member. The latter seems like something existing staff could easily handle.
I think you read that wrong. It's an employee's job to figure out how to measure and improve DEI. I gave some examples on metrics.