Public Schools and Indoctrination
Could this be why/what parents are protesting and why we're even hearing about it at the highest levels in government (Attorney General Garland). It is feared to be happening in some of our kids' schools, including Rochester, Ferndale and Berkley, MI.
Not to deny any issue of discrimination or abuses of power that have been evident wherever they have been, but I have never heard of any "system" in any of our kids' schools nor any organization in which I've worked that meets the below description and I'd like to see those proffering the accusation to show us--time, place, form, event--where this description is factually happening to significant or major degree and in such pejorative terms. Indeed, when our children were in school, we may have complained about "outcomes-based education" programs, but there were no broad-sweeping accusations of systems punishing or oppressing the children. Teachers respected parents' right to have a say in what the children were being taught, and parents respected the teachers' expertise in teaching our kids.
This paragraph, one is to assume, describes present observatons and concerns.
(from Pg. 6 of document handed out to Rochester teachers, full doc linked in article above)
Here's the applicable definition of "system":
The definition of "innate" is: inborn, natural; originating in the mind.
https://defendinged.org/incidents/ferndale-public-schools-students-required-to-research-and-make-a-presentation-on-blm/In the Ferndale example students were asked to research and discuss some unusual subjects. Why would the school have children read a poem about parents arguing that they were not abusive to an adult daughter and ask them to respond to interpret it from a Marxist lens? (Both poems in the example chose locales distant from the students' own county--Australia and UK.)
Berkley: 5th grade students are given a 'social justice survey;' superintendent email explains district priorities; teacher whistleblower calls trainings “mini-political rallies” and a 'colossal waste of money'.
= = = = = = =
It seems, we have created some very odd words as shown in the paragraph above. What is "heterosexism"? Or homosexism, for that matter, or ableism, etc.
An "-ism" is a belief. Human biology is not a belief system. Physical ability is not a belief system.
Yes, a certain percentage of people are heterosexual people, and another percentage are homosexual, and there are all the other "persuasions" or "identities" that we may or may not champion or disagree with or have feelings about. Different people have different abilities and capabilities. It's great that we agree to be role models and remove hurtful stigmas from minority people.
Evidently, the facts of prevalence, or demographic statistics are now redefined as "systems" and "-isms" of one type or another. And, if we do not disapprove or "call them out" as such, supposedly we are creating barriers to this thing called "cultural proficiency."
Well, never having heard the phrase, naturally, I had to look that one up. (Of course my nursing education did include understanding important cultural differences with respect to health.)
The above two examples highlight schools our families have had children attend. Defending Education (dot org) has a map of the country showing concerning examples of indoctrinating style teachings in practically every U.S. state.
The concept of cultural competence and its basic evolution is described here: https://www.mockingbirdanalytics.com/nonprofit-data-blog/cultural-competence-in-nonprofits See Dr. Terry Cross, an indigenous American, Seneca, https://www.nicwa.org/terry-cross/ It does appear to me to have gone well beyond what Dr. Cross was discussing and advising.
Not that there are no other areas or industries (beyond mental health or health in general) in which it is important to understand cultural characteristics, but I'm trying to think how "cultural proficiency" or "cultural competence," at the extent to which it is now being applied in the primary school education setting, makes sense. Elementary education schools are where students are supposed to be learning reading, writing, arithmetic, basic science, history, etc., each of which consists in fact-based knowledge, irrespective of cultural beliefs by Anglo Americans, German Americans, indiginous Americans, white Americans, black Americans, Asian Americans, multi-racial Americans or any Americans and those same fact-based knowledge categories are actually the same for white Britons, black Britons, blond or brunette-haired Germans, short Chinese, or tall Koreans, sub-Saharan people, Jews and Arabs, et al. The sun "rises" in the East, sets in the west, for everyone. 2 + 2 = 4. For everyone. To my knowledge, there is no culturally different way to read--symbols for letters or concepts, letters for words, words for concepts, etc., is pretty universal--although obviously students can read about different cultures.
It is one thing for educators to learn about cultural differences so that they are better educators, accommodating the varying needs of their students. They can thereby also be excellent role models for all students by how they treat everyone. But, beyond these basics, educators are being directed to teach our young children today concepts well above their mental and/or emotional maturity, particularly in such topics as sexuality and racism. This is evident to the extent young white children have reported feeling guilty for their whiteness. This cannot be thought to be healthy or helpful. Neither can the fact that many young children before puberty are now worried about whether or not they've been "assigned" the right "gender." A lot more attention by educators on those above basics and less on social/cultural notions would probaby do well to improve America's standing overall in education rankings with the rest of the world.
(Incidentally, "assigned gender" is not a thing. Not before early 2000s did we ever refer to the sex of an infant as something the doctor or someone "assigns" the infant. The sex of infants at birth, when written, has always been simply notated on the certificate of live birth for the purpose of demographics and as evidence of the new person's existence. It's also useful in the field of demographics. The exception of ambiguous genitalia might be noted, but the incidence of that anomally is only roughly 1% of all births and may be in somewhat different, physical, forms.)
Consider reading investigative journalist Abigail Shrier's recent book, Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters. Or, at least have a look at the reviews on Amazon to get the gist. It's frightening to learn that children are factually being irrevocably mutilated. (I happen to have briefly known at least two moms whose daughters entered this recently created realm, although I did not learn how it turned out for them. They were each terrified for their children. As you might imagine, they felt damned if they went along, damned if they didn't.)
If we really are all about honesty and value diversity, equity, inclusion of cultures, why is the largest cultural group in our communities--the parents--actively being EXcluded, disrespected, and marginalized or ignored by DEI activists? Why are parents in this instance being denied their right to have a meaningful say in what their children are being taught? Parents should not fear for sending their kids off to school, while they go off to work, that they'll reassemble at home in the evening only to find their kids are being taught concepts not at all universally accepted but that are directly at odds of their own family values.
(We didn't have everything right when I was a kid nor did we when my kids were kids, but, for example, parents did have to approve of their children participating in the Sex Ed part of their Health class in elementary school. Beyond anatomy and function, I really don't think elementary schools should be teaching "sexuality" to young minds not yet ready [emotionally or physically] for the subject and yet they are now actively being taught whole new concepts of what comprises a "nuclear family," and terms like "gender" and "sex", "binary" and a bunch of newly created pronouns. In some areas, schools are forbidden to advise parents where children may have verbalized concerns about their sexuality, including thoughts of wanting to transition to the opposite sex. They are told not to alert parents to potential concerns but instead to keep the child's secrets.)
Not to deny any extant issues we have concerning race, sex, culture. Not to belabor points or be dramatic. And, not to dismiss the complexities that are involved, particularly in a world in which a lot goes on via the Internet, not just in our neighborhoods. But, too often, it seems to me, we try to apply fixes to a small problem by applying a big general policy that may not be necessary at all.
Most egregious is the bypassing and undermining of the parents. If any of these envisioned problems really exist and are significant, then, by all means, should the powers that be not develop instructional programs for the parents to take advantage of? Nothing wrong in that. It cannot be right or condoned to virtually "steal" children away from their parents, and set about indoctrinating them in the way many parents are reporting.
It also seems to me that the present activism by these cultural academicians is perpetuating the very things they say they are trying to correct. Fear of being falsely labeled is a very powerful motivator, and silencer. So it seems to me, while we cannot force a truth, we sure seem cabable of coercing a "reality." Protests we are lately hearing about in the news, thus are of no surprise.
"Public Education" as I understand it, was always meant to be a way to ensure all children of whatever financial means could acquire a basic education. That's what Thomas Jefferson had in mind, if I read him right. I do not think what we're seeing today was his intention. It seems to me that these academicians are well over-thinking and over-extending their roles. They are defacto trying to encompass and ensure to their own standards not only education for which they are trained, but the social welfare, psychology, mental and physical health, nutrition, and more, for which they are categorically not adequately trained.
One might argue that this situation may have been facilitated in part by an economy of some duration in which families more and more require both parents working. Or it may be argued that in some way parents haven't been doing their jobs, and so there may be supervision gaps for some children, but I'm not appreciating how relinquishing to school systems the complete rearing of children is the appropriate remedy or one we should tolerate as a means to diversity, equity and inclusion.
Moreover, in co-opting these other roles, they are likely to act as political advocates, indoctrinating minds, rather than teaching fundamentals for living life and prepare children for higher education and careers down the line. It seems we now have as our education system, self-appointed child-development czars. And, as such, they are seriously undermining the proper role and function of the parents, first and foremost, but also of other professions (psychologists, doctors, dieticians, et al, including overruling religious teachings). These are professionals whom parents may wish to employ to assist in the care of their children. Parents bear the bulk of responsibility, and parents should therefore have commensurate say.
And, here's a question: When exactly did we give the government the authority they now appear to have over the raising of our children? I think it must have been a "frog-and-boiling pot" gradual development because I sure don't remember voting on it.
(Delving into more politics, and the current operations of teachers unions, opposition to charter schools, etc., will have to wait as a topic for another day--though any of you may feel free to weigh in on any related topic.)
It would seem Dr. Cross's concepts conceived to aid in care the health, wellbeing, and mental health of indigenous children have been co-opted/adopted and applied all over the country and in general sometimes where not appropriate and to the exclusion of common sense. One wonders to what extent did those doing so consider the consequences of their policies and programs, and seeing some consequences now, is anyone having regrets, or rethinking it all? "Best laid plans..." "We reap what we sow..." Sometimes ideas seem like good ones, and sometimes what one regards as negative, others applaud as the means to believed-to-be superior ends.
Surely the conflicts and angst that we are seeing and feeling today cannot be the intention of real cultural competency efforts, but where it begets such negative outcomes as we are seeing, we do need to be awake and alert and figure some things out!
# # #
This is a very strong post. Restocking and sharing. Thank you.