I wasn't sure where to put this, however, I did want to solicit some feedback and general consensus on a topic I found out while sitting with my kids. Today is an asynchronous day so they learn by themselves at their own pace, the work in question was presented by their English teacher. It began with students acknowledging 'Black Lives Matter' and what positive role BLM could have in schools? It then asked them to draw social pictures of what White Privilege looks like to them and define it. This was all done with the tone and connotation of 'White Guilt', well at least that was my take away from reading between the lines with their use of official tag lines and slogans along with the current buzz words.
Just for context, I have a Phd and I am an educator myself so appreciate the notion of having difficult discussions in the classroom as being beneficial. However, when a public school adopts the official slogans, tag lines and name of a very volatile organization, it blurs the line between what is education and what is personal opinion / persuasion. I reached out to the principal, teacher and Super Intendent to get some clarity on their language as well as their intent etc.. It was very boiler plate 'we don't support or campaign against any political organizations or causes, this wasn't a political message'...... I pointed out that when using the slogans, official logos and documentation (definitions from the organization), it is hard to differentiate from the literal intent and what it stands for.
I wanted to see what the opinions of others were on the subject? Is that the avenue to do it? is that the way to do so? etc...
Love to hear your thoughts as I am a little disgruntled, not at the underlying message of inclusion, but at the selective way in which they are not only portraying an organization that has been responsible for the destruction of cities nationwide, but at the notion they are attempting to teach children that just by being alive they are inherently racist.......
Just for context, I have a Phd and I am an educator myself so appreciate the notion of having difficult discussions in the classroom as being beneficial. However, when a public school adopts the official slogans, tag lines and name of a very volatile organization, it blurs the line between what is education and what is personal opinion / persuasion. I reached out to the principal, teacher and Super Intendent to get some clarity on their language as well as their intent etc.. It was very boiler plate 'we don't support or campaign against any political organizations or causes, this wasn't a political message'...... I pointed out that when using the slogans, official logos and documentation (definitions from the organization), it is hard to differentiate from the literal intent and what it stands for.
I wanted to see what the opinions of others were on the subject? Is that the avenue to do it? is that the way to do so? etc...
Love to hear your thoughts as I am a little disgruntled, not at the underlying message of inclusion, but at the selective way in which they are not only portraying an organization that has been responsible for the destruction of cities nationwide, but at the notion they are attempting to teach children that just by being alive they are inherently racist.......
