Anyways, I’m sure that as schools adapt to new social climates, there will be some awkward hiccups along the way; I’ve certainly had to sit through my fair share of boring webinars throughout my time at Lville. That being said, once these initiatives get better at engaging students and faculty alike (as they’ve already started to—we had a wonderful alum guest speaker just a few weeks back who spoke about her experiences as a Black foster girl at '90s Lville, though, predictably, her talk was met with complaints of “indoctrination” by some parents), I’m sure that such controversies will die down.
In lower-school social studies, inspectors pointed out that pupils “spend much time repeatedly considering identity (including analysing their own characteristics) rather than learning, for example, geographical knowledge”.
This would be a problem for me as a parent and I would indeed consider it “sad.” If schools want to engage in social justice conversations it makes no sense to do so at the expense of basic knowledge. (And no I don’t think being able to Google where Tanzania is on your iPhone is any substitute for basic geographical awareness).
Regarding the NY Post, it is still a legitimate newspaper, regardless of your political feelings and how those differ from the opinion page of the post.
Really? My hope is that schools stand strong against the Twitter mob and maintain a middle ground. Most of the BS we discuss on this board are staffed by super liberal teachers and admins. The fact that kids come from all over and schools can’t force teenagers to immediately change their political leanings is not the fault, nor should it be the goal, of the schools. Schools can set standards for behavior but they cannot, and should not, set standards for thought.
My children spent four years at ASL when we lived in London. Ofsted taking it down two notches over excesses that are already being addressed, implemented by a head of school who’s gone, is ridiculous — the Ofsted report amounted to a political act of its own. As Ofsted itself acknowledged, ASL continues to deliver an extraordinary education.
At least from what I’ve seen at Lawrenceville, it’s mainly been student outcry (largely from the students who are very invested in such causes) that’s fueled the implementation of these sorts of programs. Many of those same students are still dissatisfied. You can’t somehow win over both sides here.
I don’t know which boarding schools you’re experienced with, but from my experience, most (>3/4, if not more) students here are in the “firmly liberal” camp—there’s even frequent op-eds written by conservative students in our school newspaper bemoaning the heavy liberal lean of…well, everything here.
I do find it a bit rich that a UK education inspector is concerned about the teaching of “social justice” in a US-oriented school. I know nothing about ASL, but here’s a link to the report mentioned in the article: https://resources.finalsite.net/images/v1646403531/asl/eridzgnhcgvx99cylrr5/10214690-TheAmericanSchool-101168-FinalReport.pdf . Interestingly, while reference is made to a “sizeable minority” of parents complaining about this, the ASL mentions that 92% of parents would recommend the school to others in a poll taken around the same time. Since there is another poster with direct knowledge about ASL, there’s nothing more for me to add about this school.
More generally, do you have a citation for the “super liberal” nature of “most” BS teachers and administrators?
Not a major issue, but ASL isn’t a BS, is it? Putting that aside, to the extent that these alleged “super liberal” BS and/or day school teachers and admins are serving as apparent thought police, what thoughts might these be?
In many cases, the issue is not about changing thoughts as much as it is teaching/demonstrating historical facts. Regarding “critical race theory”, is there any doubt in the US that the following existed as a matter of law? : slavery, segregation, Jim Crow laws, poll taxes and other methods to keep people from voting, anti-miscegenation, etc etc etc.
How is teaching the actual existence of these horrific acts that were set up under laws of the US and its states, changing thoughts? They are historical realities. If for no other reasons, these historical facts should be taught, as “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”.
If thoughts are not changed because of these gruesome historical realities, well, that’s an entirely different issue altogether relating to the person thinking those thoughts. In many instances, it’s not about changing minds as it is stating the facts. That cannot be viewed as forcing politics on someone
And, finally, what exactly the heck does “woke” mean?
Lest this be considered, or devolve into, debate, this is my last post regarding the article and the op-ed piece.
One of my kid’s current teachers at her day school is a social justice warrior. However, it’s had two big positives: 1) some marginalized groups feel much more welcome now at the school as the teachers support them, even if racial and class tensions are still present 2) the teacher herself is so, so energized. So she’s not only teaching social justice but is a terrific and tough teacher. So I think that improving teacher morale, if he or she personally supports these issues, can be a big plus. Because the school overall is more middle of the road, less involved teachers and staff don’t feel a need to participate.
Not sure if the Daily Mail is better than the NY Post…however, I guess we can catch up on the latest on the Kanye-Kim-Pete saga and Liz Hurley’s latest swimsuit poses.
What exactly do you think the esteemed publication Daily Mail means by “woke”? And “social justice warrior”?
Also, what do you mean by “well managed U.S. boarding schools”? Meaning they aren’t “woke” and/or have no “social justice warriors”?
Yeah, if you want to move to a boarding school (other than, like, Culver) with the hopes of avoiding “wokeness,” I have a bridge in New York to sell you…
From what I’ve been able to gather, “woke” teaching is that slavery, segregation and discrimination existed in the past and continue to resonate today in various ways we should actively address. Antiwoke teaching is that slavery, segregation and discrimination existed in the past and now everything is fine.
While that would make sense it is not my experience.
In my daughters lower school, during an lgbtq acceptance session, it was suggested to all the girls who liked blue and green and sports that they might actually identify more as boys than as girls, or at least as a they. A clear example of wokeness gone awry.
You mentioned that this was about “LGBTQ acceptance,” so do you suppose that perhaps the purpose might have actually been about “acceptance” and inclusion of classmates who might identify this way, rather than some sort of sinister “woke” recruitment plot?
Because, like it or not, some students “might actually identify more as boys than as girls,” or vice versa, or as non-binary. Does it benefit anyone to pretend like this isn’t the case?
I know families with children who identify as something other than their apparent biological sex. A few were fortunate to attend schools which handled this the with sensitivity and maturity, and this included explaining to the other classmates that some students “might actually identify more as boys than as girls,” or vice versa, or as neither entirely. IMO this was extremely beneficial to all involved; it created a safe and inclusive environment for these vulnerable students, and it also promoted tolerance, understanding, and inclusivity among the rest of the students (values that are sorely lacking in some segments of our society.) To the best of my knowledge, no students were turned transgender, non-binary, gay, or anything else as a result of learning about the circumstances of some of their classmates.
I’ve also seen examples where schools (and/or parents) ignored or denied that this was a real thing, and left these kids to fend for themselves. Unfortunately but not surprisingly this fostered an environment where these students were marginalized, ostracized, and bullied. In my opinion this was negative and harmful to all; not just those being marginalized.
Acceptance is fantastic and should be striven for. Explaining gender identity as “if you like BOY things (like sports and blue) but you were born a girl you might actually be transgender” is outright stupid. To rigidly define what boys and girls like and then suggest that any deviation from that indicates transgender identity is simply not ok and has not one thing to do with acceptance.
And this is what often happens when this discussion comes up. Someone points out how it’s done badly and then they are accused of not being accepting. I don’t really see how your reply had anything to do with the situation I described. The fact that it was supposed to be about acceptance and was terribly botched was my point. Not that it was about acceptance and I take issue with accepting anyone.