Re:The case for expanding rather than eliminating gifted edu...
by jmyeet on Wednesday June 08, 2022 @03:12PM
(#31672524)
Even asking that question is a positive step.
One polarizing topic at the moment is critical-race theory ("CRT"). There are a lot of false claims about what this is. Ultimately, CRT was something taught in law schools. Now CRT has become a catch-all for teaching the true (rather than whitewashed) history of the United States.
A lot of people are opposed to this because they're mistaken about what the goals are or are opposed to people being educated about historical and current inequality. A common argument is that CRT makes children "feel bad". But take slavery as one example. Did you directly participate in slavery? Of course not. No one is asking you to feel personally responsible for this.
But you can be taught the ramifications of slavery that continue to this day. Take something as simple as the GI Bill. This contributed to the White Flight. It allowed white Americans to build up generational wealth. In a system where property values are so entangled with educational outcomes, you should be able to recognize that slavery and segregation aren't just historical artifacts.
You can recognize how you benefit from generational privilege without feeling personally responsible for its origins. An awful lot of people don't want that to happen however.
So how did other countries avoid this? There are many factors here but ultimately the US founding is deeply tied to white supremacy. That continues to thi say. The language may have changed (eg propagandists might now use terms like "legacy Americans") but this belief has never gone away. We as a country have never had a serious reckoning with this past.
50+ years ago towns were racially segregated openly. The term "sunset town" came about for a reason. While those direct segregation laws might be gone they've been replaced with laws and institutions that have the same effect. For example: making housing expensive is exclusionary by design.
I say all this to point out that local funding of education is part of a deliberately exclusionary system. It may not be the reason other countries fund things at a national or state level. But our inequality in outcomes through local funding is deliberate for those reasons.
One polarizing topic at the moment is critical-race theory ("CRT"). There are a lot of false claims about what this is. Ultimately, CRT was something taught in law schools. Now CRT has become a catch-all for teaching the true (rather than whitewashed) history of the United States.
A lot of people are opposed to this because they're mistaken about what the goals are or are opposed to people being educated about historical and current inequality. A common argument is that CRT makes children "feel bad". But take slavery as one example. Did you directly participate in slavery? Of course not. No one is asking you to feel personally responsible for this.
But you can be taught the ramifications of slavery that continue to this day. Take something as simple as the GI Bill. This contributed to the White Flight. It allowed white Americans to build up generational wealth. In a system where property values are so entangled with educational outcomes, you should be able to recognize that slavery and segregation aren't just historical artifacts.
You can recognize how you benefit from generational privilege without feeling personally responsible for its origins. An awful lot of people don't want that to happen however.
So how did other countries avoid this? There are many factors here but ultimately the US founding is deeply tied to white supremacy. That continues to thi say. The language may have changed (eg propagandists might now use terms like "legacy Americans") but this belief has never gone away. We as a country have never had a serious reckoning with this past.
50+ years ago towns were racially segregated openly. The term "sunset town" came about for a reason. While those direct segregation laws might be gone they've been replaced with laws and institutions that have the same effect. For example: making housing expensive is exclusionary by design.
I say all this to point out that local funding of education is part of a deliberately exclusionary system. It may not be the reason other countries fund things at a national or state level. But our inequality in outcomes through local funding is deliberate for those reasons.