When the cowardly House Republicans decided to grovel before Trump despite his failed coup attempt, Liz Cheney was ousted as the #3 Republican in the House and replaced by Elise Stefanik of upstate New York. Stefanik was elected as a moderate but decided that her future would be secured by joining the Trumpists. She did and got into the mainstream, which was now subservient to the disgraced 45.
Alan Singer of Hofstra University shows that Stefanik has gone full-MAGA. She recently accused the New York State Department of Education of promoting critical race theory. What she meant was that the state expects schools to teach honest and accurate history. To a true MAGA sycophant, that is intolerable. To challenge her means you are engaged in a “witch hunt.” Is she a witch?
Singer writes:
Top House Republican leader, Trump sycophant, and conspiracy theorist extraordinaire, Representative Elise Stefanik of upstate New York, is busy attacking the New York State Department of Education claiming it is using federal funds to promote the dreaded Critical Race Theory or CRT in state public schools. Stefanik is also pressing New York education officials on how they are using money provided through the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) on “social emotional learning” and “culturally responsive and sustaining education.”
State Education Department Commissioner Betty Rosa tried to explain to Stefanik that “the state Education Department does not provide critical race theory. It does, however, provide critical thinking. This allows our children to distinguish fact from opinion, achieve deeper understanding.” Rosa added, “Your accusation — whether intentional or negligent — is disappointing. What lesson are we teaching our children when a U.S. Representative traffics in conspiracies — and conflates opinions with fact.”
Stefanik replied “Instead of addressing my questions into the blatant misuse of federal taxpayer dollars, Commissioner Rosa shamefully attacked me. The facts in my letter were clear, and the implementation of CRT by any other name in New York classrooms is wrong. It is no surprise the Far-Left department would fail to fully comply with my request for the truth and revert to petty name-calling, because they know how outraged parents would be if they knew their hard-earned taxpayer dollars were used to peddle this radical ideology.”
Unfortunately, Stefanik, who graduated from Harvard University, seems unable to understand the distinction between Critical Race Theory and critical thinking or the difference between Critical Race Theory and respect for diversity and inclusion.
There must be something wrong with education at Harvard. Senate Republicans with Harvard degrees include rightwing Presidential hopefuls Tom Cotton (Arkansas) and “Ted” Cruz (Texas). Other Senate Republicans who are Harvard alums are Dan Sullivan (Alaska), Michael Braun (Indiana), Michael Crapo (Idaho), Mitt Romney (Utah), Ben Sasse (Nebraska), and Pat Toomey (Pennsylvania). Beside Stefanik, there are five other Harvard alum serving as Republican members in the House of Representatives. Harvard can also boast rightwing Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and Virginia Governor Glen Youngkin as alums. Youngkin recently appointed a Civil War apologist to the Virginia historic resources board who insist that the he Civil War was fought to defend the “sovereignty of each state and constitutional law” and that statues celebrating Confederate leaders who made war against the United States “were built to tell the true story of the American South.”
Diane Ravitch's blog 
There are bigger problems with US education that CRT and this article describes several of them. Mainstream education ideology insists on trying to teach stuff like “critical thinking” which cannot be taught directly. Critical thinking isn’t an abstract skill; it’s always subject-matter specific and can only occur once sufficient knowledge has accumulated about the subject. Any teacher who boasts about teaching critical thinking doesn’t belong in their position.
And while not CRT, schools shouldn’t waste time on fads like “social emotional learning” or “culturally responsive teaching”. It’s another abdication of their responsibility to teach knowledge that kids are going to need to succeed in life.
Mainstream education is borderline incompetent, not because of CRT, but because of the education philosophy that has dominated for the past 80 years.
Just to be clear, CRT is any teaching about racism and its toxicity. Just as we expect our schools to teach that hatred against any group is wrong, we should certainly teach them that racism has been a blight on our nation, our, history, and our present. Should we teach “both sides” of racism? Absolutely not. It is evil.
“Teaching fads”- if a correlation can be found between school curriculum or lack there of, and the rise of the third reich, the phenomenon should certainly be researched and reported on. It’s difficult to imagine that students were taught respect for diversity in the German schools in the 1930’s given the widespread attacks on Jews etc. with little blowback. In light of the huge cost Germany paid for Hitler’s failures, perhaps labeling the German school system as incompetent is a wise viewpoint for Esre to consider.
Teaching about climate change has been very successful in generating interest among the young in preserving their planet for future generations, no thanks to conservatives.
Esre may think that schools perpetuating colonialism, through instructional material decisions, serve his own vested interest. But, he’s wrong about the system in terms of the potential success for a developed nation in 2022.
Linda, google the Nazi textbook Rasse und Seele.
Thanks, Bob
It’s extremely offensive stuff, Linda–a textbook created to teach Nazi schoolchildren the racial theories of the Reich.
Yes- I read the critical summary of it, after you gave me the reference.
The only reason that Mastriano and/or his supporters in Penn. are so bold in their antiSemitism is that fascism has, frighteningly, taken hold
among some share of voters. I’m curious about Ben Shapiro’s reaction at seeing himself targeted.
While you’re right that critical thinking can’t be directly taught, there are lots of things teachers can do to improve critical thinking skills. Teach students about basic logic and logical fallacies, along with the psychological techniques involved with propaganda and advertising. Have students read original sources as much as possible (for instance, if you want to know whether the Civil War was fought over slavery vs. states’ rights, the secession documents are a good place to start). Also have multiple accounts from multiple sources with multiple viewpoints, including, as much as possible viewpoints not typically heard. Encourage students to seek out dissenting information, even information that is considered wrong from sources that are considered unreliable. Help students evaluate those sources by looking at the evidence presented and the biases and motivations of the authors.
Essentially the central question in any unit of learning should be not just “what do we know” but “how do we know it and how do we know it’s true”. “Because your parents/the teacher/a book/a newspaper/the internet/etc. said so” should always be questioned.
Says the person who insists that Ukraine is full of Nazis that Putin just wants to get rid of.
Are you really lecturing all the educators here about teaching critical thinking?
Have you seen what is happening in Wisconsin? With conservative Dems dropping out of the primary to join together to help a more progressive Dem defeat Ron Johnson? That’s Ron Johnson, who defeated progressive Russ Feingold in 2016 thanks to the right wing propaganda legitimized and amplified non-stop by self-described progressives who changed the subject whenever the bad things about Republicans are mentioned to amplify the lie that the voters should never trust the evil Democrats.
Based on the consistent feverish hilarious comments, I’m curious when it is developmentally appropriate to “[t]each students about basic logic and logical fallacies, along with the psychological techniques involved with propaganda and advertising.” Preschool? Kindergarten? First or second grade? Is an ideological hack capable of determining just exactly what and how to teach about “basic logic and logical fallacies, along with the psychological techniques involved with propaganda and advertising”? I think not. Actually, based on the evidence available, I know not.
GregB– I think you are picking words here. Yes, Dienne’s suggestions taken verbatim are more appropriate starting in jr-sr yr hisch, if not freshman yr college. But the concept is right on. One can begin to introduce it in simple form here & there, starting with [IMHO] 5th & 6th graders. It dovetails with beginning to examine what are and may not be reliable internet sources, and how to begin sussing that out. Notice I keep saying “begin.” Incremental baby steps, scaffolded and expanded.
Totally with you on the importance of teaching knowledge. However, please bear in mind that PROCEDURAL KNOWLEDGE, as well as descriptive knowledge, is important. And some valuable procedural knowledge could be described as procedures for thinking. So, for example, teaching students about hypothesis testing, using an a/b split, the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning, basic propositional and predicate logic, etc., are all valuable. I agree, however, that an enormous amount of time is wasted by people who think they are teaching “critical thinking skills” when, in fact, the child walks away from the instruction they are doing with no knew knowledge that he or she can put to use. It would be of ENORMOUS VALUE for K-12 educators to stop using the term SKILLS altogether and speak, instead, of procedural and descriptive knowledge. If they did that, there wouldn’t be so much vagueness and puffery in our curricula and pedagogy. There would be A LOT MORE SUBSTANCE.
Also valuable, teaching various heuristics for what Herbert Simon called “satisficing”–achieving a satisfactory outcome when optimal ones aren’t achievable. So, for example, means/ends analysis, failure means and modes analysis, character and plot analysis (for developing a short story), and so on. Again, concrete, step-by-step procedural knowledge as opposed to vague “thinking skills.” Typically, when I see in a lesson that someone thinks that he or she is teaching “thinking skills,” there is no real knowledge takeaway, there is no substance, there is no there there.
I bear a great responsibility in this regard because many years ago, when I was a baby editor for a textbook house, I created a “Critical thinking” strand for our new textbook series that then became a huge hit. Something I regret.
I created a “Critical thinking” strand…”
You?
All this time I was blaming a bill gates.
Many years ago, when I was a baby editor, I went to work for a publishing house that was pretty small and had a grammar and composition textbook series that had had minor success. At the time, I was crazy about symbolic logic and was reading a lot of it. And I had run across the buzz word “critical thinking” in some obscure educational literature (about a program in Venezuela). My first job with this company was to write a new table of contents for a revised edition of that grammar and comp. For that, I created, for each book in the series, an outline for a chapter on Critical Thinking. Well, that series took the grammar and comp market by storm. And in the next couple years after that, every textbook program, just about, had a critical thinking strand, and every educational conference had workshops on critical thinking. It became a huge fad. For a young man, this was intoxicating. I had had this enormous effect on the industry, nationwide. But no one knew about it. I was entirely anonymous. Heady stuff.
The interesting takeaway from this, for me, after all these years is the following: people imagine that major changes occur because of careful planning on someone’s part, but often, it’s largely accidental and faddish. Unfortunately, education is terrible prone to these fads. People become known and influential by associating themselves with whatever is hot on the educational midway this carnival season.
I suppose the next thing you are going to reveal is that you ARE Bill Gates?
cx: terribly prone
Bob this is a fascinating story. I am not convinced that critical thinking ideas are a total bust. Thinking without just accepting what someone say is true has much value.
Roy, you aren’t an English teacher, so you probably haven’t seen as much of this as we have. English textbooks are full of ridiculous, vague exercises in which students are supposedly “practicing critical thinking skills” such as “inferencing,” lol, that teach students nothing, from which they walk away having learned nothing. Yes, it’s of enormous value to teach kids concrete procedural approaches to solving problems of particular kinds, but that’s not what we’re talking about here. For decades now, kids have been subjected to mind-blowing dumb critical thinking exercises that teach nothing of value. The ability to think clearly isn’t simply a muscle that improves with ANY exercise. I have seen, in my lifetime, quite literally tens of thousands of exercises on critical thinking that taught nothing. The student walked away with no new knowledge that he or she could apply to particular problems.
So, open an English text and you’ll come across an exercise that supposedly deals with a “skill” called “inferencing,” as in “Today we are going to practice our inferencing skills.” Well, there are three major types of inference–inductive, deductive, and abductive. There are, quite literally, whole sciences devoted to different types of each. The mathematics of probability used for prediction of viral spread or of linear programming used for logistics optimization are examples. There is no magic formula that will “teach thinking” separate from actually teaching and learning a specific thinking tool designed for particular purposes, and it’s only wackos in education who imagine that such things exist. These “thinking skills” taught [sic] in English texts are typically nonexistent, as imaginary as were the fairies in Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s garden or Jewish space laser or pedo pizza parlers.
So, yes, there are procedures for doing all kinds of thinking, and these can be learned and taught. But they can’t be taught be someone who hasn’t learned them. Lol. People in ELA seem to think that somehow they can teach people “how to think” without actually having done any concrete, practical work.
So, yes, I think it valuable for people to learn procedures for thinking and for them to learn some basic logic. People should understand, for example, the difference between deductive systems, like math and logic, and inductive systems, like science, so that they will understand what terms like “proof” and “proven” mean. And so I stand by having created those Critical Thinking lessons that did that so long, long ago. But this rapidly grew into a monster. Vague, stupid lessons proliferated that taught kids no news they could use. Thoughtless exercises on thinking. What a tragic irony!
My teachers should have ridden with Jesse James
for all the years they stole from me.
–Richard Brautigan
Sorry, Roy. My answer is in WordPress’s immoderate moderation. so annoying.
Too many people who write lessons and curricula and “standards” imagine that they can “teach thinking” in the abstract, without having themselves done any of the considerable specific work that it takes to learn a particular procedure for thinking about particular problems. But only if you have done that can you then teach it.
I go into greater depth on this and provide examples here:
“Stefanik was elected as a moderate but decided that her future would be secured by joining the Trumpists. She did and got into the mainstream, which was now subservient to the disgraced 45.”
Two key phrases in this:
“… was elected as a moderate” and “her future would be secured…”
So she snookered the electorate, sold out on whatever “moderate” beliefs she had (which were probably not sincere either but got her elected), and HER FUTURE (not constituents or the Oath she swore on) is all she cares about.
And compared to Ms. Stefanik, Commissioner Rosa studies, takes a stance, and sticks with it – popular stance or not.
Bottom line – vote Stefanik out. She’s +9 in the polls, but stranger things have happened!
The witch from Watertown and her Harvard colleagues in congress prove that a Harvard degree ain’t what it used to be. I’ll take the word and integrity of a Wellesley grad over theirs any time. CUNY alums, too.
Thank you, Alan Singer for extolling the wisdom and adherence to principle that NYS Education Commissioner Rosa personifies, especially in the face of willful ignorance.
A Harvard degree was never what it used to be.
Unless by what it used to be one means “a degree
conferred upon a person based upon how much
money and political influence their family has”and how much money they have given to Harvard
Haaa. Hilarious, SomeDAM
The Harvard Degree
It used to be
A Harvard degree
Was based on a fee
By Harvard decree
But now they claim
That “merit’s the game”
A different name
But really the same
The Harvard elite
Are a crock of sheet
My cousin Ralph’s girl got a good education there. I got a good one at a state school while I milked cows to pay for it. Education is like vaccination: sometimes it takes and sometimes it don’t.
Well, my cousin’s wife’s mother-in-law’s son’s daughter (in law?) got a poor education at Harvard. I once asked her “what’s 2+2?” and she pulled out her phone and asked SIRI.
So that counterbalances your evidence in favor.
There is DEFINITELY something wrong with education at Harvard. He believes that “when parents have more choices and students have more opportunities available to them, our education system…is stronger for it.”
………………………………………………..
Tuesday, March 2, 2021
Senator Mike Braun [R-IN] released the following statement on his vote against Dr. Miguel Cardona as Secretary of Education:
“While building my business in my hometown I served on the local school board for 10 years, and I cannot support Dr. Cardona as Secretary of Education because I believe in school choice, which President Biden has vowed to work against. Competition is the key to innovation, and when parents have more choices and students have more opportunities available to them, our education system and our country is stronger for it.” – Senator Mike Braun
The notion that competition “lifts all boats” is a lie. It may work in for for-profit capitalism, but public education is a public service open to all serving communities and the common good. Some public services do not do better with competition. Unregulated electricity has resulted price fixing and collusion among providers in Texas and elsewhere. It’s a myth in public education, particularly when the money leaves the public schools that are left to serve the neediest, most expensive and most vulnerable. Some services should not be part of a market that always puts profit over people. Braun should realize that Milton Friedman is long dead, and his antiquated, dystopian agenda should die with him as well
Capitalism lifts
allgold boats”Fixed.
Good morning Diane and everyone,
Unfortunately, I live in Stefanik’s district. A few days ago, I got a phone call from her representative who sounded like a young woman. She immediately started out with how Elise needs my help to expand her America First program against the Radical Left (almost exact quote). I politely told her that I guess I could be considered the Radical Left. She said how sorry she was for calling (I’m a registered Democrat so I’m not sure what she was expecting. ) I asked if Elise Stefanik represents me too and she had no answer for that. So, I told her that I guess I have no representation, said goodbye and hung up politely. But this is the way she starts out a conversation with someone who Elise Stefanik is supposed to represent? Sad.
Mamie, encourage everyone you know to vote in November.
Mamie: if you are on the radical left, that speaks volumes about the definition there of.
Speaking of Republicans, religion (Stepanik is not Wiccan, she’s conservative Catholic) and, K-12 education- it appears that Joseph Cuffari, an alleged Trump loyalist who is in the news relative to missing Jan. 6 texts at DHS and the Secret Service has a wife with a profile page at the Alliance for Catholic Education. Her entire career has been in Catholic education with the most current listing, a Catholic virtual school in the Diocese of Arlington.
Harvard may be linked to colonialist thought and action. And, conservative Catholicism appears to have links to an anti-democracy political agenda, that is especially successful in the U.S.
Huffpo reported today about Alito’s speech in Rome at a University of Notre Dame-hosted event. Alito suggested that Boris Johnson’s recent defeat was because he spoke out against the Roe decision. Alito suggested that France’s Macron and Canada’s Trudeau would next face defeat because of their condemnation of the SCOTUS’ Roe decision.
So, one of two things is true. Alito is correct that conservative Catholics (and, possibly evangelicals), in a minimum of 4 major developed nations, allegedly democracies, have the power to dictate who governs. They can achieve their agenda while it is opposed by the majority. Or, Alito has delusions of grandeur about the power of the Catholic Church.
Maybe the Pope should dispense with electoral niceties and just start burning recalcitrant leaders at the stake.
I hear they worked really well in the past.
With Giordano Bruno, for example.
He could just a weekly bonfire in St Peters Square where they roasted a different leader each week.
They could charge admission to raise money for all their pedophile priest related legal bills.
Alito has delusions of grandeur about himself. He thinks it’s splendid to impose his personal moral code on the nation. The majority of the American public disagree with him. Will he overturn the legality of selling contraceptives?
Folks like Alito,are list causes, but if John Roberts has any respect whatsoever for the court, he will resign and let Biden nominate his replacement.
Because 1) Roberts has zero influence over the majority so can’t claim he is a moderating influence
2) Roberts actually votes with the religious majority on most important things
Also what ever happened to the investigation into who leaked the draft decision to overturn Roe?
If Roberts is withholding that to protect his “religious” colleagues, then he has pre isely zero respect for the court, the law or the Constitution.
Poet-
Roberts resigning- the only avenue that would show he has integrity. He won’t do it because he’s not a man of democracy nor integrity.
I won’t rule it out completely, but let’s just say I think it is highly unlikely that he will resign while Biden or any other Democratic President is in office, which basically tells you all you need to know.
And resigning is indeed the only thing that would prove integrity.
What an utter ass he is. He’s been waiting a long, long time for this, his moment of “glory.” He’s reveling in it. What a backward, ignorant pig.
Sorry. Extremely unfair to pigs, that.
Unfair to asses too.
Unless you actually meant “ass udder” and not utter ass
I agree that there is a resemblance to an ass udder.
“To challenge her means you are engaged in a “witch hunt.” Is she a witch?”
That’s exactly the opposite of the meaning of witch hunt. There were no actual witches hunted at Salem or other such events, only innocent victims who were accused by people with an agenda. So by claiming to be the victim of a witch hunt, one is by definition saying one is not a witch.
Note, I am not defending Stepanik, making any claims regarding her religion (I believe Linda is correct that she is Catholic, not Wiccan), nor supporting her claim to be a victim. I’m just pointing out the error of saying that someone is admitting to being a witch if they claim to be the victim of a witch hunt.
That’s exactly the opposite of the meaning of witch hunt. There were no actual witches hunted at Salem or other such events, only innocent victims who were accused by people with an agenda.
Excellent point. And many of them, of course, poor, elderly women living on the margins and dependent on charity.
Dead Witches Tell no Tales
Dead witch tells no tale
Dead witch casts no spell
Dead witch boils no newt
Dead witch can’t refute
cx: parlors
Reblogged this on What's Gneiss for Education and commented:
She isn’t considered a serious person anymore here in upstate NY. That said, without a good candidate to oppose her, she will likely get re-elected.
Stefanik will get re-elected because of the demographics of her constituents. If she faced a Trump-supporting White man who was conservative religious, that would present the only way to surmount her incumbency.
She is definitely something that rhymes with witch & is, by definition, a female dog.