This Social Media Exchange Helps Explain How DEI Gets Into Public Classrooms

I recently came across this post on social media and stopped. I agreed with the notion and started to look down through the comments to see what was being said about it.

Quickly, I came across this comment:

This comment made me feel the need to respond because of the use of her language, “bringing students into the conversation”, “using diverse methods”, “approaching students” – all which are progressive education buzzphrases – so I responded:

I continued, hoping that she would understand what I was trying to say. She wasn’t ugly, she was – probably like me – trying to reach a point of understanding between us.

I wish I hadn’t been so terse in my response, but it’s somewhat shocking – even now – to see someone who so clearly wants to be helpful and so clearly believes she is doing the right thing, when in fact nearly her entire outlook is based on a completely flawed premise – that somehow teachers can overcome family and other outside influences (Tik Tok anyone?) by treating their students differently based on a concept that doesn’t exist in reality (equity). She responded one last time:

As did I:

Looking back on this conversation reminds me of one of the reasons I quit teaching; I saw these ideals bubbling up through continuing education courses and I knew I was never going to be able to assimilate them into my classroom. I couldn’t.

I have ALWAYS believed in the power of the INDIVIDUAL to succeed – or fail – depending upon how much effort that INDIVIDUAL put in. Now, is every kid primed to take up the gauntlet of self-individuation and put their head down with a plan? No. Too many other factors – especially a bad home environment – can put a chip on the shoulder of a kid that may never come off. That doesn’t mean that teachers in public school classrooms are to deal with that chip – even if a kid isn’t learning. Teachers can only do what they can do WHILE INSTRUCTING KIDS IN THE NECESSARY TOOLS OF LEARNING; reading, writing and math.

The particular theory this young teacher espouses asserts that teachers should become the parents of the children – because, obviously, the parents are not doing their jobs if kids are coming to school scared and weak and timid. Sadly, it’s true for many children today. Many parents use school as a babysitter and could care less what their kids are doing in a day to actually recieve an education, but that doesn’t mean it’s THE JOB OF THE TEACHER TO RECTIFY THE POOR UPBRINGING OF THEIR STUDENTS. In fact, most of the time, it’s either a psychologist, or the school of hard knocks that changes students with downward trajectories – if they do – some, sadly, go to prison or wind up dead. Still and all, the lifetrack of a child is not the responsibility of the teacher. The education of that student is – alone – the job of the teacher.

Teachers are not to become the parents of poorly-performing students, they are to work harder to bring parents into the equation (or remove the child from school if the child is disrupting others and the parents won’t help control the child) to help the child, not take on the troubles of the child themselves. In fact, it’s this kind of progressive ‘theology’ that leads to classrooms where feelings and psychological concepts take center stage, NOT INSTRUCTION IN READING, WRITING and MATH. I believe it’s easy to see how wrong-headed this model of ‘education’ is and how it’s RUINING children just by looking at Oklahoma’s test scores. And if you don’t believe me, check out this video for an enormous wake-up call.