Connect with us

education

CA district used 20k of taxpayer funds for “woke” training and education

Published

on

Screen Shot 2020 07 24 at 4.10.33 PM

How much would you pay to give kindergarteners a “woke” education? Like it or not, California taxpayers do not have a choice and are directly paying for children to receive “anti-racist” and “anti-bias” training.

California’s Glassbrook Elementary School is paying an insane $20,000 for “woke kindergarten” consultants to lead the training.

The founder of Woke Kindergarten, Akiea “Ki” Gross, identifies as they/them according to Woke Kindergarten’s website, and is described as “an abolitionist early educator, cultural organizer and creator currently innovating ways to resist, heal, liberate and create with their pedagogy, Woke Kindergarten.”

According to the proposal, Woke Kindergarten partnered with Glassbrook Elementary during the 2021-2022 school year “to facilitate four workshops and support staff in creating and implementing healing-centered, early childhood & elementary tools and frameworks to support teachers in supporting children’s holistic needs in the classroom.”

The website boasts “woke wonderings,” about the consequences of abolishing money, defunding the police and the military, eradicating borders, and challenging the legitimacy of the Supreme Court.

Fox News reports:

Woke Kindergarten’s homepage calls the organization a “global, abolitionist early childhood ecosystem,” and says it is “supporting children, families, educators and organizations in their commitment to abolitionist early education and pro-black and queer and trans liberation.” 

According to the contractor agreement, Woke Kindergarten was hired for “thematic unit planning and coaching,” and the financial impact statement describes the purpose of the training is to “continue … anti-racist, anti-bias training and connect to building thematic units along with coaching.”

The scope of the contract also includes using Woke Kindergarten’s resources to “disrupt whiteness, white dominant/settler colonial narratives and anti-Blackness in the Glassbrook [Elementary School] community.”

 

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

education

Harvard Reinstates Standardized Testing Requirement for Admissions

Published

on

GettyImages 1268848905 scaled

Harvard University announcement it will reverse its test-optional policy and reinstate standardized testing as a requirement for admission. The move has stirred a contentious debate within the academic community. Effective for applicants seeking entry in the fall of 2025, Harvard College will mandate the submission of either SAT or ACT scores, with limited exceptions for circumstances hindering access to these exams.

Hoekstra contends that standardized tests provide crucial predictive insights into a student’s potential for success in higher education and beyond. By reinstating the testing requirement, Harvard seeks to gather more comprehensive data, particularly beneficial for identifying talent across diverse socioeconomic backgrounds.

Proponents of the move, like Harvard Kennedy School’s political economy professor David J. Deming, emphasize the universality of standardized tests, arguing that they offer a level playing field for all applicants. Deming underscores the accessibility of these tests compared to other metrics like personal essays, which may favor privileged students with greater resources.

However, the decision has sparked criticism from those who argue that standardized tests perpetuate inequities in admissions. Critics point to studies, such as those conducted by Harvard economists Raj Chetty and others, which highlight disparities in access to advanced courses and extracurricular opportunities among students from disadvantaged backgrounds.

The controversy surrounding Harvard’s policy shift reflects broader concerns within higher education about equity, diversity, and inclusion. While standardized testing may offer a standardized measure of academic aptitude, it also raises questions about its ability to accurately assess a student’s potential in light of systemic educational disparities.

Continue Reading

Trending