In a Philadelphia elementary school, teachers are putting a premium on radicalism, not reading.

Yes, unless you can convince me otherwise.

 

No, that's the new crap--the paint on the surface, not the core content. I'm talking about teaching methods and strategies that use multiple strategies and recognize that not all students learn the same way.

 

I didn't say anything was fake. I said he's presenting stuff he knows little about. His "evidence" is random and and doesn't prove his claims. I'm saying he can't tie it all together to make a case for much more than misinformation. I believe it's a deliberate attempt to push disruptive politics, and like all good propaganda, it's based on truth but arranged in a way that leads us to draw certain erroneous conclusions like the idea that the workshop wants teachers to not be concerned with wrong answers.

 

It's likely that there was a lesson that included learning about Angela Davis. That's about as far as I'm going with the idea of truth in this matter.

I'm not going to say there wasn't one, but neither of us really knows because we weren't there. Just like we don't know anything specific because the source does not provide anything to support the objectives of the lesson. In fact, Rufo shows he has no actual proof because he writes the students learned about Davis "presumably in favorable terms."

 

Likely because it's not an either/or thing. We were not there and in all honesty are only taking someone else's word that it happened as suggested. I will assume that there was a lesson about Davis; however, I can't logically assume what Rufo is saying is the factual truth. As I've said before, he presents no evidence to prove his claim. The best he can do is 'presume'.