Latest wedge in education
Leadership, not hyperbole
Regarding “Incumbents Outpaced by Challengers in CFISD Board Election,” (Nov. 2): I am grateful for Cypress-Fairbanks ISD’s exceptional educational and extracurricular experiences. I have always trusted them to have the best intentions, even when I fiercely disagreed with their decisions. I appreciated trustees’ commitment to nonpartisan service to public education.
I cannot say the same for the new trustees, and I am terrified of the damage they will cause.
Most concerning is their rhetoric. They campaigned on divisive, hyperbolic propaganda that paints public education as liberal indoctrination and educators as public enemy No. 1. Public education is necessarily nonpartisan, yet they have turned it into a partisan circus that has already alienated a significant portion of the community and will undeniably harm our students.
They promised their base to prioritize parents as the primary stakeholders in public education. Those people, those beliefs and that propaganda got them elected, no doubt. But now they must serve the entire CFISD community. Their religious and political beliefs are irrelevant in the context of their trustee duties.
In our community are parents like me who vehemently oppose their rhetoric on the basis that it is regressive, outside the bounds of public education and harmful to students. And as the primary stakeholders in public education, we intend to pay very close attention, to speak up and to hold them fully accountable.
Tara L. Cummings, Cypress
It’s more than CRT
Regarding “Critical race theory claims follow new superintendent to Clear Creek ISD, prompt calls for resignation,” (Dec. 10): I’m disappointed. The Chronicle is jumping on the CRT” bandwagon purely for the sake of headlines, leaving readers uninformed and bolstering meaningless conservative talking points. I’m not Eric Williams’ No. 1 fan and have been let down by his lack of leadership in the pandemic, cowing to a noisy minority of anti-science COVID-19 deniers, but this article played up the drama of critical race theory while failing to inform the public of so much — namely that CRT has become a red flag for white nationalists to protest teaching whole history to our kids.
CRT isn’t taught in schools, but claiming it is helps silence minority voices.
Last year my second-grader was online and I was thrilled at some of the history she learned. My kids are Mayflower descendants, and I teach them all about that, but I also want them to know the horrible way we treated the native people — a fact that has long been ignored. Through BrainPop she learned the full history in a child-appropriate way.
But this year CCISD has gotten rid of BrainPop, the program kids loved using to learn science and social studies, because some parent fussed about the content.
Why do my kids have to lose out on valuable learning resources like BrainPop and library access because some conservative snowflake can’t handle the truth?
Andrea Miller, Houston
It has been interesting but depressing to watch the recent creation of a brand new wedge issue: critical race theory. This “issue” was built purely upon ignorance, fear and more than just a bit of racism.
I would bet a dollar to a doughnut that those raising a stink over this actual nonissue consider themselves to be conservatives (whatever that means) and vote uniformly Republican. I would also bet that they believe CRT is a liberal program designed to “indoctrinate” their kids.
Nonsense piled upon nonsense piled upon nonsense.
CRT is not even taught in Clear Creek schools, or any other public school in Texas — which is not to say it shouldn't be. Texas’ Republican control stretches from a vast majority of local school boards, the Texas Board of Education, the Texas House, the Texas Senate, every statewide elected position including the governor. This ironclad control has existed now for decades. The idea that sneaky liberals somehow infiltrated this bulwark of party unity to mess with the minds of children is beyond ludicrous.
Tanner Garth, Houston
Leave abortion to the states
Regarding “Editorial: Threat of Supreme Court ruling on Texas law goes beyond abortion,” (Dec.13): The editorial stating “the court’s decision … could overturn what was once considered settled law on abortion rights in this country” is a gross misrepresentation. Support and opposition to Roe v. Wade have been generally evenly divided. If it were settled law, it wouldn't be a matter of controversy and debate more than 50 years later. Age does not confer constitutionality, e.g., Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson. From the beginning, constitutional scholars, including some who agree with the outcome of Roe v. Wade, have questioned the reasoning asserted to support the holding. Even the sainted Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg questioned the wisdom of the decision. The Constitution does not address the question of abortion, and the court should act to return the subject of abortion law to the states.
Robert W. Ellis, Houston