… Read the reference materials and laws they provided.
The article explicitly linked source materials.
No where is there a team that aspires to neutrality in order to focus on science and progression instead of religion and corporate cock sucking.
First and last link won’t open for me, but the middle two don’t seem to have anything about religion or “corporate cock sucking”. The guidelines are all very vague.
And honestly, you can’t effectively teach someone philosophy or critical thinking beyond what the cited librarian is doing (tell people to be skeptical, check sources and whatnot).
It could go wrong but I don’t really see anything that suggests it likely going wrong.
Douglas Achterman’s 2008 doctoral disser-
tation on student achievement in California,
titled “Haves, Halves and Have-Nots: School
Libraries and Student Achievement,
” found
that the greater the number of library services
offered, the higher students’ scores tended
to be. “On the U.S. History test, the library
program is a better predictor of scores than
both school variables and community vari-
ables, including parent education, poverty,
ethnicity, and percentage of English language
learners.”1
We’re like, barely getting into the first link you post where it identifies exactly how they want to increase media literacy, with studies that confirm.
… Read the reference materials and laws they provided. The article explicitly linked source materials. No where is there a team that aspires to neutrality in order to focus on science and progression instead of religion and corporate cock sucking.
https://www.cde.ca.gov/be/st/ss/documents/librarystandards.pdf
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billStatusClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB1054
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB1251
https://www.cde.ca.gov/Ci/cr/ml/index.asp
‘Media literacy’ without critical thinking or philosophy courses is exceptionally contrary to the point of literacy.
First and last link won’t open for me, but the middle two don’t seem to have anything about religion or “corporate cock sucking”. The guidelines are all very vague.
And honestly, you can’t effectively teach someone philosophy or critical thinking beyond what the cited librarian is doing (tell people to be skeptical, check sources and whatnot).
It could go wrong but I don’t really see anything that suggests it likely going wrong.
No you can teach them the incredibly valuable habit of not assuming random publications are facts
I don’t understand how you can look down on that it’s like the modern day equivalent of learning to read and write
We’re like, barely getting into the first link you post where it identifies exactly how they want to increase media literacy, with studies that confirm.
2023 folks. Give books, apparently controversial.