Slashdot Mirror
Conservative Textbook Curriculum Passes Final Vote In Texas
suraj.sun sends in a followup to a story we've been following about the Texas Board of Education's efforts to put a more political spin on some of their state's textbooks. From the Dallas Morning News:
"In a landmark move that will shape the future education of millions of Texas schoolchildren, the State Board of Education on Friday approved new curriculum standards for US history and other social studies courses that reflect a more conservative tone than in the past. Split along party lines, the board delivered a pair of 9-5 votes to adopt the new standards, which will dictate what is taught in all Texas schools and provide the basis for future textbooks and student achievement tests over the next decade. Texas standards often wind up being taught in other states because national publishers typically tailor their materials to Texas, one of the biggest textbook purchasers in the country. Approval came after the GOP-dominated board approved a new curriculum standard that would encourage high school students to question the legal doctrine of church-state separation — a sore point for social conservative groups who disagree with court decisions that have affirmed the doctrine, including the ban on school-sponsored prayer."
Setting aside questions about Texas itself for the moment, I wonder if this will cause other states to go to greater lengths to separate their curriculum from Texas's. The curriculum change got a lot of opposition in Texas, and I can only imagine it would get a far greater amount in many of the other states, especially the more liberal ones.
The conservatives often complain that we spend too much money on education costs. But yet they then want to rewrite all the textbooks to meet their own versions of history. In the end, aren't they just increasing the costs of education, by forcing schools to buy new textbooks that meet the new standards? This seems counter to the "free market", "don't tread on me" idealism that they were pushing not too long ago...
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
"We need to have students compare and contrast this current view of separation of church and state with the actual language in the First Amendment," said McLeroy, who like other social conservatives contends that separation of church and state was established in the law only by activist judges and not by the Constitution or Bill of Rights.
I don't suppose this and statements like "Christian land governed by Christian principles" would provide ammunition for a lawsuit that the State Board of Education is itself guilty of a violation of the separation of church and state? It's not evolution, to be sure, but the motivation sounds, based on these accounts, to be highly suspect.
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
Home schooling. I know someone who home schooled her daughter for a while because the girl had a teacher that was just destroying her self-esteem. The girl thought that she sucked at math (Her mother and father all scored well over 600 on the Math part of their SATs). Anyway, the woman home schooled her kid and got tutors when needed to bring her up to speed - funny, compared to her female classmates at the time, she ended up surpassing them when she went back into the system, which totally surprised the teachers. Usually, home schooled kids fall way behind.
Anyway, she said she would get some lesson plans from catalogs (slim pickings) and the catalog home school companies sold her name and she started getting all this kooky religious home schooling stuff - like teaching creationism and other such non-sense.
I don't know about now, but most of the home school curriculums where "Christian" in nature - read no real science.
So, outside of public schools, there's not many options for a middle class or poorer parent. Besides, how many people have the time and energy to teach their kids grade and high school level material - especially since we've forgot most of it.
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
Dear Texas,
Remember when you wanted independence from Mexico? You went and had that little revolution. Now you brag about how you're the only state to have ever been its own republic, yada, yada.
Tell you what, you can have your independence back. The rest of us never really liked you; we kinda think you're douchebags. So, go raise that Lone Star flag and tattoo "In God We Trust" on all of your children.
Sincerely,
The Rest of Us
----- obSig
The progressive side of the argument says: look at what happens in Kansas. Don't we have a responsibility to protect those children from what their community wants to teach them? Their community is going to render them unemployable and dirt poor.
Maybe the best option is to have all of federal, state and local requirements, and to ensure that teaching to the federal/state standards requires no more than 1/3rd the total time for each.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Not to mention their are parts of Africa that would be favorable to agriculture and could sustain the local and the surrounding populations but there is almost no commercial farming because we dump cheap food stuffs produced here with the aide of heavy economic subsidies. It makes it impossible for the local people to compete. Agriculture is an important component of almost any economy. Our preventing it by dumping food is actually keeping many parts of Africa poor.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
I went to school in Massachusetts. We learned that Nixon got us into Vietnam. I really remember this because I actually called the teacher on it. I also asked about Nixon's economic policies.
My little brother is a Boy Scout, so I've attended some of the ceremonies. One thing that's always struck me is there's usually a period in which the leader of the ceremony says something along the lines of "We now ask that you join us in a moment of silence/prayer (I don't remember which), each in your own way." followed by the moment of silence.
Why couldn't the schools take the same attitude? It's not that acknowledging religion is illegal/unconstitutional, it's that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" (although that, of course, only applies to Congress, not the states).
Sure thing buddy, it was about a culture clash. One culture favored the enslavement of humans based on racial differences and one did not. But really, you must be right, it was a clash of moral equals. Uh huh.
If your post is correct, why did the south secede based on just the expectation that the next president would admit new states into the Union as free states?
"Tea Party supporters are
I apologize. I should have been clearer when I referred to the "public face of the tea party". Obviously, that can be interpreted to mean the caricatures of bigoted, pidgin English bearing sign wielders you see all the time. While such parasites (who hang on to the movement and make a mockery of it) are a huge concern, that was not what I was referring to.
My idea of the "public face of the tea party" is rabid, unintelligent buffoons like Palin, Beck, Bachmann and that breed of blowhards. In other words, the tea party's most prominent leaders. I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of the rank and file of the party is exactly as you describe. It is a pity that the lower echelon nobodies in the GOP have latched onto this (originally) grassroots movement and have completely sacrificed it just to ensure they stay in power.
As long as the loyal cadre of its supporters continue to let it be hijacked by the very few (but very prominent) bigots that are trying to break away from the GOP and build their own little toy power base, the tea party's stated manifesto and philosophy remains meaningless to me. With these clowns (again, referring to their leaders and the candidates they have fielded) in power, it's just business as usual - with a lot more rhetoric and lot less action than we have now.
If the tea party is serious about wanting to break away from dirty politics and truly want change, they have to field a leadership that's better than the incumbents. So far, it's been the exact opposite.
In fact, if their core is as educated and wealthy as you say they are, I am even more baffled at the simians they have chosen as their leaders (and hence their 'public face'). And as we all know, no matter how noble the grassroots supporters, it is their front man in congress or the white house who determines what really happens. As a voter, I will be voting (or not) for the candidates they field and as long as someone like Palin continues to be their poster child for what they stand for, I will be happy to take them at their word and do everything in my power to ensure that they remain an irrelevant minority in the political process.
If they wise up and distance themselves from the prominent assholes that are riding them for their own gain, I will be more than happy to check out their manifesto and even sign on if I find it acceptable. Until then, as a person concerned with consequences more than intentions, any "Contracts from America" are irrelevant. Call it a philosophical boycott if you will. You want the people to listen to you and take you seriously? Then top acting like battered spouses and develop at least a modicum of control within your own party - above all, don't let the old school leaders dominate the new one. Exercise some control over who your leaders are instead of just surrendering your leadership to the first media blowhard or failed politician that comes your way. Use the Ron Pauls - tell the Palins and Bachmanns to GTFO.
It is starting to look as if this might actually happen so I'm [very cautiously] hopeful [for example, THIS and THAT]. Perhaps Rand Paul's victory may signal a shift that the idiots are no longer welcome in the Tea Party, and wouldn't that be awesome?
My point is that you can color a view of history not by lying, but simply by what you concentrate on. That is, there's more beyond the facts themselves that can color perspective. Case in point: the overly-patriotic nonsense they teach in schools to begin with.
Most of what the Texas changes propose aren't false on their face, but there's an obvious agenda present and it's questionable how it's likely to be presented. The problem with complaining about the Texas changes specifically is that we currently already have a very colored account of what history is being presented right now in the schools--and it's neither left or right, but it's wholly biased and often factually incorrect.
If you read my post, I was merely talking about a college course I had, where the professor concentrated on stuff related to his own personal politics. That's my point. Bias is more than just what you say is and isn't true; it's what you choose to present.
You will grow old and feeble waiting. Progressives don't operate in the fact based world, they FEEL.
Strange - because my definition of a "progressive" includes people with adherence to scientific principles (which are observed) rather than religious principles (which are definitely felt) as is common among conservatives. This leads progressives to solutions that actually work, such as distributing birth control to minors (which demonstrably reduces the teen pregnancy rate) rather than teaching ideological principles such as abstinence (which demonstrably raises the teen pregnancy rate) with little success.
This is part of a pattern where they 'KNOW' (read feel) the AZ immigration law is racist without needing to read it.
I don't know about racist, but if you were in Arizona and were looking for an illegal immigrant, what color which he/she be? 'Cause you never know when them Canadians might bust the fence! And for that matter, you paint the broad brush of "not reading the law" to imply a negligent position on the part of opponents when many of those who voted on it never read it. You have to read any and all laws you wish to criticize?
Should you have to read laws you support, too? How many people support the Bible but haven't read it?
Which is why they feel the Internet must be brought under government control because, with no facts to back it, they just 'know' evil reactionary forces are working to control it.
This is called the "straw man argument" - you paint a picture of what your opposition is (apparently, you are anti-progressive, though you don't actually state position of your own) and then destroy that fallacious image. As far as I know, it's the progressives that are backing "network neutrality", which is all about keeping the Internet free for all people who wish to provide content thereupon.
You may do well to learn more about what you are posting about rather than blindly accept your talking points from an angry, overweight talk show host.
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
According to Robert McNamara (Secretary of Defense for both JF Kennedy and Johnson) in the documentary 'The Fog of War', Kennedy wanted to bring any and all American troops in Vietnam in 1963 back home. He was having McNamara figure out how to exit Vietnam. Then when Johnson came to office after the assassination of Kennedy, and against the advice of McNamara, he began escalating America's involvement in Vietnam. Nixon began the reduction and eventual exit. Of interest is an interview with Nixon done at least a decade after he left office. They asked him if he had any regrets about the war. He said only one: that he stopped the bombing (apparently the bombing was so effective the North Vietnamese were on the verge of surrendering when it was stopped... so they didn't have to surrender).
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
Are you saying Germans are slaves?
A lot of Americans would love to have German working conditions, time off, vacation, pensions, etc etc.
I love people who talk about "European Socialism is Slavery" and then point to places like Germany or Sweden or Belgium.
You are welcome on my lawn.