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."

6 of 895 comments (clear)

  1. How will other states react? by Nakor+BlueRider · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  2. Isn't this just increasing the cost of education? by damn_registrars · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
  3. Can this be legally challenged? by starseeker · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "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
    1. Re:Can this be legally challenged? by NonSequor · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It is entirely up to interpretation if allowing prayer in schools constitutes an "establishment of religion"...

      Likewise your statement is open to interpretation. You probably meant "is" in a way that means "is not". Since it would be impossible to look at all the context surrounding your writing or research your ideas further we'll have to teach people to be skeptical of the meaning of your comment.

      If you look at all the historical context, you'll see that issues which are controversial today were controversial at the founding of this country as well. Some states which sent delegates to the Constitutional Congress have constitutions still have text forbidding atheists from holding office.

      Both sides are guilty of cherrypicking. The founding father's never really agreed on anything. The real wisdom they had was in recognizing that if you have two sides debating over something that are unwilling to give in on an issue, then you need to work out some sort of compromise between the two. What we're trying to do now, arguing over who is "right", with the implication that whoever is "right" has carte blanche to shape the country to their liking, is unworkable.

      --
      My only political goal is to see to it that no political party achieves its goals.
  4. Re:Time to stop relying on Texas... by DarkOx · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
  5. Re:Time to stop relying on Texas... by N1EY · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.