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."
We either need the DOE to take control of this kind of thing, or we need the other states to be willing to go through this process for themselves.
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
Welcome to the new American Taliban.
Finally they are no longer pretending to be like the rest of us.
Still fighting the American Civil War in 2010.
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.
God, these are idiots.
Idiots? Why are you being so polite to those dunderheaded inbred fucking morons?
This ain't rocket surgery.
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.
Those who control the present, control the past. Those who control the past, control the future.
You can't handle the truth.
...You can always home-school or send your child to a private school.
Get your outdated, bigoted stereotypes right. "Inbred" is reserved for Appalachian hillbillies and such, not Texans. I suppose ignorance is an excuse, but then ignorance and bigotry go together like peanut butter and jelly.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
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.
While there are numerous problems with the curriculum, isn't teaching students to be skeptical of government a good thing? If you blindly follow what the government says, democracy in a free society falls apart.
A free thinking individual should be skeptical of all things the government has done, question the motives for various laws and if they believe they are unjust, vote against them or otherwise try to get them repealed.
There are some good examples in this particular case. It just comes down to interpretation.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Is the actual text, it says nowhere about "separation of church and state" it comes down to interpretation if school prayer is a violation of establishing a national religion.
Really, out of all the things wrong in the Texas curriculum why does TFS point out something that could very well be a benefit. Teaching students to question government.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Oi! I'm a goddamn piece of shit cum-stain on humanity, I would regress us back into the dark ages with a selfish, head-up-haemorrhoid-filled-arse mentality and I object to being compared to the Texas Board of Education.
Why are you being so nice to these almost as bad as progressive liberals?
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
"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
Are you referring to /. posters who are making knee-jerk hostile comments without having any idea what changes were actually made to the curriculum? Yes they are.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
Very good point.
If you believe that text books anywhere are unbiased you've got mental blinders on the size of Texas.
The question people should be asking is, "Why should I turn my children over to a government school in the first place?"
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...
While what is going in Texas is absolutely disgusting, it will not increases costs. Textbooks are bought (adopted) on a cycle. I don't know how it is Texas but every 7 years new textbooks are purchased to replace all the current textbooks that are at a school.
What this does basically, is limit what textbook choices a district can consider when purchasing for a new adoption. It will not force districts to have to replace their current books until the district's/school's next adoption period.
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
Speaking as a generally liberal person, I'd have to agree with this. While I believe there should continue to be a strong separation of church and state, I don't think see anything at all wrong with students being encouraged to examine the question of whether or not there should be. After all, the whole point of a "liberal" education (in the classical sense) is to encourage dogma-free thinking (including the freedom to examine the pros and cons of dogma-free thinking).
Listen to what I say, not what I mean...
I've wondered about this for a while now - couldn't universities ban together and commit some resources (a small contribution from a large number of schools) to create a K-12 series of texts on major subjects, that is designed by the best available experts and freely available for all districts to use? Creative Commons licensing (oddly enough, CC has a link right now to Virginia's Department of Education and some work they are doing) and (insofar as is humanly possible) a focus on just the facts of history and their documentable consequences. To enforce some objective standard of what constitutes a fact, require documented citations to primary historical sources for all parts of the book asserting facts - preferably citations with links to the source material. The final form of the textbook delivered to students wouldn't necessarily include those references, but they would be present online and mandatory for anything that reached the "final" version. Let the broader college professor community decide on the acceptability of/validity of any particular cited source.
Not only would this provide a mechanism for creation and distribution of textbooks that wouldn't be easily influenced by political agendas (tenured professors are about as pressure-proof as we're likely to get and still have sufficient domain knowledge to do useful work) but it would make good quality teaching materials universally and cheaply available. If school districts didn't have to pony up so much money for textbooks, what else could they do with the money?
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
I'm not going to create an account just for this, but there are a few points to make.
First, this isn't really 'technology' or even 'science' news. This is at this point political news and it seems many slashdot posters are simply taking a liberal/bi-coastal position against the conservative (sometime evangelical christian) position in many other states. This could be discussed on any number of sites; slashdot isn't really the best place for another offshoot of this typical argument.
Second, most of slashdot rails against central control, jack-booted thuggery of the RIAA or national censorship. However, when a community or state exercises its power to mandate community values which conflict with the particular person on slashdot, all that speech about freedom goes right out the window. Centralization to a DOE, mandated this and that, imposing morals on everyone - hypocrisy is exposed.
Examine yourselves.
If you believe that text books anywhere are unbiased you've got mental blinders on the size of Texas.
And I suppose that makes striving for the least bias possible somehow less noble.
"What we have is the history profession, the experts, seem to have a left-wing tilt, so what we were doing is trying to restore some balance to the standards," board member Don McLeroy said in March.
In other words: "Despite being a two-bit politician on a school board, I'm going to ignore what even I call the experts' views and bend curriculum to support my political whims because I am a fucking retard."
This is nothing short of an attempt to implement thought control in the US by selective control of information to brainwash the next generation. These are the very people who worship McCarthy and vilify "godless communism", and they're engaging in the very same practices they condemn. Their hypocrisy never ceases to amaze me.
In Japan, school children learn about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but aren't told about the Nanking Massacre, Pearl Harbor, or the Bataan death march. As a result, when they talk to outsiders about WWII they have a very warped view of what happened and why it happened that way. We all need to know as much of the truth about history as is possible, whether we like it or not, or we're going to tackle the future from a very warped and distorted viewpoint. Good decision making is based on knowing the facts, including the context, not on wishful thinking about the way the world ought to be.
The question people should be asking is, "Why should I turn my children over to a government school in the first place?"
You don't have to. You are free to send your children to a private school if you prefer. Nobody is forcing you to send your child to a public school; you are just required to send your child to a school.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
This is not political disagreement. This is a backlash to an attempt of a small group of vocal minority to slowly rewrite history. In another generation or two, children will be taught the civil rights act is an unfortunate and unnecessary federal encroachment on state right, that the free market would have right all wrongs, that Christianity is an inseparable element of government because all the founding fathers are Christians, the evolution is just one of hundreds of remote possibilities of explaining the way lifeforms are on Earth and every theory is just as valid and plausible, that human rights are relative and flexible according to the situation and not a firm belief that we should uphold.
It is not a different opinion. It is subversion of facts. The manifestation of the 'truthiness' movement the conservative has been advocating to bend reality to their satisfaction. And you thought only Steve Jobs have a RDF. LOL
And it is not prejudices, because these are all facts that we know. There can be no prejudices when there are no judgment involved.
So by your definition, it is not bigotry.
The really sad part is that children are victims in all of this.
... a sign of some elements of Texas pushing harder for secession from the rest of the country? If so, I say bring it on...
Better yet, let's just sell Tejas back to Mexico before they have the chance to secede. Not only would that that solve the Texas Problem, it would bring some money into the Federal treasury.
This ain't rocket surgery.
"And the good Lord said "Magic everywhere in this bitch," and there was. Thus was the United States bestowed upon us, the virtuous defenders of democracy." -From Houghton Mifflin's upcoming 'God, Country, and YOU' textbook series.
become a dirty word?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
... a sign of some elements of Texas pushing harder for secession from the rest of the country? If so, I say bring it on...
Better yet, let's just sell Tejas back to Mexico before they have the chance to secede. Not only would that that solve the Texas Problem, it would bring some money into the Federal treasury.
I think that is based on the assumption that Mexico would want Texas. I suspect Mexico has enough problems of its own and would not be interested in the deal. Besides, if we sold Texas to Mexico, then angry anti-Mexico Texans might try to immigrate into the US.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
I always assumed inbred was reserved for the inbred, e.g. people who marry their cousins and have lots of genetic defects as a result, like Texans.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
They don't sound so "conservative" to me. Lies are conservative?
Environmentalism=conservation, "conservatives"=anti-environmentalism.
Constitution: separation of church and state (what could be more conservative than the basis of all US law?). "Conservatives": church in state=sponsored schools.
The list goes on. The only thing they want to conserve is the rich's wealth. "Antiprogress" is a better label than "conservative".
These "conservatives" are anti-American.
Free Martian Whores!
First, this isn't really 'technology' or even 'science' news. This is at this point political news
Wow. That explais why it's in the "politics" section! I'd been trying to figure that out. Thanks. One question though: why would you think it had anything to do with science or technology?
You're assuming those are the same conservatives. In fact, you're almost certainly addressing two almost entirely different factions within the movement, the economic and social conservatives. They have only the thinnest of threads in common, but are allied because they would lose every election if they competed for votes.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
social conservatism is all about a simplistic model of human behavior: teenagers, just don't have sex, homosexuals, just stop being homosexual, just say no to drugs, etc.
ironically, social conservatives always wind up breaking their own principles. just examine the folly of anti-homosexual activists found in homosexual situations form throughout history, especially recent, for examples. and you can bet the daughters of politicians who rail against abortion are secretly flown to canada when a "problem" happens
social conservatism is always "do as i say, not as i do". and there isn't really any malice in their simple-mindedness. most of them sincerely believe their own dunderheaded takes on human nature, and then wind up paying the price for their simpleminded edicts on human behavior
human nature is complex, and when forced into simplistic models, you just wind up causing more suffering than you are attempting to stop. this isn't an attempt to excuse lack of responsibility or criminal activity, its a simple obvious statement that the real world is more complex than very simpleminded teachings
social conservatives are not evil, they're just stupid
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I think that is based on the assumption that Mexico would want Texas. I suspect Mexico has enough problems of its own and would not be interested in the deal.
A very good point. I was thinking that Mexico would like to have a new, northern state (they could call it Baja Oklahoma) but it might be more of a drain on their resources than a boon.
Besides, if we sold Texas to Mexico, then angry anti-Mexico Texans might try to immigrate into the US.
But the irony of that alone would almost be worth it.
This ain't rocket surgery.
Regardless of what decisions they make, does it bother anyone else that a board or 15 people apparently decides the curriculum for the whole country? Seems like that would be the first thing to fix.
"Why should I turn my children over to a government school in the first place?"
Because most people can't afford private schools. How could you not understand that? Born with a silver spoon in your mouth?
Free Martian Whores!
Why just Texas? All states East of New Mexico and South of Maryland should secede from the union and become the Confederacy of Dumbfuckistan. And this time, the North'll simply wave "bye-bye" instead of wage civil war.
"let's just sell Tejas back to Mexico"
what would happen to TexMex food then? Would it disappear and then everyone would be less fat?
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
You couldn't possibly be more wrong about me.
Private schools are not the right answer either. The entire premise of "school" need to be reexamined.
Texans don't read their schoolbooks, they just keep them in big "depositories" hidden away on upper floors of buildings.
From what I've heard (I do not live in the USA), everything is bigger in Texas... including the people. That trek up the stairs is just too much work, I guess.
Firstly, I would queston your definition of a bigot. But let's go with it for a second. The reason most folks replying to this development don't qualify as bigots is that irrationality, required in your definition, is not part of thier arguments. The fact is, the Texas school board is teaching a revisionist history that is out of touch with the facts. The founding fathers really did intend a strong seperation of church and state. Ever read the Consitituion? It's in there in the statement that there will be no religious qualificacion for any federal office, which to them included congressional reps, as well as in the first ammendment which prohibited any law respection an establishment of religion. Pretty strong stuff. Further, renaming the slave trade the "Atlantic triangle trade" belies the point that the Southern economy, of which Texas was a part, prior to the Civil War was all about slaves and cotton, the latter not being nearly as profitable without the former. It's interesting that the new Texas standards require comparing Jeff Davis's inaugural with Lincoln's. They should compare the US Constitution with the Confederate Constitution (easily available on the web). The later is almost identical to the former except that the CSA Constitution enshrines slavery such that it may never be challenged. And of course, in my opinion, the Southern states, Texas included, forever gave away any claims the protection of thier "cherished institutions" on the basis of "States Rights" with the Dred Scott decision of 1856 in which they tried to cram slavery down the throats of all the Northern states in spite of any of their anti-slavery laws by saying that Southern Slavery could be enforced in the North because "...no negro had any rights that a white man was bound to respect." So, yes, folks who criticize the Texas school board's new standards on the basis that they are dishonest with the history of the country are not bigots by your definition because they are not irrational, a description that applies much more aptly to those on the Texas School Board who pushed these new standards through.
What you call 'bigotry', (ie. the harsh animosity towards people who are plainly illustrating how they are going to lie to our children and strip history of truth and lessons in order to fit a terribly mislead political agenda) can hardly be viewed as entirely unjustified.
This is not a difference of opinion. This is an angry outlash at those who would take their obstinate or intolerant devotion to his or her own opinions and prejudices, look at it and say "Hm...well, I could just poison my OWN children with these lies, but I think I am going to have laws pushed through that can spread the deception to every single child in the state."
Setting up situations where your academic record has the potential to be coloured by your belief in a god is disgusting. It deserves to be railed with the foulest language available. It's the same thing as teaching creationism in science class. You're lying because it's not science, it's hocus pocus. If you want to believe in giants at the top of beanstalks or whatever, fine. Live your fantasy. But you can't take your made up lah-dee-dahs and force the general public to believe them through indoctrination.
Really, we don't need to worry. See, parents will teach their kids the importance of separation of Church and State. The parents will teach their kids the use of skepticism and logical thinking.
Wait. Oh... no. Yeah, we're fucked.
I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
The number of jobs where an education in U.S. History is a prerequisite are few. History teachers, state department or government in general... missing any? The number of those that would depend on the curriculum in question versus a college course in the same are even fewer.
We should be adding a year of our nation's history each year to what is taught. To manage that and obtain a balanced amount of history from each decade requires that some earlier history be pushed to the rubbish bin. That isn't to say it wasn't important or that our views on it are irrelevant. There are only so many teaching hours available. Thanks to the increased load of test taking to satisify adequate yearly progress mandates from the federal and state governments these hours are becoming fewer each year. You may not like the selections that were cut out. You may not like the old points that were emphasized again. It really doesn't matter.
If you have a good history teacher they won't teach to the textbook anyway. They will attempt to bring the portions of history they are particularly enchanted with alive and slog through the parts they don't care as much about. That will continue to be true regardless of the contents of the textbook or the state you live in. If your teachers don't do this, then get some new teachers.
To proclaim the proximate end of education in America because Texas chose to get a touch more conservative in the history textbooks it buys as some have is ridiculous. To not hire anyone from Texas because during their public school education their textbooks were more conservative is even worse.
No, it would just be called "Mex-Mex."
This ain't rocket surgery.
http://www.facebook.com/votejudyjennings
This is not "Conservative"! Using "Conservative" to describe this is like using "Hacker" to describe script kiddies, or "Canadian Goose" to instead of "Canada Goose". It's popular, but it's still wrong!
Conservative means a limited government with limited power to interfere in the lives of individual citizens; That is, the government has no jurisdiction over (and therefore cannot interfere in) gay marriage, abortion, individual educational materials, etc. These "Conservatives" want a large oppressive government to force their social and religious agendas on the citizenry; That is not conservative! It's the opposite! Stop calling it that!
Obligatory map
These Texas Conserva-tards have fiscal conservatism taking a back seat to social and religious conservatism.
The civil war was about slavery. Viewed from the perspective of 2010, it was good (abolitionist) vs. evil (slavery). Why, then, do outspoken Christians seem to always be stretching to push the confederacy as a just cause? Jesus preached 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you'. Doesn't that golden rule clearly lay down an opposition to slavery?
Reducing the role of Thomas Jefferson? Why? He's one of my favorite founding father. The person who writes so eloquently about freedom and dares to question the validity of God by cutting and pasting his own version of the bible. Yet, he still chooses to keep slave and may have even father children with slaves. To me, Thomas Jefferson personifies the constant struggle we all have between liberty and financial reality.
Our society is best served when we base our laws and actions on our collective logic and reason. What ever flaws DOE or any other government bureaucracy has is infinitely better than having our laws decided base on a illogical text supposedly written by God but in reality is written by men masquerading as God. The social conservative can't win their arguments base on science or logic so now they are trying to subvert our nation with politics staring with our children. I am ashamed to be a registered Republican. Damn, when they said small fiscally responsible government I didn't know the plan was to save money by moving city hall to the local christian churches and hand everyone a bible as an all purpose first aid kit, universal text book, and life's decision maker. . . . .
Just because /. posters "are making knee-jerk hostile comments without having any idea what changes were actually made to the curriculum" doesn't always mean they're wrong. Even a blind pig finds an acorn once in awhile.
Current view? If by 'current' he means 'over the last 200+ years'. In an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, Thomas Jefferson, then president, declared that the American people through the First Amendment had erected a "wall of separation between church and state." Doesn't sound very 'current' to me.
TPJ - Founder, The Amazon Basin
"There is a huge difference in the state of Texas spending their own money to educate their children with a curriculum they choose and the United States government taxing every tax paying American to educate all children with a one sided, politically correct/motivated curriculum."
Yes. The difference is that the former has happened and the latter has not.
It's a very clever scheme in which they're trying to lower the cost of education in the long run. High quality textbooks cost more money than low quality textbooks. Dumb people don't need no high quality textbooks. And yes, I know that's a double negative.
Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
The entire education system in U.S. has a very left bias. Our kids are being indoctrinated, not taught. This is good because these textbooks return facts to the books. The left wing bias of most posters here is disconcerting. You all post as if your minority view is the correct one. America is a Center-Right Country. Always has been. Our kids need to be taught facts, not leftist ideology and indoctrinated with lies and bias. So, any movement to put facts into textbooks is a good one.
Read radical news here
Don't worry. Some Conservative Texans will continue to complain. Logic or facts have nothing to do with it.
... you are just required to send your child to a school and you might not be able to afford a private school.
FTFY.
Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
These changes won't seem dangerous, to anyone who believes them.
It won't seem strange to a UFO believer if the school curriculum started to include advice on how to deal with abductions.
A child love advocate wouldn't find it strange for lessons to be given in how to blow the teacher.
It all depends on how you view the world.
What seems clear is that the new system seems to want to rewrite history, this is not without precedent. A certain german did pretty much the same thing. What was his name again?
Now the truth of the matter is that any approach to any subject will most likely be biased:
10. A new addition to world history: "Explain how Arab rejection of the State of Israel has led to ongoing conflict." Now that's not at all a loaded statement, is it?
This must be the ultimate example, how exactly would you instead introduce this subject without it showing your own bias to this subject?
The sentence itself is true, it was the will of the internation community that Israel would be founded, the territory belonged to the UK and the UK agreed to this. The arab world sought to defy the will of the UN and this has led to the conflict. But there is far more going on in the background. First of all, the UN members had their own reason to found Israel. The US as a bastion against communism, the USSR as a bastion against capitalism (yes really).
Take the insistence by some that the area be called Palestine. A loaded thing in itself, since we are dealing with ancient history for a region that has had many names. Why pick that one? Why pick the name chosen by the romans to remove the original name of Judea after the Jewish revolt? Odd that the occupied terroritories are using the name of an occupier?
And it don't really matter what you think yourself on the subject, just trying to show how insanely complex a unbiased answer is.
If there is current bias in the school books, then the answer is to neatralize that bias, not to slam it in the other direction.
And I really don't think that a nation who thinks that healthcare means death camps needs anymore right-wing bias do you?
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
If you believe that text books anywhere are unbiased you've got mental blinders on the size of Alaska
FTFY
You forgot to end your post with 'Discuss !'.
Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
These things can be fixed by a couple of well placed SAT questions.
(So, is it time the country to secede from Texas?)
There is a huge difference in the state of Texas spending their own money to educate their children with a curriculum they choose and the United States government taxing every tax paying American to educate all children with a one sided, politically correct/motivated curriculum.
How is this different from the state of Texas taxing every tax paying Texan to educate all children with a one sided, politically (and factually) incorrect/motivated curriculum and the United States spending their (collective) money to educate their children with a curriculum they (collectively) choose?
Honestly, apart from the fact you (presumably) like the choices the Texas School Board is making, I can't see the difference.
So you're okay with children in Texas now being indoctrinated with this drivel, growing up to become a new generation of "Christian soldiers", and then entering national politics to do to the rest of the country what their "forefathers" started in Texas with them?
There's a lot of conservatives who hate the idea of state education and want all the schools to be private with no government standards. Cynthia Dunbar, one of the bigger whackjobs on the board, isn't a fan of public schools according to her book where She calls public education a "subtly deceptive tool of perversion." The establishment of public schools is unconstitutional and even "tyrannical".
I wonder if that motivation isn't at play here, try to politicize the education standards so much that people lose faith in a state run education system.
I stole this Sig
For somebody who talks so much about bias you seem to have plenty of it.
What seems clear is that the new system seems to want to rewrite history
That's exactly what does not seem clear. Does mentioning Clinton's impeachment amount to rewriting history? Or perhaps mentioning the "conservative resurgence" during Reagan years. Or asking the students to evaluate the impact of global organizations on US sovereignty, or to evaluate the "constitutional" church and state separation - which is regrettably (speaking as an atheist) not in the constitution. Which of those amount to rewriting history?
And I really don't think that a nation who thinks that healthcare means death camps needs anymore right-wing bias do you?
Now, that's just crazy. The issue is not about "healthcare" (who doesn't want healthcare?), the issue is about who pays for it which is a perfectly legitimate discussion. I think you will find it was "death panels" not "death camps" and the issue is a legitimate one. In a single payer system the "payer" (the government) determines what it will pay for and how much. If for example there is an extremely expensive procedure that will only marginally if at all prolong the patients life it is routine in single payer countries for the government to not approve such procedures. In a system where everybody pays for their own care the decisions like that are up to the patient.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
I've yet to see an unbiased point-by-point comparison between the new and old standards. Everyone reporting on the issue seems to have an axe to grind, and most often with the aim of inflaming as many of those who agree with their view as possible. Most of what we've seen reported hasn't even been actual text from the books - but rather paraphrased 'goals' written by those with an agenda, or out-of-context quotes.
Until we see that sort of comparison, I would suggest that most of the hyperbole and histrionics are premature.
One other thing that really hasn't come up - I work in education (community college to be specific) and I know that it takes 2-4 years to come out with new text books - and in most cases those textbooks have minor differences from the previous revisions.
Re-writing an entire textbook from scratch to have right wing bias could take a considerable amount of time, effort, resources and money - who's to say the publishers won't tell Texas to get bent? Or in a better scenario publishers tell Texas "ok we'll make those changes, but it will take 8 years".
The students who actually study the issues will see the differences of opinion and fact, and draw their own conclusions.Those who just accept the printed information usually do not care one way or the other.
As the students raise through the educational system, they will be exposed to other viewpoints, and can decide for themselves.
There is an assumption in these posts that all students in Texas are no more than blank screens waiting for the bigots of this view or that to propagandize them into mindless conformity. When the hell have teens been in conformity to anything adults value?
I believe that the Texas School Board is doing nothing but posturing for future political purposes.
Actually, we have Bugs Bunny beta testing a solution to secession:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiTM2HQ0g98
If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
You're assuming those are the same conservatives. In fact, you're almost certainly addressing two almost entirely different factions within the movement, the economic and social conservatives. They have only the thinnest of threads in common, but are allied because they would lose every election if they competed for votes.
While it is true that the interests of the ultra religious poor and middle class aren't the interested of the monied elite, you'd be hard pressed to find the religious that believe that. God wants you to be rich. Taxes are an affront to the Lord. Global Warming doesn't exist, because God would protect us, therefore we should eliminate pollution regulation. It's all part of the their "Prosperity Theology" movement.
You should meet these people. It's quite a sight of intellectual discord.
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).
No, I'm serious.
If nothing else, the frothing nerdrage here on slashdot could now be tapped as a viable alternative energy source.
-Styopa
Where is the silent majority? Most of them ignore the Texas debacle. Most know that it really does not apply to their state. Only people on ./ think that their children shall be forced fed creationism during the upcoming school years.
Why would anyone think that a NEA member would teach creationism?
I think that we should also take a poll. We should see how many ./ posters are Catholic. I tend to see the whole thing on ./ as a Catholic vs Southern Baptist issue. They're really upset because most people in Texas do not believe in the social justice that Catholic church demands. Has anyone noticed the direction of all the asides on this thread? People are insinuating a lot of stuff as the expound past the issues germaine to the topic. I am left wondering why.
Not only reasonable, but justified...
I have to agree with your position. None of the requirements seem egregious or erroneous, even if I don't personally agree with the positions taken, they are all on topics which are legitimately debatable.
I believe the thinking of the board was that the perceived current bias in textbooks needed to be addressed. This is particularly evident from them specifying what shall be included, and not specifying any exclusions. They obviously wanted specific things included, and didn't bother specifying the inclusion of the other point of view because they felt that it would be included there anyway.
Responding point by point specifically to Newsweek's "10 silliest changes" http://www.newsweek.com/id/238322:
(1) Globalism is a real issue; many of the people at the Brookings Institute and the Hoover Institute see globalization as the single most important driving factor in increased terrorism, as "if you don't like it here, go some place else!" doesn't work very well if there's isn't some place else.
(2) Long term entitlements are something which should be considered carefully, in light of the current example of what Germany and France propping up Greece's state entitlements is currently doing to the economy of the European Union.
(3) Separation of church and state is an issue, and has been ever since churches and schools were forced by court decisions to stop sharing resources, such as buildings, particularly in rural states where population density is drastically lower. It continues to be each time someone like Michael Newdow http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Newdow files a new lawsuit against the Pledge of Allegiance, the Ten Commandments on courthouses, or prayers at the opening of a session of Congress.
(4) There is no "instead" here; again, the intent appears to be to include contrasting opinion, not replace one opinion with another.
(5) Joseph McCarthy's crusade via the H.U.A.C. is generally acknowledged as a bad thing, even by the most right-wing people. But it's also correct to acknowledge that it was reactionary, and didn't originate from one man's mental instability.
(6) I'll grant #6; it seems like a case of successful lobbying for a particular composer. Although there is a lot of cultural baggage and context tied up in "Old Man River" which could help to explain certain aspects of U.S. society, it's not a necessary Schelling point to explain these things.
(7) Imperialism implies "British Empire"-like colonialism, with the taking and intention of permanence in holding of territory. This is probably a semantic argument not worth fighting over.
(8) "The conservative resurgence" in the 1980's and 1990's largely characterizes those decades, in the same way that the anti-war movements and the civil rights movements characterize the decades before them. Unless there's no intention to talk about those decades, I don't think it's possible to escape talking about the underpinning social events.
(9) As one of only two presidents to have ever been impeached, it's probably worth noting Bill Clinton's impeachment. While proceedings were dropped, I'd keep Nixon in the list (and they do).
(10) "Explain how Arab rejection of the State of Israel has led to ongoing conflict", I think, refers more to the refusal of diplomatic recognition leading to ongoing conflict. You could easily replace this with something like "Explain how Western rejection of the State of Myanmar has led to ongoing conflict", and teach the same lesson, although with probably more controversy.
The fact that Newsweek, a supposed bastion of balanced reporting, takes such a strong side on these issues over which there is reasonable disagreement with the current doctrinal position in most textbooks indicates that the requirement to include opposing points of view is not only reasonable, it's justified.
-- Terry
Not only that but I would be fucking WORRIED about the education of the people that graduated under a full term of these changes.
Do we really want more people that are less educated and more deluded out there? It just seems like this is a big circlejerk among the Texas elite. Do other states have to recognize your high school diploma from TX when the curriculum is going to be so off-set from the rest of the country?
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
I had a 5th grade teacher who liked to brag that she encouraged "creativity," but I quickly learned that she didn't actually want students to have their own ideas--she wanted them to express "her" creativity. Similarly, teaching students to be skeptical and to think for themselves is certainly a good thing. On the other hand, singling particular things out as targets for skepticism is not teaching skepticism--it is teaching a specific point of view. There are certain "key words" that reveal when a curriculum is pushing a particular point of view under the guise of "skepticism." For example, instead of being asked to "compare" two things, students will be asked to "compare and contrast." At first glance this seems reasonable, if a bit redundant (because of course comparison entails consideration of similarities as well as differences). But when the assignment includes "contrast," students will be given a lower grade if they fail to come up with reasons why two things are different--the approved reasons, of course.
Deleting Jefferson is rewriting history.
There is more to science than physics!
www.iomalfunction.blogspot.com
Francis Bellamy was OMG a socialist! Really. And a Christian Socialist at that. See his Wikipedia entry.
Imagine the reaction nowadays if schools anywhere in the U.S. were to adopt anything written by a socialist!
Er, as an Illinois citizen I recognize I have zero influence over Texas politics. Unless you suggest we go invade Texas and disband it as a state, the publishers are the only part of this "education" plan non-Texans can do anything about.
My webcomic
It seems that is also BS. According to an article in WSJ which magically became subscription only after I read it, Jefferson is all over the history curriculum, he was only removed from the list of the the most influential political philosophers which is fair enough since he wasn't one, but they they added him back in before the final draft was approved.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
and i would respond by saying that a society lorded over by social conservatives is better than a society without any standards
in other words, i understand your point, but you don't understand mine
yes, you need standards. but what i am asking for are standards that take in actual truth of human nature. for example: "teenagers: use protection when you have sex." that's a standard, and it recognizes teenagers will have sex no matter what you do. and when they do have sex, they won't get stds and get pregnant
but a social conservative will say: "teenagers: just don't have sex." but then they do anyway, that's what teenagers do. and because you haven't prepared for it, you get teenagers with clamydia and babies. in fact, in traditionally social conservative areas of the united states, teenage birthrates are higher than more liberal areas. what does that tell you? just look at sarah palin's daughter: my point is right up there for all to see about the failure of social conservative teachings: it doesn't stop teenagers from having sex. the desire for teenagers to explore their budding sexuality is a hardwired biological desire that no morality will ever overcome, or ever should try to overcome. if sarah palin had liberal leanings, she would have given her daughter a condom, and there would be no teenage mother up on stage with sarah palin screaming as a symbol for anyone with a true moral compass: "HYPOCRISY"
the point is NOT to have no standards. lack of responsibility, accountability, and outright evil trangressive criminality are horrible, and yes, are worse than social conservativism, i agree with that. a society with horrible crude abusive social conservative standards IS better than no standards at all
what i am asking is not to excuse the inexcusable, to have no standards, what i am asking is to have the RIGHT standards, which are often more complex, involve recognizing certain aspects of human nature you don't want to admit, and incorporate those realizations into your principles
for example: it is not lack of responsibility, lack of accountability, or criminal transgressive behavior when two men or two women have sex. so why prosecute people who do so? why tell teenagers sex is bad? homosexuality or teenagers having sex IS NOT WRONG. but social conservatism tells us they ARE bad. that is homosexuality is criminal. that teenagers having sex is irresponsible. but the genuine truth is that homosexuality is COMPLETELY NORMAL AND OK and that teenagers having sex IS COMPLETELY NORMAL AND OK
you look at me and see someone who is trying to destroy morality. no: i am making morality BETTER. we NEED morality. what we don't need is simpleminded social conservative morality, we NEED BETTER MORE INTELLIGENT MORALITY
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Jefferson? Not a political philosopher? Did you grow up on the Texan curriculum or something?
There is more to science than physics!
www.iomalfunction.blogspot.com
hopefully a warning, an alternative reality future, where social conservatives overwhelm the usa: flight by hypocritical americans to canada for abortions
in reality today, daughters of conservative politicians just go to more liberal areas of the usa to have their abortions today anonymously, not canada
but in a future where the usa is overrun by the zombified morons of social conservativism, that is what is going to happen, as well as other challenges to canadian integrity. man the bulwarks, canucks
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I took Texas history back in the 60's, and once I had the chance to read some real history, I was shocked to discover how dishonest and misleading the curriculum had been, mostly in ways that seemed designed to promote racism.
A stereotype based wholly in ignorance. Texan stereotypes are different, but as an ignorant bigot, you wouldn't know. All you know is you must hate these people, and therefore anything goes.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
In a system where everybody pays for their own care the decisions like that are up to the patient.
That in itself is a bit of right wing spin because, of course, healthcare is really expensive and most people can't afford to pay for their own healthcare, which means the decision is not theirs to make.
In the USA, I understand you have thought of that and people who have a moderate amount of money (and who are in good health) can get insurance. This means that in the USA it is the insurance corporations that make the decisions, not the government or the patient.
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
So, let me get this straight: biasing the lessons of history in liberal directions is perfectly OK, because me and all my friends think that way and the way that we think is correct. Any diversity of opinion must be viciously attacked by stereotyping the culture that dares to disagree as inbred rednecks. Alles klar?
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
I prefer my friend's idea of a giant Gort-like Constitutional Robot. It would tramp down to Texas give the School Board a good Constitutional whoopin'.
It is a federal encroachment upon liberty. Two wrongs do not make a right. If SCOTUS had never gutted the 14th amendment through the Slaughterhouse ruling, and subsequently if the federal government not turned a blind eye to state and local governments violations of what was left of the 14th and the entirety of the 15th amendment then segregated ares would never have stayed around as long as they did. It was only with the complicity of government to restrain freedoms that things got as bad as they did.
Bloody stupid old fossils.
Todd: I hope it proves as delicious as the farmers that grew them
Jefferson was a great man but I think to list him as one of the most influential political philosophers is the wrong category. Which original ideas did he contribute that were so influential? He was himself influenced by a long line of enlightenment thinkers but his own writings didn't really amount to much http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson#Writings.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
Nope, just based in the law.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_it_legal_in_Texas_to_marry_your_first_cousin
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Most houses don't have a second story. Instead they're 'Ranch' style.
Disallowing prayer in schools *IS* "prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Oh pleeezzeee. What a crok. You can pray before or after school. Or at school during recess.
The laws are a blatant attempt to convert other peoples children to Christianity. As such, they are completely odious.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
Keep trolling. Who can cite an actual argument made by the board on a change they're making on the curriculum? Know why they're talking less about Jefferson? Read.
I bet a lot of people on here are disappointed there is no mention of how America under Democratic leadership is finally moving beyond the radical Capitalist experiment.
Conservative = Someone who wants to control society so that they can keep getting richer. Religion is a method of control. Liberal = Someone who wants the government to hold each individuals hand to the detriment of the individuals growth.
That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
Inbred used as an insult to Appalachian hillbillies is still sort of a bad thing to say. There was just to few of them so they were forced to marry cousins.
That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
The root cause of this insoluble problem is state education. With separation of education and state, it would not have arisen.
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Under what clause of the Constitution would you justify federal control over education standards?
Revive the Constitution.
Of course I'm Canadian so we get all kinds here in Canada now - but those from Texas need not even bother applying unless they can show that they were educated prior to this year.
Been there, done that, paid for the T-shirt
and didn't get it
It's not spin at all. There are more people without health care coverage by choice in the US then there are because of resources. The US doesn't abandon most of it's poor population, they get handouts like free medical coverage and so on. Between the welfare role and medicare, the US was already paying for roughly 60% of the non-elective medical treatments i the US.
It doesn't really matter who can afford coverage or not or if you purchase insurance or not because you still have the choice of who pays for what. Also, in the US, it's illegal for a hospital to deny life saving treatment on the grounds of someone's ability to pay. So no, it's not the insurance company taking on the role of the death panel unless you specifically allow them to. Talk about spin.....
Take that into contrast with the system in the UK for instance. Suppose there is some miracle drug that cures 50% of people with a specific condition during trials. Now gov' health won't cover the drug or treatment because it isn't established, it's expensive, and the results are 50/50. If you as a citizen of that country, secure funding for the drug and seek treatment outside their health system in hopes of being cured, they will refuse to ever treat you or pay for your treatment for that illness again. SO potentially, here is Johny, a 30 year old Cancer patient who gets his care from the government, he heard about a break through drug and has the opportunity to try it because a rich uncle died and left him with just enough money to pay for the treatment, and if it doesn't work, he will be broke and without coverage because the gob'ment got their feelings hurt when someone attempted to better their life without them.
But hey, I guess that's better then then the free systems where the patient still has some choices.
There is no single payer system. If the government or the health insurance company doesn't want to pay for a potentially useless and expensive procedure, just pay for it yourself. You can do that even with socialized health care.
> How is this different from the state of Texas taxing every tax paying Texan to educate all
> children with a one sided, politically (and factually) incorrect/motivated curriculum and
> the United States spending their (collective) money to educate their children with a
> curriculum they (collectively) choose?
Allow me to translate what you wrote from NewSpeak to English:
How is this different from Texas using their citizens tax dollars to switch from one politically correct (and factually incorrect) motivated curriculum to one that is also politically motivated, yet politically incorrect (while more factually correct) and the United States spending every Citizens tax dollars to enforce a curriculum chosen by Bill Ayers and other politically correct educrats.
Stated this way, the answer becomes obvious.
Democrat delenda est
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
P.S. Please take California with you.
If people were biasing the history books so it reads that our country bases its morals on a sacred tome written by magical unicorn riding leprecauns you would be upset. Thats analogy is exactly what Texas is doing to the textbooks.
That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
For a long time I couldent belive people could be so dumb, so branwashed.
Untill I was fowarded this site: http://www.landoverbaptist.net/
Go through it, read a few posts, your gonna shit bricks. (It's so stupid I'm not 100% it's even real even tho the amaunt of posts sugest it is)
Just to get you started:
http://www.landoverbaptist.net/showthread.php?p=508591 -> 5 Reasons why WOMEN should NEVER be on the Internet!, also read the first reply by Rev. Jim Osborne
http://www.landoverbaptist.net/showthread.php?p=505253 -> The "For NOOBS" section, Not shure if this is a White supremecy site or a church....
etc, etc.
Basicly internet isn't all good.
PS: Freedom of speach should have a "IF ($spaker_dumenss_level > $max) { mute($speaker); }" clause.
Good thing Texas has a low graduate rate. http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_baeo_t1.htm
That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
Decisions like this are likely to improve our economy, living standards and interest in science in the long term.
Of course, I should tell you... that I'm an offshore contractor for US companies living in Argentina.
Elections have consequences. Good to see liberalism rolled back in our schools.
an ill wind that blows no good
Sure it's great to let people interpret one way or another statements written by men so long ago that it doesn't make a lot of sense these days (right to bear arms? Really?) but this being Texas I don't see a great leap between 'analyse and give your opponion' to 'your analysis is wrong and there should be no seperation.' After all the kids will learn what is taught (or what they are told) and the way it is taught so introducing religious, political agenda into the curriculum will have those views taught.
To me this comes across as the slippery slope with soap applied.
If I was witty I'd put something funny here but, as it stands, I am not and have just wasted seconds of your life
10. A new addition to world history: "Explain how Arab rejection of the State of Israel has led to ongoing conflict." Now that's not at all a loaded statement, is it?
The sentence itself is true, it was the will of the internation community that Israel would be founded, the territory belonged to the UK and the UK agreed to this. The arab world sought to defy the will of the UN and this has led to the conflict.
It's such a small slice of "truth" that I'm not sure it escapes being dishonest--you've barely scratched the surface of the complexities involved. (E.g. Jewish terrorism against Arabs before Israel was created, the transformation from the ideas of living in harmony to ardent opposition on both sides, etc. etc..)
And, UN and UK aside, you could phrase it as "explain how Jewish apartheid in Israel has led to ongoing conflict" and be just as truthful as with the above (which is to say, the literal truth of the matter, while not entirely absent, is insufficient to consider the statement honest if presented alone).
Fortunately, school tends to be horribly boring, and most students won't pay significant attention to such lessons anyway, accurate or not, so the stakes are somewhat lower than one might fear when one realizes how hard it is to present information instead of propaganda in some situations.
I'm sure many foreigners might jump on in disagreement if they look at how it was passed. There wasn't enough time to read and comprehend the bill before the vote.
HR 3200 was introduced OVER A YEAR before the final bill passed. HR3950 was passed in December of '09, over 4 MONTHS before the final vote. To claim that there "wasn't enough time to read" the bill is complete horse shit.
A lot of the rejection of the health care bill has to do with how it was created and passed. The current administration ran on being open but this thing was created in some back room deal and all members of his party was expected to bless it without even knowing what was in it.
And the only reason for all that backroom debating crap was because of people, on both sides, toeing the party line and the Republican threats of filibuster. If it hadn't required 60 votes to override the Republican filibuster, a lot of those back room deals wouldn't have been necesary. But since the Dems had to effectively buy off a hand full of legislatures who were all "the 60th vote", we wound up with a worse bill.
That the Republican party been willing to take part in the democratic process, the health insurance reform bill would have been significantly better.
Hell, one of the main claims about covering children with preexisting conditions wasn't even going to take effect until 2014
Which was due to the REPUBLICAN introduction of the mandate. The purpose of the mandate is to keep people from abuisng the preexisting condition rule, and so the two were linked. And since the mandate doesn't kick in till 2014, neither does the preexisting coverage rule.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
You really don't understand the word "social" do you? I think you'll find most people around the world are generous, and most western countries have volunteer armies that get dropped into hell-hole nations around the world. The amount of ignorance dripping from your post is staggering.
Question the separation of church and state?
If you want the church in your state, you deserve the state in your church.
You might want to rethink your cunning plan, cowboy.
--
BMO
Texas Board of Education.
You transcribed that wrong. It's Texas: Bored of Education.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Where's any actual data that supports your assertion that the USA innovates more because it's more right-leaning?
...with church-state separation will suffer in a government-funded HELL for eternity.
Or asking the students to evaluate the impact of global organizations on US sovereignty
As long as the impact of the US on the sovereignty of many other (generally smaller and/or poorer) countries in the world is evaluated too. But of course, that won't be in the textbooks.
Marrying cousins doesn't result in genetic defects significantly more than marrying non-relatives. I recommend you read up a little on the topic. South Asians have been doing it for thousands of years without problems.
well moving out of state may not be something that is easy or easily achieved.
However, that's sort of besides the point in that the federal government is not empowered to take on health care or dictate education to the country. The federal government is supposed to be nothing more then a state figure head to deal with the complexities of state with foreign leaders. It also does some very specific things like build and maintain post roads and so on. All of this is power surrendered by the states when joining the union. That's why things like the 10th amendment reserves everything not surrendered to the federal government for the states of the people of the states.
The US constitution is a permissive document detailing what the US government is allowed to do and some things that it is expressly restricted from doing. It's not supposed to be some massive government in charge of everything like other countries have. This is why federal law can only be enforced when federal jurisdiction becomes relevant. Take murdering your wife, there is a federal law against murder but they can't prosecute you unless you go across state lines or do it on federal property or do something else that invokes their jurisdiction.
Why are you being so nice to these almost as bad as progressive liberals?
YES! PROGRESS SUCKS!
I want to regress all the way back to barbaric cavemen time, just because progress blows.
I think the next step for Texas is to reform the system of government to having a King and Queen, and then a Pharaoh, and then eventually hopefully they'll all be eaten by dinosaurs.
Honestly, apart from the fact you (presumably) like the choices the Texas School Board is making, I can't see the difference.
The only difference I can see is scale (one nationwide decision vs state-by-state decisions).
The sad thing about this whole controversy is how many people seem to assume the status quo is free from bias.
It's not. It never was, and never will be. History is a story we tell about the past based on our imperfect knowledge and our cultural biases, even when we do our best to be objective. Which is why in the US we view our Founding Fathers as courageous freedom fighters rather than opportunistic, treasonous rebels (same facts, different viewpoint!).
I don't necessarily agree with certain of the Texas changes (I've only read some of the 78 pages of the diffs).
But maybe some good will come of the controversy. Maybe students and parents will be reminded that history, like real life, isn't black and white. That multiple viewpoints exist (and that even a dominant viewpoint may be later reconsidered). Certainly I think they've been reminded that history classes have limited time, and deciding what parts of history make the cut is a subjective but societally important set of decisions.
You must be a Baja Oklahoman yourself.
Nah--Texans generally have a sense of humor and know a joke when they see one.
This ain't rocket surgery.
All true. In this part of the world the usual solution is to specify the transferable skills that should come from studying history (critical approach to sources, different kinds of evidence, etc.) and a vague indication of the periods to be covered.
This curriculum seems insanely over-specified (and a but amateur) (and no, I haven't read the whole thing either.
You mean a political spin in a direction other than the usual. I haven't read the list of changes or the textbooks, and I don't agree with some of the changes I have read about, but textbooks have been political for longer than I've been around, and I'm not sure that, once the government started using education to mold children to their liking, it has ever been any other way.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
Unfortunately for you, the new curriculum covers topics like "science". Thus Slashdot is appropriate. The fact that your views are not appealing to a wider audience is not Slashdot's problem.
You seem to be missing the point where the Texas DOE is imposing it's morals on everyone in the state. Morals that are apparently so unpopular that the conservative members of the board are losing elections over them.
McLeroy was narrowly defeated for renomination to the SBOE in the March 2 Republican primary. He lost to Robert Thomas Ratliff (born ca. 1967) of Kyle in Hays County, a son of former State Senator and Lieutenant Governor Bill Ratliff of Mount Pleasant. McLeroy received 57,528 votes (49.6 percent) to Ratliff's 58,388 (50.4 percent). From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_McLeroy
Strikes me as ironic that the people of the United States of America have a significant amount of money invested in ongoing research and development in Texas (Texas ranked 5th among the 50 states, District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico in terms of the amount of federal R&D dollars received annually in 2000).
Ironic, because as the Texas Board of Education makes obvious, many of the people of Texas are hellbent on returning to the Dark Ages...to those benighted and dangerous times when you could burn people who didn't have the "right" religious beliefs at the stake. (I do hope that people understand that the terms "religious" and "political" become interchangeable once the situation has deteriorated far enough...far enough, say, that the use of propaganda as a weapon becomes overt.)
I feel for the children of Texas...but they can - for the time being - find and learn the truth on the internet if they are so motivated. I do hope, however, that Texas' unabashed and expanding use of political indoctrination isn't catching...I really don't want to be forced to spend what little free time I have ensuring that the politicians of my state avoid the temptation to grant themselves the power of Kings - the power to rewrite history as they would have it.
We cannot tolerate government by an aristocratic elite convinced of their right to dictate what children shall believe. There is no avoiding it: To attempt to polish and spin the mistakes of history is to teach that those mistakes should be repeated .
I find it difficult to believe that the Texas Board of Education - and the Texas GOP - are unaware of what they are setting into motion.
Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
OK, can I just say for the Slashdot record that Zionism is not right-wing, and there is no "right-wing bias" about giving a Zionist-slanted (but factually correct) reading of the history of the modern State of Israel and its surrounding region.
Once again, I acknowledge that the issue of the Middle East is hugely complex, leading to a very real capability to make factually correct statements that appear to slant this way, that or the other, but I don't like seeing it turned into a wrecking ball of left-right Western politics. When this happens, many of us Zionists wind up thrown into political wings that we ordinarily don't align with, or even ordinarily detest (that's the American right, for me), but suddenly feel completely unwelcome on the wing to which we thought we belong. Of all the issues in American left-right politics, the Middle East is actually the one where the talk of "polarization" is true. The Left, even the Jewish Left, has almost entirely taken up the Arab side and historiography, and in response the Right has integrated Jabotinskyist Right-Wing Zionism into its "clash of civilizations" neo-conservative project. Honestly, if Texas introduces some factual, informative lessons on the history of the Israeli-Arab conflict, with a Zionist slant, that departisanize Zionism and Arab nationalism by making them into matters of national self-determination, as they are in fact, rather than matters of whether one votes Democratic or Republican, then they'll have accomplished one little bit of good in a storm of ignorance and anti-intellectualism.
So yeah.
You do understand that the facts do not support your assertion, right? From Congressional Budget Office summaries for 2007 (latest common year I found from a quick search) Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security were $1.215 trillion. Total military retiree costs (active, reserve, disability retirements and survivor benefits) were $44.44 billion. Total military retiree costs were 3.66% of the major Federal entitlement programs, hardly a "large portion".
Other points of interest:
Active duty military pay into Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security just like any other wage earner.
Retiree health care is not a freebie (pay an annual premium, have co-payments, or both, depending on the specific plan).
Non-disability retirement income is taxable income.
Most military "retirees" go into the civilian workforce, paying additional income taxes, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security on those wages.
NON-geek Linux user since 1998
You should go correct wikipedia I suppose:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage#Genetics
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
As someone who's lived in the UK I've never encountered such a thing.
But insurance companies stump up every time, God bless 'em!
If you're David Beckham or Warren Buffet you can decide on whatever treatment you want no matter where you live.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Thank you for demonstrating my point.
"Social" does NOT mean "granting unlimited power over us".
Most of the democratic world operates somewhere far more to the political right of what you describe as "social" and with what the USA considers left-wing as "extreme right-wing".
Do you understand there is an enormous gap between what you describe as "social" and where the two major parties are at?
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
I don't know about you, but I'm not so insecure about my particular biases that I think everyone should be forced to be exposed to them. So I guess the real question is, how do you cull out the bias-laden subjects? Maybe you can't - I mean, you could even make arguments that math can be taught with a political slant. So maybe the right answer is to scale back the scope of boards of education to establishing quality gates for education, rather than mandating the manner in which the education is delivered.
"Death panels" in the US have existed for a very long time. They are called "health insurance claims adjusters", who have long held sway over who gets what treatment. It's silly to think that things will get worse.
As this comment says, governments who run single-payer health systems frequently exercise judgment over whether treatment will be administered or not. Going on the waiting list for a procedure and being dropped from the list before treatment is very common.
Please clarify whether the modifier "magical" refers to the unicorns being ridden or the leprecauns doing the riding.
Call me picky, but wars have been fought over less.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Some schools do have moments of silence (mine did). Usually concerning special events, like a serious community incident or after 9/11 (again, in my HS). Why there's still a hullabaloo about prayer in schools I have no clue.
The textbooks are out there, there are hundreds of authors clamoring to get their books accepted. Textbooks aren't the major expense in education, and they're reused until they are physically unusable. Generally, the government committees making the choice aren't actually authors.
The reason this is such a big news story is that the liars that have been making the books for decades now have their tits in a wringer, and their friends are the press.
Texas is meerly switching to a different variety of liars.
The shame is that in this country, the political philosophy with rational economics and a slightly more pro-freedom standpoint is also the philosophy entwined with religion, which is being defeated by science at every turn. We have two distinct choices, the bad and the much worse.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Yes.
http://seegras.discordia.ch/Blog/conservativism-isnt/
And of course
http://seegras.discordia.ch/Blog/liberalism-isnt-either/
"The more prohibitions there are, The poorer the people will be" -- Lao Tse
After reading the linked article above I got curious as to what exactly the proposed changes were. I had a sneaking suspicion that someone wasn't telling the whole truth and after some searching it turns out that I was right. It seems that Jefferson was never going to be cut from the curriculum and most of the other changes the article mentions (which is based off an AP story) were either over exaggerated or flat out lied about. Here is the real truth: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/joshua-sharf/2010/05/23/have-ap-or-denver-post-actually-read-new-texas-curriculum. This is just another example of how the media is just swallowing the lies the progressive wing is just throwing out there without doing any damn fact checking. Just like how they keep promoting net neutrality as good even though members of the administration have said quite openly that they have every intention of using the legislation to censor content: http://www.redstate.com/neil_stevens/2010/05/20/dont-let-them-tell-you-they-dont-want-to-censor-the-internet/ How does the old saying go? Trust half of what you read and none of what you hear? With this administration that quote has never rung truer.
You ask a very important question. There is a strong division in doctrine over this exact question. The sacred tome does not specifically tell us which creature is magical, but many have chosen to interpret verse Goblin Peddler 15-6, "Thus the Leprecauns rode their mighty steeds with great power and domination to defeat the Goblin Peddlers." as proof of Leprecaun superiority. These people are called the Leprelites. They interpret that the Leprecauns are in fact magical and the divine inspiration for the sacred tome. Conversely, some think that the word "Domination" used is applied towards the Goblin Peddlers instead of the Unicorns. These people are called the Unicornians. They interpret verse Hog Blaster 17-12, "And the Unicorns neighed and the Hog Blaster fell into the hideous roach pit." They assumed that this neigh must have been magical to defeat the evil Hog blaster, thus they believe the humble Unicorns in fact bestowed upon the Leprecauns their magical abilities and thus brought us the sacred tome.
That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
This is amazingly similar to the educational programs and revised "history" that the Soviet government forced on its citizens.
Newsbusters? Really? They make Glenn Beck look sane!
How about an actual news source -- Or better yet, the actual curriculum.
Required reading for internet skeptics
I am Roman Catholic by birth. But, am not a practicing Catholic now. I believe in Christ and God, and do my own thing. I think children ought to be taught the strictures in the Bible like the Ten Commandments, and major stories. It's interesting and I believe it to be educational. I don't believe that the Earth is 5000 some odd years old, and don't know anyone who does. How anyone came up with that figure is beyond me. I don't believe the story of creation in the Bible is 100% accurate. I think it's just a story. It was handed down orally for generations. Who knows how much it changed from the first telling when it was finally recorded in writing? I'm sorry to say that I don't take the entire Bible as gospel truth. I think there is a lot to learn from it as there are from lots of other spiritual writings. I think portions are inspired by God. I don't think the genealogies are. The Gospels surely are. I think the New Testament has a lot of good lessons in it. But, I don't think that even the New Testament is a 100% accurate recording of the events of the time. Nonetheless, I think that all the different creation myths should be taught in schools. Kids should also read the Greek and Roman Mythology. The American Indian Myths and Legends, the Asian Myths and Legends. Kids should be exposed to a wide range of things to spark their imaginations. Kids should also read the Iliad and the Odyssey, and other classics. Kids used to. And then someone dumbed down our curriculums and decided these things were too difficult for kids. They weren't too difficult for dozens of preceding generations... Our children need to be exposed to the beliefs of 99% of the citizens in the world, not the lack of of belief of 1%. That's "Tyranny of the Minority". Nowhere in the American Constitution does it guarantee citizens a right to being unoffended. Adults have to develop a thick skin and be tolerant of the beliefs of others. If people don't want their kids exposed to the classics. Maybe they need to homeschool them, or register them in a Private Areligious School.
Education is very important. Investitions in the education always is the best. And the government of each country must develop and perfect this sphere.
My blog
The curriculum was linked to in the article I posted, which you would know if you had taken the time to read it.
Newsbusters is one of the best news sites on the web and Glenn is one of the most accurate opinion guys out there. Just because you don't like them doesn't make them wrong. How about you put your considerable bias and ignorance aside and read the article. Of course that would require you to be intellectually honest, something that is alien to the political left as the article notes and your post proves.
I suggest you check the Battleground Poll, question D3 which has for the last decade recorded approximate 60% of respondents as Conservative. You might wish to be red-faced with the projection your message demonstrates.
let them secede, i don't give a fuck about texas anymore
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
Some teachers need to step up and teach the truth; discard the curriculum.
This is how I know you haven't thought about this at all. -- The "counter" part of the article, put simply, doesn't. If anything, it validates the claims made in the AP article!
Then again, if you think Glenn Beck is 'accurate' I don't expect you to be terrible good at critical evaluation.
A simple example, because you obviously need the help: The article doesn't bother to counter the first claim: "Teachers in Texas will probably be required to cover the Judeo-Christian influences of the nation's Founding Fathers -- but not highlight the philosophical rationale for the separation of church and state." Instead, it lumps it together with the second claim, and hoped you wouldn't notice. (Hey, it worked! You didn't even think about it did you? I know, Glenn does your "thinking" for you.)
That particular claim, by the way, is one of the most frightening aspects of the curriculum changes. It's also the most obvious example of a 'far-right' change.
Newsbusters is one of the most bias sites I've run across. How you can claim it's "one of the best" is beyond me -- unless by "best" you mean "reinforces my beliefs". If that's the case, you've got a lot to learn about critical thinking.
Let me help you get started. Read this site: http://rhetorica.net/bias.htm
Pay particular attention to critical question #4 "What sources does the speaker use, and how credible are they? Does the speaker cite statistics? If so, how were the data gathered, who gathered the data, and are the data being presented fully?" As you're a Fox viewer, you need to be especially careful -- Bill O'Reilly is notorious for not only inventing studies that support his claims, but even entire journals! (An example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jo8K4YPi-v0 ) (Oh, he's also been known to outright lie about studies that actually exist. See this example: http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/oreilly-46-physicians-may-leave-medical-pr )
Seriously, you really really need to learn to think critically. The future of our nation depends on people like you educating yourselves.
Required reading for internet skeptics
You can always homeschool them - its legal in the US.
IMO the "right answer" is to fix the broken education system, starting with giving teachers the pay and respect that will attract good talent, rather than the mediocre-to-abysmal sorry excuses for teachers we mostly get now. And it's been bad forever; I had a total of three good teachers from first to 12th grade (1st grade in 1958, and that teacher was excellent) and my daughters (youngest now 23) fared no better.
The way public schools are funded is another problem -- property tax is a horrible way to fund education.
BTW, thanks for the link, that looks like it might be a good read.
Free Martian Whores!
Just because you think they shouldn't have something you want for yourself or others doesn't make it yours to give away.
Your straw man is on fire, but let me add a little gasoline to him. George is a roofer, risking his life to put roofs on houses. Phil is a stockbroker; in essense, a riverboat gambler without the boat. But Phil pays capital gains tax while Grorge pays income tax, and Phil pays a lower rate than George. This is unfair and plain wrong; progress is fixing that inequality.
Phil does not creat wealth, but George does. We are encouraging the lazy-ass gambler while penalizing the hard working wealth creator for his work. Progress is doing away with the CGT and replacing it with income tax; GRADUATED income tax. Government is necessary, and has to be funded, and the rich benefit from overnment far more than the lower classes. It only makes sense that those who get the most benefit pay the most.
You talk of the "the product of ones [sic] labor", but the rich do no labor; they direct the labor. Trading stocks is NOT labor, running a corporation is NOT labor.
Asking the government to do it for you is just theft via mob mentality.
When your house catches fire, don't call the government-run fire department, put the damned thing out yourself. When you get mugged, don't call the government run police department. And stay the hell off my government-built roads, hypocrite.
If you are so anti-wealth
I have no idea where you think I'm "anti-wealth", except as a knee-jerk Rush Limbaugh reactionary who reads into statements things that aren't there. Compared to what a McDonalds' fry cook makes I'm wealthy, and compared to what my friend who owns a bar and construction company earns I'm poor, and I'm fine with both. But I'm NOT fine with IBM and Kodak paying no taxes. I'm not fine with a CEO who nearly bankrupts the company getting million dollar bonuses, plus tax breaks. I'm not fine with the fact that the only way a rich powerful man goes to prison is if a richer, more powerful man puts hum there. I'm not fine with offshore tax havens that allow the rich to legally dodge paying taxes. I'm not fine with someone from another state (or even foreign country) having greater access to "my" elected representatives than I do.
I'm not fine with McDonald's and WalMart benefitting from their workers getting food stamps as a way to not have to pay them a living wage. Note that for the poor (but not the rich) to get any kind of government help, they have to be employed or disabled, so "helping the poor" actually benefits the rich.
Progress is fixing what's wrong with America, true conservatives want to protect what's right with her. Neocons want neither.
Free Martian Whores!
1. I don't watch Fox News (except for Bret Bair's show) so keep your bias and misinformation in check. I agree with you on O'Rielly, he's an intellectual lightweight but he's also irrelevant to this topic. Stop trying to change the subject.
2. I see no problem with highlighting the judeo-Christian influences of the Founding Fathers. The separation of church and state has been twisted and manipulated by the courts to mean almost the opposite of the original intention. It was originally meant to a) prevent a state run religion and b) keep the state out of the churches. Ya know like having politician proselytize to congregations like the Dems love doing. I think by moving the curriculum to the right they are bringing it back towards the center after the curriculum has been manipulated by progressives for decades who have purged anything from the history books that didn't support their ideological slant on things.
3. I'm well aware of bias in the media. What you don't seem to get is that all news is biased. The only difference is in which direction and by how much. And of course whether the source is actually telling the truth or are they just making stuff up like MediaMatters and Huffpo tend to do. Newsbusters is very reliable as they source everything they write about. Yes they are slanted to the right, that however does not make them inaccurate.
By the way you should follow your own advice:
Seriously, you really really need to learn to think critically. The future of our nation depends on people like you educating yourselves.
Anyone? In the constitution? In law? Anywhere? Does it say anywhere that any government (federal or state) shall hold no position and make no commentary or endorsements on religious matters?
Support my political activism on Patreon.
If you'll read Mr Gatto's book you'll understand that the school system has exactly the talent that it needs to accomplish its purpose and it is accomplishing that purpose with superlative efficiency.
What does the Department of Energy have to do with this?
Or did you meant the the Department of Education!
I paid the going retail price for a Windows screen reader and got a free Unix computer!
Son of a... Where are mod points when I need them. This should be +5 "fucking obvious". I am intrigued by your outlook and would like to subscribe to your newsletter - seriously. I couldn't agree more.
"The fact is, the Texas school board is teaching a revisionist history that is out of touch with the facts." That's a strong claim. Have you actually read the changes that the Texas school board has recommended? Which ones, specifically, are out of touch with the facts?
Sincerely, Derek
A curious little blog
Funny how a political group often takes a word that is opposite of their goals.
Progressives are not for progress. Unless you just mean progress to be progressively more government control over your every move.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
You asked how the Texas School Board was promoting revisionist history that was out of touch with the facts. I'll cite one example: The Texas School Board asserts that the founders didn't mean to have a strong seperation between church and state. The facts are they embedded in the Consitution in the last paragraph of Article 6 that there will be no religious test to hold any office reaching all the way down to state legislatures. And, as is much better known, the first amendment says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. These mean that not only can a Bhudhist, a Hindu, an Athiest, a Jain or an adherent of any other religion can hold office and that they may not pass any law or regulation that respects or with respect to any religion. Further, many of the founders clearly were not fans of religion. One quote I remember from Thomas Jefferson (you may have heard of him and his impact as one of the founders, although the Texas School Board seems to want to eliminate mention of his influence) is: "In every day and every age the priests have been the enimies of liberty." It's not well known - one has to dig into the facts of the time, that is, do a little historical research - to know that until 1790, the residents of MA were being taxed by the gov't to support the Calvinist (Puritan) church, a practice that was stopped due to the founders insistance on a seperation between church and state. This is just one example of the efforts by the Texas school board to play fast an loose with the facts in order to promote their conservative religious ideology. There are other examples. For instance, the TSB wants to call the Atlantic Slave Trade the "Atlantic Triangle Trade." It was, in fact, a slave trade. To sugar coat these kinds of things prevents our children from leaning about the corrosive effects of slavery and racism in American history and how we can make this great country even greater if we are aware of our past, both the glorious as well as the inglorious aspects.
Wow, you really are a moron.
"I see no problem with highlighting the judeo-Christian influences of the Founding Fathers."
Add history to the list of things you need to learn.
Required reading for internet skeptics
I see now, you have no interest in an actual discussion and simply wish to engage in ad-homonym attacks and spew ignorance. Forgive me for mistaking you for a thinking person. Enjoy your ignorance.
What a wonderfully hypocritical post.
I especially love how you consider your opinions well informed -- it's people like you that lead the nation into the sink-hole it's in now. Now you're ACTIVELY fighting against those of us out to fix it!
I pray you don't have any children.
Required reading for internet skeptics
Thanks for making me laugh!
Making our children recite any kind of loyalty oath is weird. It sounds like something you hear about happening in a communist country or in Iran. That it has been perverted into religious indoctrination makes it even worse, but that's still not the primary problem I have with it.
You can't call it the Judeo-Christian God. Remember it's a non-specific, non-religious phrase that doesn't actually mean anything at all, or at least that's the excuse courts keep using to keep phrases like that in the pledge and on our money. If you specifically say it is the Judeo-Christian God, then we can't have it on our money or in our pledge, so it definitely couldn't be that. I need a "roll eyes" smiley right here. Sigh.