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.
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.
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.
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.
Because this isn't about questioning government per se.
It's about questioning why America doesn't allow the church to create laws.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
"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
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
"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."
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!
But by the same token neither do these people.
With respect, writing out people who are inconvenient to your religious leanings and omitting large chunks of well established and documented history is a very dangerous path to go down.
regards, the_leander
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
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.
"rewriting history" is just accusation against someone that doesn't believe your incorrect version of history.
"Rewriting history" means just that. The objection is they are changing what is taught as history to be something other than what the documents and supporting evidence that we have shows it to be, in favor of what non-experts who haven't done any research but do have a political agenda want it to be.
The federal government doesn't get to say what history is, neither do you.
Both the federal and state governments are forbidden from promoting any specific religion and with very good reason. If you bothered to read the writings of the founding fathers you'd see some excellent explanations as to why this is the case. Now you have a state government trying to convince the citizenry that is not the case, using tax dollars; which is likely illegal under the exact provision they're trying to convince people does not exist... all this while admitting they are not "experts" and haven't done any "research" on the topic.
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!
"Under God" was not originally in the Pledge of Allegiance. Francis Bellamy wrote the pledge in 1892. The phrase "Under God" was added in 1954.
It might interest you to know that from a standpoint of pretty much every other democratic country in the world, the USA's main parties are either right wing or extreme right wing. Progressives are merely moderate right wing.
USA fear of anything "social" causes few americans to understand there is a very wide gap between fascism/communism and what americans consider normal.
Most of the world has watched with puzzlement as many american's protested (and continue to protest) against a medical healthcare system even less social than what most democratic countries have been running succesfully for decades.
In my own experience, many Americans seem to blackout when the word "social" is mentioned, immediately jumping to the conclusion that it means "oppressive communist dictatorship" instead of merely "less anti-social". When the USA and it's citizens do so many things right and have so much to offer the rest of the world, I just find it sad to know most Americans simply don't care about anybody but themselves.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
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.
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.
Little by little the United States of America is becoming the Corporate Socialist States of Jesus.
"In God We Trust" did not show up on United States currency until around the time of the Civil War and was not officially a motto on the currency until 1956.
Sadly there is a large segment of the population that believe the United States is a Christian nation because of things like "One nation under God" and "In God We Trust" but they never actually studied any real history and don't realize those statements are in our government because they put them there not the people who formed this nation.
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
Which explains why Christian Conservatives would prefer to diminish the role of Thomas Jefferson as he seems to support this so called "soft anarchy".
"I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the same coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
-- Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, July 12, 1810
Where's any actual data that supports your assertion that the USA innovates more because it's more right-leaning?
If I recall correctly, the pre-Cold War version is:
"I pledge allegiance to the flag and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
I'm still not a fan of making children repeat loyalty oaths as a kind of mantra to begin every (school) day, no matter what the words are.
Property is theft.