Texas revises history textbooks

[Sir Loin]

He did say that "liberals" or someone he doesn't like anyway say that the FF wanted to establish a "secular state". Now, what does the phrase "secular state" mean to you? Do we or do we not have a secular state?

Wrong again, no he did not. Perhaps you should pay closer attention dittohead.

 

[Boo Radley]

Maybe someone already posted this, but Stewart again hits the nail on the head:

Jon Stewart On Texas School Board: Don't Mess With Textbooks

Jon Stewart On Texas School Board: Don't Mess With Textbooks | TPMTV

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Exactly. I don't care for it, but I believe that the decision should be up to the state.

I agree with that so long as the actions by the state are not intended to promote, endorse, or compel religious beliefs. For example, if a state decides to teach ID or creationism as an alternative to evolution, then they are doing just that, and their actions are therefore unconstitutional. Other than in cases like that, I think Texas should be free to teach their kids what ever garbage they choose to teach them.

 

[Boo Radley]

I agree with that so long as the actions by the state are not intended to promote, endorse, or compel religious beliefs. For example, if a state decides to teach ID or creationism as an alternative to evolution, then they are doing just that, and their actions are therefore unconstitutional. Other than in cases like that, I think Texas should be free to teach their kids what ever garbage they choose to teach them.

Agreed, not to mention that neither ID or creationism can be called science. Much more appropriate for a religion class.

 

[Fiddytree]

Fled the thread? Where did I do that?

As for those 3 names you posted. I have heard of 2 of them, but that does not change the fact that compared to Thomas Jefferson they are overall lightweights.

How exactly are they lightweights? To me they are not. In some particular ways, they are more influential than Jefferson, yes, even in the United States. That does not mean I think that they need to be elevated above Jefferson for the sake of United States history, but you make a severe mistake in assuming they mean so little.

 

[RightinNYC]

Fled the thread? Where did I do that?

As for those 3 names you posted. I have heard of 2 of them, but that does not change the fact that compared to Thomas Jefferson they are overall lightweights.

I already explained to you how this is clearly false, so I don't see any point in repeating myself.

The only one that remotely gets close to a former US president and key person in the US independence movement, is in my opinion William Blackstone. But regardless of that, all those 3 people you mentioned are not even Americans and have no real direct influence on American history and you can not say the same of Thomas Jefferson.

Then it's a good thing that the topic for which they replaced Jefferson was not "American History" or "The US independence movement." As I explained twice already, they replaced Jefferson on one particular topic: "The influence of writers on the independence movements of the 18th and 19th centuries." As you may recall, the US was not the only country to experience an independence movement during those two centuries.

In normal circumstances, one would think that you'd be applauding a move by a school board to eschew a close-minded America-centric view of world history in favor of a broader, more international view of global events. If only it weren't conservatives behind the change...

I am not saying NOT to have those 3 in the books, I am saying not to remove Thomas Jefferson to make way for these 3 or anyone similar.

Again, Jefferson was not "removed" from the books. He's still there, all over the parts dealing with American history. On one small portion of world history, dealing with a very particular topic, they chose to replace Jefferson, among others, with some other thinkers that they felt were more influential.

You very clearly don't have the requisite familiarity with this topic or with these people to draw a conclusion either way about whether this was a good decision.

 

[ricksfolly]

All I can say is...

FANTASTIC!

It's about time steps were taken to teach the things in history that made America great. I'm all for this, and hope other states will follow.

>>

You're right. History is fantastic because it's all based on biased opinions, not facts. All history books can do is record known names, dates and places from historical archives. Other sources of info, like personal letters, are subjective and hearsay evidence.

Most people can't remember the dots they connected to get where they are now from five minutes ago.

ricksfolly

 

[Dittohead not!]

Wrong again, no he did not. Perhaps you should pay closer attention dittohead.

Dang, you're right. That quote came from the link in the OP.

My bad.

It is the Texas School Board that thinks the FF wanted a theorcracy, apparently.

 

[Vader]

I already explained to you how this is clearly false, so I don't see any point in repeating myself.



Then it's a good thing that the topic for which they replaced Jefferson was not "American History" or "The US independence movement." As I explained twice already, they replaced Jefferson on one particular topic: "The influence of writers on the independence movements of the 18th and 19th centuries." As you may recall, the US was not the only country to experience an independence movement during those two centuries.

In normal circumstances, one would think that you'd be applauding a move by a school board to eschew a close-minded America-centric view of world history in favor of a broader, more international view of global events. If only it weren't conservatives behind the change...



Again, Jefferson was not "removed" from the books. He's still there, all over the parts dealing with American history. On one small portion of world history, dealing with a very particular topic, they chose to replace Jefferson, among others, with some other thinkers that they felt were more influential.

You very clearly don't have the requisite familiarity with this topic or with these people to draw a conclusion either way about whether this was a good decision.

I don't know if I like southerners changing text books without some sort of federal oversight.

 

[Hatuey]

Personally, I don't care what Texas does one way or the other. They are their schools, to teach in as they see fit.

And that is why this country is falling behind Asian countries in education by the minute. A fractured education system creates a fractured population with pockets of knowledge and black holes of complete ignorance. No. I'd much rather every kid in this country learn that weather patterns have a scientific explanation instead of absence of evidence is not evidence of absence fallacies.

 

[RightinNYC]

And that is why this country is falling behind Asian countries in education by the minute. A fractured education system creates a fractured population with pockets of knowledge and black holes of complete ignorance. No. I'd much rather every kid in this country learn that weather patterns have a scientific explanation instead of absence of evidence is not evidence of absence fallacies.

So you're saying we should model ourselves after countries like Japan, where:

1) Education beyond 9th grade is not compulsory,
2) All students, whether in public or private schools, must pay thousands of dollars in tuition if they want to attend high school, and
3) The Government engages in a whitewashing of history textbooks that is so egregious that it puts this to shame.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_history_textbook_controversies]Japanese history textbook controversies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]


That sounds like an improvement to you?

 

[Morality Games]

In normal circumstances, one would think that you'd be applauding a move by a school board to eschew a close-minded America-centric view of world history in favor of a broader, more international view of global events. If only it weren't conservatives behind the change...

The textbook will mostly likely being arguing the revolutions are other people imitating America, or detail the revolutions leading up to the United States. Hard to remove the United States from the center of an American history textbook.

 

[Sir Loin]

Dang, you're right. That quote came from the link in the OP.

My bad.

It is the Texas School Board that thinks the FF wanted a theorcracy, apparently.

All credit to you for admitting your prior error. The Texas school board however, has made no such call nor does anything about this story suggest such. Again, pay closer attention dittohead.

 

[Hatuey]

So you're saying we should model ourselves after countries like Japan, where:

1) Education beyond 9th grade is not compulsory,
2) All students, whether in public or private schools, must pay thousands of dollars in tuition if they want to attend high school, and
3) The Government engages in a whitewashing of history textbooks that is so egregious that it puts this to shame.

Japanese history textbook controversies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


That sounds like an improvement to you?

No. I am saying we should.

1. Have a national curriculum.
2. Have longer hours in school, like Japan - where 12 hour days are not unusual for kids. Seriously a kid in Japan spends more time in school then you probably spent studying in law school.
3. A system that encourages people to go into high secondary levels. Which you failed to mention the overwhelming majority of Japanese students go to even though they are not forced to do so.

--------------------

But if you're of the sort who thinks this country would actually benefit from states picking their own education systems, please tell us how that has worked for the last few decades? Not that great considering we're steadily falling behind everyone else.

 

[RightinNYC]

No. I am saying we should.

1. Have a national curriculum.

Why? What about a national curriculum is intrinsically better than locally-based curriculums? Are you really arguing that there should be stricter standards for what students need to learn and what constitutes achievement? That sounds like No Child Left Behind to me, and we all know how much everyone hates that.

Beyond that, why on earth should all children learn the same things in all classes. In topics like Math or Science, there's a good argument that the curriculum should be standard across the board. For the most part, I'd bet they are. But in things like English or History, it's important that each district be able to focus on things that are important there.

I grew up in the heart of central new york, right next to the Iroquois tribes. While we learned the basics, we also spent a lot of time learning about NY's role in the revolutionary war and how our early country interacted with the Indian tribes. That was relevant and interesting to us. A student growing up in Harlem will probably learn more about black history and Harlem's cultural influences. A student growing up in Oregon will probably learn more about the settlement of his area via the Oregon Trail, while a student in Florida will probably learn more about the Cuban influence on his neighborhoods development. The same applies to English, where in addition to the basics, students generally read works that have something to do with their area. I don't see that as a bad thing, I see that as incredibly beneficial and something that would be a shame to lose.

Perhaps most importantly, would you still feel the same way about the need for a strict national curriculum if the Republicans had an overwhelming majority? Would you feel comfortable with a bunch of white southern dudes deciding what version of history students in Harlem or Detroit would learn? Allowing localities to determine their own curriculum is one of the most important parts of our education system.

2. Have longer hours in school, like Japan - where 12 hour days are not unusual for kids. Seriously a kid in Japan spends more time in school then you probably spent studying in law school.

That's a great idea, but it's entirely unrelated to this topic.

3. A system that encourages people to go into high secondary levels. Which you failed to mention the overwhelming majority of Japanese students go to even though they are not forced to do so.

But they have to pay thousands of dollars in tuition. We already have a system that encourages people to go to high school - free school. Given that Japanese students attend high school in spite of that substantial disincentive, it's pretty obvious that it's not the incentives of the education system that are driving their achievement.

But if you're of the sort who thinks this country would actually benefit from states picking their own education systems, please tell us how that has worked for the last few decades?

The states have been picking their own education systems since the beginning of the country. It resulted in the first widespread high school system in the world, the highest literacy rates in the world at the time, and what is to this day the greatest university system in the world. You can't just look at the fact that we've fallen behind some countries in the past two decades and blame the state-centric system for that - we've had the state-centric system for centuries. It's obviously not the reason for the decline.

Not that great considering we're steadily falling behind everyone else.

And again, you've provided absolutely no evidence to show that it's because we have a state-centric education system. I think it's infinitely more likely that our decline has been due to cultural shifts.

 

[Hatuey]

Why? What about a national curriculum is intrinsically better than locally-based curriculums?

No need to worry about creationism and violations of state & church separation.

Are you really arguing that there should be stricter standards for what students need to learn and what constitutes achievement? That sounds like No Child Left Behind to me, and we all know how much everyone hates that.

Are you being intentionally obtuse? Or just creating strawmen as you see fit? People do not like No Child Left Behind because it was nothing more than an incentive for states to manipulate the system even more than they do now. If anything No Child Left Behind is proof that the current system does not work.

Beyond that, why on earth should all children learn the same things in all classes. In topics like Math or Science, there's a good argument that the curriculum should be standard across the board. For the most part, I'd bet they are. But in things like English or History, it's important that each district be able to focus on things that are important there.

Really? What about English and History is important to focus on things which are important there? Is English some sort of pidgin? Is the English language different in Florida? New York City? What about this country's history? How is it different in Texas?

I grew up in the heart of central new york, right next to the Iroquois tribes. While we learned the basics, we also spent a lot of time learning about NY's role in the revolutionary war and how our early country interacted with the Indian tribes. That was relevant and interesting to us. A student growing up in Harlem will probably learn more about black history and Harlem's cultural influences. A student growing up in Oregon will probably learn more about the settlement of his area via the Oregon Trail, while a student in Florida will probably learn more about the Cuban influence on his neighborhoods development. The same applies to English, where in addition to the basics, students generally read works that have something to do with their area. I don't see that as a bad thing, I see that as incredibly beneficial and something that would be a shame to lose.

That is not what this issue is about though. I have no problem with states have extra classes for students on the local history. When American history is taught, it should be taught equally across the board. Do you disagree? Wait, have you ever been to a country with a national curriculum? It doesn't mean every school has the same classes taught. It means there are a set of classes which are taught equally in every province, state etc.

Perhaps most importantly, would you still feel the same way about the need for a strict national curriculum if the Republicans had an overwhelming majority? Would you feel comfortable with a bunch of white southern dudes deciding what version of history students in Harlem or Detroit would learn? Allowing localities to determine their own curriculum is one of the most important parts of our education system.

I've been arguing for a national curriculum from day 1.

That's a great idea, but it's entirely unrelated to this topic.

But they have to pay thousands of dollars in tuition. We already have a system that encourages people to go to high school - free school. Given that Japanese students attend high school in spite of that substantial disincentive, it's pretty obvious that it's not the incentives of the education system that are driving their achievement.

Bull****. You just argued that students pay more in Japan for school. I've shown that the Japanese system encourages people to continue their education to the level where money no longer becomes a problem. Their system simply works better than ours regardless of the cost. They even spend the same as we do nationally per student.

US Census Press Releases

The states have been picking their own education systems since the beginning of the country. It resulted in the first widespread high school system in the world, the highest literacy rates in the world at the time, and what is to this day the greatest university system in the world. You can't just look at the fact that we've fallen behind some countries in the past two decades and blame the state-centric system for that - we've had the state-centric system for centuries. It's obviously not the reason for the decline.

Can you tell us how a university which teaches creationism as a possible explanation for life ranks? Like say Heritage Christian University? No. The university system in this country is probably the closest to a national curriculum. You won't find Cornell or Berkley teaching that there is a possibility that there is a creator of life in a biology class. Our university system has realized they are not competing with themselves anymore, they are competing with the rest of the world.

And again, you've provided absolutely no evidence to show that it's because we have a state-centric education system. I think it's infinitely more likely that our decline has been due to cultural shifts.

States with national curriculums. Ahead of U.S. - A country without them. Behind. The only cultural shifts which have happened in the last 20-30 years of any true meaning are the rise of the religious right. Another strong advocate of states running their own education. For obvious purposes. :shrug:

 

[Lerxst]

Jesus Christ...I'm embarrassed for Texas.

 

[Ikari]

Indoctrination in public schools is nothing new, it's been going on for decades at least.

The difference is that almost all of it has been decidedly left-of-center to this point. Now someone wants to shift it a little to the right to make things a smidge more balanced.

Cry boo-hoo, why dontcha.

I think the better thing is to take away the indoctrination and teach critical thinking as well. America is great and has done great things, we've also done some terrible things, we also meddle incessantly in places we shouldn't. We shouldn't indoctrinate one way or the other, we should just present the information and data as it is. Teach critical thinking skills, be honest on our history, etc. I think that will go a lot further and behoove us much more than jumping up and down and celebrating blind, stupid, partisan indoctrination of our children. In the end, I think we're better than that.

 

[Slartibartfast]

I think the better thing is to take away the indoctrination and teach critical thinking as well. America is great and has done great things, we've also done some terrible things, we also meddle incessantly in places we shouldn't. We shouldn't indoctrinate one way or the other, we should just present the information and data as it is. Teach critical thinking skills, be honest on our history, etc. I think that will go a lot further and behoove us much more than jumping up and down and celebrating blind, stupid, partisan indoctrination of our children. In the end, I think we're better than that.

THANK YOU! That is exactly what I have been saying all along. It should not be up to the schools to teach ideology. We would be better served as a nation if we gave up the focus on testing and worked on teaching children in problem solving, critical thinking, and self education.

Schools are great and all citizens need basic facts to be a useful part of society, but giving kids the skills to make their own way beyond the basics is what we need to be a truly innovative society and an economic power house into the future.

 

[Tucker Case]

And that is why this country is falling behind Asian countries in education by the minute. A fractured education system creates a fractured population with pockets of knowledge and black holes of complete ignorance. No. I'd much rather every kid in this country learn that weather patterns have a scientific explanation instead of absence of evidence is not evidence of absence fallacies.

No, One of the biggest reasons "we" are falling behind is because parents aren't doing their jobs when it comes to education.

They feel that it's the school's duty, so they don't involve themselves. Asians punish their kids for B's. We give them lollipops.

That's the difference.

 

[American]

So you are all for indoctrinating school children, so long as it is the correct flavor of indoctrination.

Yes, as long as counters the multiculturalism being propagated throughout our schools.

 

[Boo Radley]

Yes, as long as counters the multiculturalism being propagated throughout our schools.

Another example of what I keep saying. Conservatives do not have a problem with bias or indoctrination, as long as it is their bias and indoctrination that is given preference.

 

[Ikari]

Yes, as long as counters the multiculturalism being propagated throughout our schools.

So basically you don't want to solve a problem or address the issue honestly. You're just as corrupt and scheming as the other side in their attempt to indoctrinate against the data. Nice, glad to see no one wants to handle the issue like an adult.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Another example of what I keep saying. Conservatives do not have a problem with bias or indoctrination, as long as it is their bias and indoctrination that is given preference.

I think it depends on the type of Conservative. For Social Conservatives, culture is their main issue and they will be for anything that attempts to get people to have certain beliefs. For Fiscal Conservatives, I would say it is more mixed and probably depends on how far they lean Libertarian.

Don't kid yourself though, Social Liberals will also attempt to indoctrinate as well.

It's wrong no matter who does it. Kids should be educated enough to come to their own conclusions.

 

[Coronado]

No, One of the biggest reasons "we" are falling behind is because parents aren't doing their jobs when it comes to education.

They feel that it's the school's duty, so they don't involve themselves. Asians punish their kids for B's. We give them lollipops.

That's the difference.

QFT. When an American kid gets a 98% on his test, his parents tell him he did a great job. When an Asian kid gets the same score, his parents get on him about the 2% he got wrong.

Our schools have failed our kids, but so have the parents. Passing the buck back and forth is pretty ridiculous.