Texas school board changing the curriculum

[Wrath of Dagon]

We already had a thread on this, and I would suggest the Guardian is not the most objective source on this kind of subject. For example the "sidelining of Thomas Jefferson" is a lie, he was taken out of one sentence in world (not American) history listing Enlightnment philosophers, since it was argued he wasn't an Enlightnment philosopher himself, but influenced by them.

 

True, but his philosophy was altered to omit his passionate support of the separation of church and state.

Do you have any evidence for this?

 

Sure. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0031700560.html

 

...The curriculum plays down the role of Thomas Jefferson among the founding fathers, questions the separation of church and state, and claims that the U.S. government was infiltrated by Communists during the Cold War...Discussions ranged from whether President Reagan should get more attention (yes), whether hip-hop should be included as part of lessons on American culture (no), and whether President of the Confederacy Jefferson Davis's inaugural address should be studied alongside Abraham Lincoln's (yes).

 

...Also contentious were changes that asserted Christian faith of the founding fathers. Historians say the founding fathers had a variety of approaches to religion and faith; some, like Jefferson, were quite secular...

This is Washington Post's slant on it, with precious few specific examples. I already said the only change to Thomas Jefferson was in one single sentence listing enlightnment philosophers in the world (not American) history curriculum. When the main stream media kicks up their propaganda, they repeat each other like an echo chamber, regardless of the facts. And US government certainly was infiltrated by the Communists, like Alger Hiss.

 

The 100+ changes in the Texas version eliminate the secular point of this nation, and paint it as a Christian nation, forged under God. Which, btw, it was not. So that's a pretty significant historical "revision."

For a secular nation, the founders sure used the word "God" a lot. And again, what evidence are you basing this on? Btw, the final curriculum hasn't been adopted yet, they're still holding public hearings.

 

We were not a nation "forged under God" until the mid-1950's, during McCarthy's reign, when congress tossed away more than 150 years of history by removing "E Pluribus Unum" (from many one) from our currency and replacing it with "In God We Trust." Those same God-loving folk decided that our original Pledge of Alligiance wasn't Christian enough, so they added the "Under God" to it at that time. I doubt the kids in Texas will ever learn that in school, however.

 

No, the changes haven't passed yet but they are expected to. The conservatives still have the majority vote.

It funny that they're so secular they began the Declaration of Independence (written by Jefferson): "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,[71] that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". Whether Jefferson was secular is very debatable, he certainly invoked God many times and considered himself a Unitarian. E Pluribus Unum is still on all the coins btw.

Edited May 21, 2010 by Wrath of Dagon

[Calax]

It funny that they're so secular they began the Declaration of Independence (written by Jefferson): "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,[71] that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". Whether Jefferson was secular is very debatable, he certainly invoked God many times and considered himself a Unitarian. E Pluribus Unum is still on all the coins btw.

To the same degree, Steven Hawking and Albert Einstien talked about knowing the mind of god. And yet both are atheistic.

[I want teh kotor 3]

It funny that they're so secular they began the Declaration of Independence (written by Jefferson): "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,[71] that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". Whether Jefferson was secular is very debatable, he certainly invoked God many times and considered himself a Unitarian. E Pluribus Unum is still on all the coins btw.

To the same degree, Steven Hawking and Albert Einstien talked about knowing the mind of god. And yet both are atheistic.

 

Indeed. God is a common phrase to represent the inexplicable.

[Humodour]

Wrath of Dagon, do you acknowledge that America is a secular country and that separation of church and state are of utmost importance to its freedom and good governance?

[Deadly_Nightshade]

It funny that they're so secular they began the Declaration of Independence...

 

It's also funny that this, unlike, say, the Constitution, is not the founding, legal document of the current United States of America.

 

[Thorton_AP]

I don't think "their Creator" has to imply anything non-secular.

 

I think it's very telling that he used the word "their" and not "the"

Edited May 21, 2010 by Thorton_AP

[Monte Carlo]

The culture wars in America over stuff like religion and abortion are quaint. They reaffirm the hegemony of capitalism - all the big arguments have been won. What's left, in the hinterlands of American politics, is this kulturkampf over education and civil partnerships.

 

In really screwed-up societies people fight civil wars over big issues, not internet spats over little ones.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Wrath of Dagon, do you acknowledge that America is a secular country and that separation of church and state are of utmost importance to its freedom and good governance?

J'accuse!

 

Certainly, and I've yet to see evidence that the new curriculum says anything to the contrary.

[Wrath of Dagon]

The media lies I'm seeing are really frustrating, you know they do that all the time but it's still shocking to come across actual examples. I found the proposed curriculum on line: http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/teks/social/HS_TEKS_1stRdg.pdf You can search for Jefferson for example.

 

The links to other grades are here: http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index2.aspx?id=3643

Edited May 21, 2010 by Wrath of Dagon

[~Di]

*shrug* Don't like the message, ridicule the source, even though the source is a nationally-respected newspaper. Common tactic. Cheap, but common. I'm not going to get into dueling sources when even the chair of the committee making the changes has proudly confessed that they are "eliminating the liberal slant" of their books.

[Calax]

Didn't they soften the criticisms of McCarthism in the books?

[~Di]

Didn't they soften the criticisms of McCarthism in the books?

 

Yes. One analyst I heard on tv said that the changes will remove criticisms of McCarthy and assert instead that communism was indeed rampant during the McCarthy years... which would make him look like a shining hero saving the American way of life. Bah. Ridiculous revisionism.

[Wrath of Dagon]

*shrug* Don't like the message, ridicule the source, even though the source is a nationally-respected newspaper. Common tactic. Cheap, but common. I'm not going to get into dueling sources when even the chair of the committee making the changes has proudly confessed that they are "eliminating the liberal slant" of their books.

Nationally known for being extremely liberal. Fine, you trust your sources and I'll trust mine. And what's wrong with eliminating liberal slant?

describe how McCarthyism, the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), the arms race, and the space race increased Cold War tensions and how the later release of the Venona Papers confirmed suspicions of communist infiltration in U.S. government

All true.

[Calax]

describe how McCarthyism, the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), the arms race, and the space race increased Cold War tensions and how the later release of the Venona Papers confirmed suspicions of communist infiltration in U.S. government

All true.

Except, from what I under stand, that's not the lesson per se. McCarthyism is taught mainly to demonstrate the problem of which hunts and how things were being done back during the craze. Same thing with the Salem Witch Trials. Also, it sounds like they're saying that just because there were a few commies in the country, accusing anyone who was his political opponents is Ok, because at the end of the day, he was correct.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

And what's wrong with eliminating liberal slant?

 

Because there might not have been any "slant" to start with. I'd have to read the originals but from what I've seen so far it's more a "let's blame the left while sticking our ideology into school" move.

 

[Monte Carlo]

Depends on the teacher. I vividly remember history lessons at my London comprehensive school in the early 80's, the teacher was a raving, foaming at the mouth Trot. He couldn't help himself as taught the subject through an undiluted Marxist prism. He was also a kindly and decent enough man and a passionate teacher. I rather liked him but even then I felt at a visceral level he was utterly wrong.

 

Now, he was never challenged by colleagues about what was, indutably, indoctrination. Mainly because, I suspect, the staff room was a bit like the Third International and it was the early 80's after all. Nowadays? Well, the hair-shirt Marxism of yore has been replaced by the Frankfurt variety and the teaching profession is now dominated by the politically-correct 'soft left'. But they are still culturally left-wing and I suspect the USA is similar. Maybe Hurlie will enlighten us.

 

My kids are taught some appalling left-wing bollocks at school at quite a tender age. I am biding my time before I go to have a chat without coffee with the teachers, it might be a year or two yet. But I am pretty sure that there is an in-built left wing bias (I won't say liberal, because the pejorative connotations the word has developed do no justice to what liberalism really is) in schools.

 

Now, that doesn't mean that I want my child to be brought up on a diet of little Englander, jingoistic BS. I want him to hear all the competing views, left, right and otherwise. What I don't want is the insipid, politically correct groupthink that seems to pass for educational theory and doctrine in modern schools. Like I said in my earlier post about the HUAC - teach the arguments and counter-arguments, let the kids make their own minds up and learn to critically evaluate information.

 

Cheers

MC

[Calax]

Depends on the teacher. I vividly remember history lessons at my London comprehensive school in the early 80's, the teacher was a raving, foaming at the mouth Trot. He couldn't help himself as taught the subject through an undiluted Marxist prism. He was also a kindly and decent enough man and a passionate teacher. I rather liked him but even then I felt at a visceral level he was utterly wrong.

 

Now, he was never challenged by colleagues about what was, indutably, indoctrination. Mainly because, I suspect, the staff room was a bit like the Third International and it was the early 80's after all. Nowadays? Well, the hair-shirt Marxism of yore has been replaced by the Frankfurt variety and the teaching profession is now dominated by the politically-correct 'soft left'. But they are still culturally left-wing and I suspect the USA is similar. Maybe Hurlie will enlighten us.

 

My kids are taught some appalling left-wing bollocks at school at quite a tender age. I am biding my time before I go to have a chat without coffee with the teachers, it might be a year or two yet. But I am pretty sure that there is an in-built left wing bias (I won't say liberal, because the pejorative connotations the word has developed do no justice to what liberalism really is) in schools.

 

Now, that doesn't mean that I want my child to be brought up on a diet of little Englander, jingoistic BS. I want him to hear all the competing views, left, right and otherwise. What I don't want is the insipid, politically correct groupthink that seems to pass for educational theory and doctrine in modern schools. Like I said in my earlier post about the HUAC - teach the arguments and counter-arguments, let the kids make their own minds up and learn to critically evaluate information.

 

Cheers

MC

To a degree that's ok, and to a degree that's not. In fact that's the EXACT method that the Intelligent Design nutjobs are trying to use to get their religion forced into a science classroom. Student's don't have the training in the fields of study that are being taught at a k-12 level to make a decision based on information given. I'm certain a 14 year old would LOVE to think that he's smart enough in biology to decide if abiogenesis happened or if it was just god shooting a rubber band that hit the wrong target, but he's not. People go to college for 4 years to get a passing aquaintence with their subject matter and another 2-4 to become specialized enough to make this sort of call.

 

This doesn't hold true for all subjects, I admit, but generally stating that somebody <18 has the knowledge to evaluate and make a decision on what could be a VERY complex subject is just outright idiocy. A biology student wouldn't even know where to begin if tossed at an abiogensis problem, and cultural items generally aren't gonna even be up for controversy within the students minds because they get SUCH a one sided view of EVERYTHING that early. In America, students are taught to revere the military in hero worship, and are never shown the military's bad side (firebombing Dresden for example, was mentioned to me in ENGLISH class), and while I'm sure you'd say that you're trying to correct that sort of thing, realize, children generally aren't able to percieve shades of grey very well. They generally are told "WW2, allies good, germany bad, ok? Ok." from a young age and only start changing that if they ever really get a passion for WW2.

[Walsingham]

Interesting points all round. But to return to a theme I raised in jest earlier:

 

Surely kids these days get only a tiny fraction of their information from school. Due to a combination of poor school discipline and the titanic information noosphere around them:their social dynamics, culture confrontation with people of other faiths, fashion, TVs, phones, radios, internet blogs, facebook links, viral videos, comedians memes etc etc.

[Monte Carlo]

@ Calax. You've just proved my point. Dresden is a 'bad' thing, you are buying into the now-default revisionism on the subject. Group-think.

 

How about Dresden as a good thing? Dresden as a strategic target? Dresden as logical payback for the "9/11 every week for a year" that was the unprovoked Blitz on London? Dresden as a part of the sad but irreducibly sensible way to destroy Nazism?

 

Kids need to understand alternative POV. Intelligent Design? It's utter bollocks. But I'd be comfortable with it being taught as long as it's balanced out, I'd quote Voltaire but it's a bit of a cliche. Religion doesn't make sense to me yet it is still taught, personally I'd go all French on the issue and ban religion from schools full stop. But that's just me.

Edited May 22, 2010 by Monte Carlo

[Walsingham]

I'd like to see anyone trying to teach European history without talking about Religion, Monte!

 

Personally I don't understand this endless risk averse, compensation culture, running in little circles approach to education. I went to public boarding school where the general idea was put kids in rooms with crazed but enthusiastic intellectuals of all stripes (my politics teacher was a Trotskyist, my biology teacher was a hobbit, the head of music was a bit TOO enthusaistic about small boys), under harsh discipline so they were paying attention, and see what happened. The results - excluding all the chaps who have since had irrevocable nervous breakdowns - are salutary in the extreme.

[Monte Carlo]

Of course you'd teach religion, but in a third party way --- not as some sort of universal truth. As an admirer of the French I've long envied their robust and unapologetic secularism.

[Calax]

@ Calax. You've just proved my point. Dresden is a 'bad' thing, you are buying into the now-default revisionism on the subject. Group-think.

 

How about Dresden as a good thing? Dresden as a strategic target? Dresden as logical payback for the "9/11 every week for a year" that was the unprovoked Blitz on London? Dresden as a part of the sad but irreducibly sensible way to destroy Nazism?

 

Kids need to understand alternative POV. Intelligent Design? It's utter bollocks. But I'd be comfortable with it being taught as long as it's balanced out, I'd quote Voltaire but it's a bit of a cliche. Religion doesn't make sense to me yet it is still taught, personally I'd go all French on the issue and ban religion from schools full stop. But that's just me.

So, you'd be comfortable with something that is more theology than science being taught as a science alongside a well established scientific fact, and want your child to decided if "God did it!" or "Here's a complex biological process that most people can barely wrap their heads around and..."

 

Understand, if you start teaching "the debate" within certain fields, you basically stop teaching. ID in itself is based off horrible perversions of science. It's just a re branding of creationsim.

 

I mean, teaching the controversy is fantastic in theory, but like I said, at such an age, nobody would be able to actually break it down and figure out what is correct. As to Dresden, Yes, I have a very one sided view of it, but I can understand the psycological need to strike back etc etc, as I age, at 15? Not so much. And from everything I've seen/heard, dresden was as much a military target as the Trade Center.

[Walsingham]

I thought of something, tho, Cal. I don't mind Communism being taught in schools, even though I think it's gokking insane. The evidence is far more concrete on Communism being terrible, than evolution being correct. As of the last time I studied evolutionary theory properly - and keep in mind I personally think it's absolutely cracking stuff - teh best we could say is that it is helpful in explaining various traits. No-one's actually observed it happening at the species level because it takes too long. And even if we could now it wouldn't PROVE it had happened thousands of years ago.

 

I only just thought of this point, so apologies if it's rubbish.

[Orogun01]

The problem here is more of a lack of cohesion on the national level. Sure democracy and free speech is great, but American schools have no solid base and they shouldn't be indoctrinating them before they have a certain amount of knowledge. By that same process I see the whole Senior High School bit as dispensable, I still can't put in my head that Cuba has better education that a world superpower.

Things like theology have no place in a Kid's schools classroom, simply because there is no consensus about it, nor any facts and it's not the school's right to tell people what to believe. Evolution on the other hand is a widely accepted idea that provides a good starting point into the subject, even if is not completely proven it can put perspective to the matter and allow for an interest to grow.

Basically all of America should start to agree in what a good starting point for a subject is and not whether one is more correct than another. That's just going to create confusion.

[Walsingham]

I think I follow you, Orogun. And its' got me thinking.

 

Surely the purpose of state education is practical. Its not about Truth. It's about giving people common skills and toa lesser degree creating a shared intellectual context for communication.

 

Therefore I'd ask: given the shocking lack of literacy and numeracy in many children is is appropriate to spend ANY time on ANY theories of creation.

 

Even assuming we wish to tacke larger issues in school, would it not make more sense to teach the mechanical process of logical reasoning than merely indoctrinate?

 

Again, just thoughts occurring to me now.