From religious teachings involving Judaoism and Christianity...to downplaying the separation of church and state, to teaching about the devaluation of the dollar by going off of the gold standard.

We'are talking about some radical changes here...and these changes encompass the entire State of Texas.

Whereby I think all of these subjects are important to discuss, I question the thought process in coming to the conclusion that political slants should be promoted in a public school environment.

http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/texas-board-oks-big-changes-to-textbooks/19487377

Let me start by saying the title of this thread is extreme, but I couldn't fit all of it in the title.

Texas wants to "water down" the teaching of the civil rights movement, slavery, the U.S. involvement with the UN, and the speration of Church and State.

They also want to change the wording of the constitution from democratic to constitutional republic.

Lastly, they want to teach about the Gold Standard and the decline of the U.S. dollar.

The motion passed 9-5, but people all over the country are up in arms about it. Someone said it was about time they did this because the State Board was run by Dems and the in office Repubs are "fixing" things.

1. I like the idea of including the US dollar/Gold Standard, but to take out or water down the importance of these issues is not a good idea. I think it's important for generations to know about slavery and the process of African Americans getting what they've got today. It's about fighting for your freedom just as the founding fathers did.

2. There was a quote about school not being the place for politics. I agree with this. Don't come in and change a text book because it doesn't agree with your ideology or because the other party approved the book.

What is going to give the students the most complete, unbiased, history of our country?

Conservatives always love to throw a fake outrage tantrum and blurt out the phrase "re-writing history" - well here is, in fact, and ACTUAL CASE of re-writing history. Ill sit here and wait for their outrage.........

I saw one example where the 'slave trade' will be called the 'American Triangular Trade'. That makes no sense and is just stupid in my opinion.

Wait...so this is the first case ever of political slants being promoted in the public schools? Really? :rolleyes:

Hmmm, don't most textbook publishers base their content on Texas' standards? This may have far reaching effects.

This is absurd.

Footwedge wrote: From religious teachings involving Judaoism and Christianity...to downplaying the separation of church and state, to teaching about the devaluation of the dollar by going off of the gold standard.

We'are talking about some radical changes here...and these changes encompass the entire State of Texas.

Whereby I think all of these subjects are important to discuss, I question the thought process in coming to the conclusion that political slants should be promoted in a public school environment.

http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/texas-board-oks-big-changes-to-textbooks/19487377

Political slants are a part of life. Everyone has an opinion. Political discussions were a part of my experience in the public school system here in Ohio, although most took place at the higher levels. They served me well and had minimal impact on forming the political opinions I hold today. Other than bitching about this decision, what should be done with it? Should the federal government get involved? I don't like a lot of things some states do. I may bitch about them but if I don't live there what does it really matter in this case?

As for the points you mentioned, I have little problems with Texas on this. From what I see in the media I have not problem with their decisions as well. I will look into the matter further to see if I can find major problems with this. We can bitch about a states decision and argue the matter, but what really matters is are they violating the constitution?

How is this okay at all?

There are many things that don't violate the constitution that are wrong as hell. This being one of them.

I Wear Pants wrote: How is this okay at all?

There are many things that don't violate the constitution that are wrong as hell. This being one of them.

So you agree Texas is not in violation of the US constitution. Which parts though do you have a problem with?

I don't know if they are in violation of the constitution.

I just don't think it's particularly relevant to whether or not this is wrong.

I Wear Pants wrote: I don't know if they are in violation of the constitution.

I just don't think it's particularly relevant to whether or not this is wrong.

If Texas is not in violation of the constitution the legal argument it s dead. As for the right or wrong that is up for debate. Which parts don't you like?

majorspark wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote: I don't know if they are in violation of the constitution.

I just don't think it's particularly relevant to whether or not this is wrong.

If Texas is not in violation of the constitution the legal argument it s dead. As for the right or wrong that is up for debate. Which parts don't you like?

I never said I was making a legal argument. And I don't know if this is in violation of the constitution seeing as I'm not a lawyer or constitutional scholar.

However I think the changing words in the constitution to fit your political ideals in a textbook is plainly wrong and should be illegal.

I Wear Pants wrote: However I think the changing words in the constitution to fit your political ideals in a textbook is plainly wrong and should be illegal.

What words do you thing they are changing in the US constitution?

majorspark wrote: I don't like a lot of things some states do. I may bitch about them but if I don't live there what does it really matter in this case?

School Textbooks are uniquely problematic because of the large population of Texas, these changes could affect textbooks that children in Delaware read.

I think the chairman of the Texas Board of Education is a Dentist...and he was quoted as saying something along the lines "Somebody's got to stand up to the "experts."

I wonder what he would think if I were to say to him "No, I shouldn't floss every day. I should go to bed with a mouthful of doritoes. Somebody's got to stand up to the experts."

I don't know, I suppose I have some bit of a problem with boards of education being able to be composed of just about anybody with no background in education or what have you. Maybe I'm an elitist.

majorspark wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote: However I think the changing words in the constitution to fit your political ideals in a textbook is plainly wrong and should be illegal.

What words do you thing they are changing in the US constitution?

its


Its called HISTORY, DOCUMENTED and UNDISPUTED documentation of FACTS over a period of time. The person who scribed the CONSTITUTION that you love to somehow annoint with the final say on such an issue is completely LEFT OUT of this new re-writing of history, not important, no mention.... so do we take that as the constitution is void and your ridiculous argument not valid? If its not in this new history it didnt happen, correct? or shall we rewrite that chapter? Perhaps in 1776 jesus swooped down on a giant Terradactyl and presented the constitution to Washington (opps scrub that, not "christian"), John Adams (opps scrub that, not "christian"),James Madison (opps scrub that, not "christian"), James Monroe (opps scrub that, not "christian"), John Qunicy Adams (opps scrub that, not "christian"), Andrew Jackson (opps scrub that, not "christian"), well hell, he swooped down on his giant flying jesus horse and presented the constitution to the "real americans" and it in no way was penned by Mr Jefferson..........but on to creationism, and the earth only being 8,000 years old........ damn, i feeling a bit parched, anyone up for some crackers and grape juice? perhaps after snack time we can discuss our investments in some triangulated atlantic trade........and let us not forget the little known articles of the constitution those non-christians made us omit.... step on a crack, break your mothers back, walking under a ladder is bad luck, break a mirror and have seven years of bad luck, open an umbrella indoors and be damned to hell, and god forbid a black cat cross your path......

BoatShoes wrote:I don't know, I suppose I have some bit of a problem with boards of education being able to be composed of just about anybody with no background in education or what have you. Maybe I'm an elitist.

So only those with backgrounds in education are qualified to make decisions in the education of our children is that correct?

You are elitist.

Liberal political slant has been indoctrinated into our public school children for the better part of the past century via federal mandates from the DOE, the influences of the labor unions (NEA in particular), the training of teachers in largely liberal public universities, etc. And when the conservatives protested the elites scoffed and ignored it.

Of course I'm not surprised at that since our public government-run schools are - well - government-run.

Now when Texas attempts to swing the slant to the right a little, the lefties are getting their undies in a wad.

Leftist hypocrisy never ceases to amaze me.

zhon44622 wrote:

majorspark wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote: However I think the changing words in the constitution to fit your political ideals in a textbook is plainly wrong and should be illegal.

What words do you thing they are changing in the US constitution?

its


Its called HISTORY, DOCUMENTED and UNDISPUTED documentation of FACTS over a period of time. The person who scribed the CONSTITUTION that you love to somehow annoint with the final say on such an issue is completely LEFT OUT of this new re-writing of history, not important, no mention.... so do we take that as the constitution is void and your ridiculous argument not valid? If its not in this new history it didnt happen, correct? or shall we rewrite that chapter? Perhaps in 1776 jesus swooped down on a giant Terradactyl and presented the constitution to Washington (opps scrub that, not "christian"), John Adams (opps scrub that, not "christian"),James Madison (opps scrub that, not "christian"), James Monroe (opps scrub that, not "christian"), John Qunicy Adams (opps scrub that, not "christian"), Andrew Jackson (opps scrub that, not "christian"), well hell, he swooped down on his giant flying jesus horse and presented the constitution to the "real americans" and it in no way was penned by Mr Jefferson..........but on to creationism, and the earth only being 8,000 years old........ damn, i feeling a bit parched, anyone up for some crackers and grape juice? perhaps after snack time we can discuss our investments in some triangulated atlantic trade........and let us not forget the little known articles of the constitution those non-christians made us omit.... step on a crack, break your mothers back, walking under a ladder is bad luck, break a mirror and have seven years of bad luck, open an umbrella indoors and be damned to hell, and god forbid a black cat cross your path......

Go find a World Book Encyclopedia from 1970 or so and read through it. Then go get the same from 2009.

Go find an American History textbook from 1981. Then, read one from 2008.. History has been revised since the dawn of...well...history.

Cool rant, though. And your avatar still looks gay. I thought I told you to change it?

I am one of those people who firmly believe that history isn't what happened, history is what was written down. And, it was often written down according to the politics of the time.

History is also disputed constantly.

I'm not saying that nothing in history is believable or wrong, but there's always two sides to a story; and sometimes it's up to the reader/viewer to determine where the meeting point is. IMO

downplaying the separation of church and state, to teaching about the devaluation of the dollar by going off of the gold standard.

As far as the 2 points that the OP made, I don't know if I have a problem with that.
- As long as we don't have a national church we need to pay taxes to - as in The Church of England
- the devaluation of the dollar is a fact, why not teach it?

BoatShoes wrote: School Textbooks are uniquely problematic because of the large population of Texas, these changes could affect textbooks that children in Delaware read.

Maybe Delaware should just make their own? I would also note that in the digital age publishers can customize textbooks for individual states. Also the classroom teacher has a great influence in what is taught to children. We all know that a teachers take or opinions make it into the classroom many time regardless of subject.

BoatShoes wrote: I don't know, I suppose I have some bit of a problem with boards of education being able to be composed of just about anybody with no background in education or what have you. Maybe I'm an elitist.

It is an elected office. He was chosen by the people of Texas. You are a lawyer so I guess your opinion is disqualified as well.

I would not say this dentist has no background in education. He had twelve years of grade school. 4yrs college and another 4yrs of dental school.

believer wrote:

BoatShoes wrote:I don't know, I suppose I have some bit of a problem with boards of education being able to be composed of just about anybody with no background in education or what have you. Maybe I'm an elitist.

So only those with backgrounds in education are qualified to make decisions in the education of our children is that correct?

You are elitist.

Liberal political slant has been indoctrinated into our public school children for the better part of the past century via federal mandates from the DOE, the influences of the labor unions (NEA in particular), the training of teachers in largely liberal public universities, etc. And when the conservatives protested the elites scoffed and ignored it.

Of course I'm not surprised at that since our public government-run schools are - well - government-run.

Now when Texas attempts to swing the slant to the right a little, the lefties are getting their undies in a wad.

Leftist hypocrisy never ceases to amaze me.

Hypocrisy on your part as well.

Complain about the left and our schools, and then are "OK" with the right doing the same thing because that is the side you happen to fall on.

The hypocrisy of the right never ceases to amaze me.

The fact that you can't seem to get it through your head that both sides are EXACTLY THE SAME in this regard and many others is laughable.

Both sides are guilty of, at times, using the educational system to make political points at the expense of our children's education.

I'm not denying that the left has done it in the past. And i think the right is doing it here.

Just more evidence that worthless and idiotic political divisions are everywhere in our society, and exactly where they don't need to be.

I understand that it is hard to do, however, because we're all human, but still, it is frustrating, to say the least.

The left has done despicable things in regards to education, and the right is following right along now.

Both sides need a swift quick in the nuts. As someone who has undergraduate and graduate degrees in history, i'm appalled by what i've read in numerous textbooks from across the country.

zhon44622 wrote: Its called HISTORY, DOCUMENTED and UNDISPUTED documentation of FACTS over a period of time. The person who scribed the CONSTITUTION that you love to somehow annoint with the final say on such an issue is completely LEFT OUT of this new re-writing of history, not important, no mention.... so do we take that as the constitution is void and your ridiculous argument not valid? If its not in this new history it didnt happen, correct? or shall we rewrite that chapter? Perhaps in 1776 jesus swooped down on a giant Terradactyl and presented the constitution to Washington (opps scrub that, not "christian"), John Adams (opps scrub that, not "christian"),James Madison (opps scrub that, not "christian"), James Monroe (opps scrub that, not "christian"), John Qunicy Adams (opps scrub that, not "christian"), Andrew Jackson (opps scrub that, not "christian"), well hell, he swooped down on his giant flying jesus horse and presented the constitution to the "real americans" and it in no way was penned by Mr Jefferson..........but on to creationism, and the earth only being 8,000 years old........ damn, i feeling a bit parched, anyone up for some crackers and grape juice? perhaps after snack time we can discuss our investments in some triangulated atlantic trade........and let us not forget the little known articles of the constitution those non-christians made us omit.... step on a crack, break your mothers back, walking under a ladder is bad luck, break a mirror and have seven years of bad luck, open an umbrella indoors and be damned to hell, and god forbid a black cat cross your path......

All this nonsense and you still did not answer the question you responded to.

As for Jefferson, the board never considered eliminating him entirely from their textbooks as a historical figure. Just one section on major philosophers of the time period (a decision I personally disagreed with).
And even though this was discussed and up for vote the change was voted down.

Thomas Jefferson: After striking him from a list of political philosophers in the standards for world history, board members responded to widespread criticism and placed the nation's third president back into the standards. Jefferson's writings on government will now be studied alongside those of John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Voltaire, Rousseau and other political thinkers.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/052110dnedusboeupdate.2671ec55.html

Why the hell would they make any of these decisions in the first place though?

The only one that's sort of reasonable is the downfall of the dollar because the dollar has been devalued. But they better not have it taught like some great disaster that's happened because we left the gold standard.

I Wear Pants wrote: Why the hell would they make any of these decisions in the first place though?

The only one that's sort of reasonable is the downfall of the dollar because the dollar has been devalued. But they better not have it taught like some great disaster that's happened because we left the gold standard.

Umm, that's exactly what's happened. We left a commodity backed currency and went to one where belief backs the currency. Because there was nothing to stop the Fed from printing money, they could print all they want and destroy the purchasing power of the dollar at the same. The dollar has taken a sharp decline since 1913, the year the Fed was introduced.

Ok...I am a Texas educator. I teach AP US History in suburban Houston which houses not only sons and daughters of NASA engineers but that of one the world's finest Medical Centers.

First and foremost...I teach what I want and how I want so state curriculum is nothing more than a suggestion. In fact I have my students edit the text books by marking out what I deem necessary and adding what they need to study. Black markers are wonderful. I will simply do this again with the new books. Its slightly annoying but after the first year of an adoption, you are good for 9 more. I have earned that through years of experience and my results.

Second, this is huge for all states not just Texas. Publishers print textbooks for Texas and California and only change the cover for the rest of the country. So this shift will affect all states.

Third, there is nothing radically changing. Our government stays the same regardless of terminology, our economy stays the same regardless of how it has been taught. We are basically talking about terminology and semantics.

This is simply matching with what most if not all colleges are teaching in their survey courses currently...its part of the social history approach of contemporary professors. I don't like it, but that is why I have stayed in the High School level, teaching the brightest and most impressionable students I can....now refer to my first point.

believer wrote: So only those with backgrounds in education are qualified to make decisions in the education of our children is that correct?

The short answer is yes. I don't try to control what or how corporate America does business or how the Medical field conducts it business.....leave public education to the educators.