georgemc80 wrote: 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.

georgemc80 wrote: ^^^
Is that supposed to be a valid point?

majorspark wrote:Yes. No one expects a politician to have to be a career politician. Yes in some cases it is a benefit. Others it is not. It best to have a mix of all backgrounds.

A BOE is a political body that has many functions besides curriculum. Financial, legal, architectural, transportation, safety, etc. It would be great if a BOE was made of diverse individuals with experience in these backgrounds as well. It would not be good if a BOE was made up of just "educators". In fact it would be harmful as the BOE would be strong in one area but weak in its other important responsibilities. There are educators, lawyers, engineers, etc. on the Texas BOE. Sounds like a pretty good mix.

georgemc80 wrote: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.

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

majorspark wrote:

georgemc80 wrote: ^^^
Is that supposed to be a valid point?

Yes. No one expects a politician to have to be a career politician. Yes in some cases it is a benefit. Others it is not. It best to have a mix of all backgrounds.

A BOE is a political body that has many functions besides curriculum. Financial, legal, architectural, transportation, safety, etc. It would be great if a BOE was made of diverse individuals with experience in these backgrounds as well. It would not be good if a BOE was made up of just "educators". In fact it would be harmful as the BOE would be strong in one area but weak in its other important responsibilities. There are educators, lawyers, engineers, etc. on the Texas BOE. Sounds like a pretty good mix.

Footwedge wrote:If a student wants to be a Christian, then go to a private school that teaches it.

I Wear Pants wrote:
Any group made up of like minded individuals will not accomplish much good.

believer wrote:

Footwedge wrote:If a student wants to be a Christian, then go to a private school that teaches it.

In the meantime we should let our government funded public schools continue to teach our kids to be good little secular liberals so that when they go out in the world they'll be well versed in disciplines like multiculturalism, recycling, the evils of fossil fuels, proper condom application, and Darwinism as fact rather than theory. Math, science, history, and English language skills? No need for that anymore....the government will take care good of you.

Footwedge wrote:Because religion isn't taught, by default, secularism IS taught?

believer wrote:

Footwedge wrote:Because religion isn't taught, by default, secularism IS taught?

Oh it's not by default it's by design.

georgemc80 wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote:
Any group made up of like minded individuals will not accomplish much good.

I assure you there are many differences amongst educators. Education is perhaps the most diverse profession economically, politically, socially, ethnically, and religiously.

Footwedge wrote: I'm talking about 2 constitutional issues being violated here. The liberalization of education relates to social attitudes...not constitutional doctrine.

Personally, I see a lot of merit in teaching economics in high school. But i don't think public education has any business discussing Christianity or Judaism.

Just because most of our country are Christians including yours truly, the constitution was quite clear in Americans being free to worship without persecution...no matter what they choose to believe.

The forefathers saw first hand the implicit dangers in becoming a theocracy. They got it right.

If a student wants to be a Christian, then go to a private school that teaches it.

jmog wrote:

Footwedge wrote: I'm talking about 2 constitutional issues being violated here. The liberalization of education relates to social attitudes...not constitutional doctrine.

Personally, I see a lot of merit in teaching economics in high school. But i don't think public education has any business discussing Christianity or Judaism.

Just because most of our country are Christians including yours truly, the constitution was quite clear in Americans being free to worship without persecution...no matter what they choose to believe.

The forefathers saw first hand the implicit dangers in becoming a theocracy. They got it right.

If a student wants to be a Christian, then go to a private school that teaches it.

You have any idea what context they would be teaching it? Its a social studies class/text book, so I imagine it would be Christianity/Judaism from a historical context much like Humanities classes that are required for every major at nearly ALL PUBLIC colleges.

If thats the context, I can't see ANY problem with this being in the social studies class.

Now, even as a Christian myself if they are taught in a way to "convert" students, then yeah, they shouldn't be in a public high school.

However, to anyone that has graduated from a public college has taken a humanities class that covers Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, all 3. And thats at a public school.

jmog wrote:

Footwedge wrote: I'm talking about 2 constitutional issues being violated here. The liberalization of education relates to social attitudes...not constitutional doctrine.

Personally, I see a lot of merit in teaching economics in high school. But i don't think public education has any business discussing Christianity or Judaism.

Just because most of our country are Christians including yours truly, the constitution was quite clear in Americans being free to worship without persecution...no matter what they choose to believe.

The forefathers saw first hand the implicit dangers in becoming a theocracy. They got it right.

If a student wants to be a Christian, then go to a private school that teaches it.

You have any idea what context they would be teaching it? Its a social studies class/text book, so I imagine it would be Christianity/Judaism from a historical context much like Humanities classes that are required for every major at nearly ALL PUBLIC colleges.

If thats the context, I can't see ANY problem with this being in the social studies class.

Now, even as a Christian myself if they are taught in a way to "convert" students, then yeah, they shouldn't be in a public high school.

However, to anyone that has graduated from a public college has taken a humanities class that covers Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, all 3. And thats at a public school.

jmog wrote:

Footwedge wrote: I'm talking about 2 constitutional issues being violated here. The liberalization of education relates to social attitudes...not constitutional doctrine.

Personally, I see a lot of merit in teaching economics in high school. But i don't think public education has any business discussing Christianity or Judaism.

Just because most of our country are Christians including yours truly, the constitution was quite clear in Americans being free to worship without persecution...no matter what they choose to believe.

The forefathers saw first hand the implicit dangers in becoming a theocracy. They got it right.

If a student wants to be a Christian, then go to a private school that teaches it.

You have any idea what context they would be teaching it? Its a social studies class/text book, so I imagine it would be Christianity/Judaism from a historical context much like Humanities classes that are required for every major at nearly ALL PUBLIC colleges.

If thats the context, I can't see ANY problem with this being in the social studies class.

Now, even as a Christian myself if they are taught in a way to "convert" students, then yeah, they shouldn't be in a public high school.

However, to anyone that has graduated from a public college has taken a humanities class that covers Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, all 3. And thats at a public school.

Footwedge wrote:

jmog wrote:

Footwedge wrote: I'm talking about 2 constitutional issues being violated here. The liberalization of education relates to social attitudes...not constitutional doctrine.

Personally, I see a lot of merit in teaching economics in high school. But i don't think public education has any business discussing Christianity or Judaism.

Just because most of our country are Christians including yours truly, the constitution was quite clear in Americans being free to worship without persecution...no matter what they choose to believe.

The forefathers saw first hand the implicit dangers in becoming a theocracy. They got it right.

If a student wants to be a Christian, then go to a private school that teaches it.

You have any idea what context they would be teaching it? Its a social studies class/text book, so I imagine it would be Christianity/Judaism from a historical context much like Humanities classes that are required for every major at nearly ALL PUBLIC colleges.

If thats the context, I can't see ANY problem with this being in the social studies class.

Now, even as a Christian myself if they are taught in a way to "convert" students, then yeah, they shouldn't be in a public high school.

However, to anyone that has graduated from a public college has taken a humanities class that covers Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, all 3. And thats at a public school.

Interesting. My son just graduated from a liberal arts Methodist College and never once was required to take a course in religion.

bigmanbt wrote:

Graduating from OSU here soon and I've never taken a class that covers any religions. Forcing people to learn about a religion is wrong, which is why it isn't a required topic in most public universities.

bigmanbt wrote:
Graduating from OSU here soon and I've never taken a class that covers any religions. Forcing people to learn about a religion is wrong, which is why it isn't a required topic in most public universities.