Texas education advisors propose history text book changes.

[Baculus]

Less Lincoln, more religion in class? Proposed revisions to social studies curriculum could ruffle feathers

By GARY SCHARRER

AUSTIN — Biographies of Washington, Lincoln, Stephen F. Austin? Not fit reading material for children in the early grades.

Cesar Chavez? Not worthy of his role-model status.

Christianity? Emphasize its importance.

Such suggestions are part of efforts to rewrite history books for the state's schoolchildren, producing some expert recommendations that are sure to inflame Texans, no matter their political leanings.

The State Board of Education expects to start discussing new social studies curriculum standards this week, with members of the public getting their first opportunity to speak this fall and a final board vote next spring.

The process is a long one with lasting impact: reshaping the social studies curriculum, including history, for 4.7 million Texas public school children.

“This is something that every parent would want to be paying attention to. This will determine whether or not the kids get the education needed to succeed in college and jobs in the future,” said Dan Quinn of the Austin-based Texas Freedom Network. “If we are going to politicize our kids' education, that will put our kids behind other kids when they're competing for college and good-paying jobs on down the road.”

Curriculum standards are updated about every 10 years; the last social studies update came in 1997.

According to a preliminary draft of the new proposed standards, biographies of George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Stephen F. Austin have been removed from the early grades, said Brooke Terry of the Texas Public Policy Foundation.

The early draft, which is likely to change multiple times in the coming months, also removes Independence Day, Veterans' Day, and anthems and mottos for both Texas and the United States in a section on holidays, customs and celebrations, she said.

Click the link for the rest of the article.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6526101.html

Personally, I think this is disturbing, and I hope the citizens of Texas stand up for historical integrity.

[Major Harris]

i agree with you, bac.

[jpillian]

It seems the article is meant to be overly dramatic.

The only comment I saw regarding increased religion is that one expert wanted more taught on the Christian worldview/motivations of the Pilgrims and some of the early settlers. If this is not part of the current curriculum I agree. I think this is an important part of understanding the motivations of our country's forefathers.

I don't really understand why the addition of that would require the removal of any material (the biographies mentioned). About a paragraph would do it, IMO.

My take is that mountains are being made out of mole hills, and that this article was written specifically to back a certain political point of view in a very local curriculum dispute. :whoknows:

[HighOnHendrix]

Lots of teachers don't even use textbooks any more than they absolutely have to, anyway. I know a couple of teachers, they say most of the TBs are garbage. That was started even back when I was in school. Elementary school we used them some, but Jr. High on...whatever. Of course, I went to a magnet school focused on computers and sciences (back before the internet or hard drives or really anything good about computers) so maybe my experience is not applicable. By high school we were being taught almost completely off chalk boards and out of non-textbook books, as well as in computer lab, biology lab, etc.

[Burgold]

I figure this is the fault of the Dallas Cowboys. Living near the Cowboys is like living near a radiation leak or an area with tremendous lead in the water. Generation after generation of exposure is bound to have negative impact. This is only the latest symptom of Dallas Cowboys' poisoning.

[Zguy28]

It seems the article is meant to be overly dramatic.

The only comment I saw regarding increased religion is that one expert wanted more taught on the Christian worldview/motivations of the Pilgrims and some of the early settlers. If this is not part of the current curriculum I agree. I think this is an important part of understanding the motivations of our country's forefathers.

I don't really understand why the addition of that would require the removal of any material (the biographies mentioned). About a paragraph would do it, IMO.

My take is that mountains are being made out of mole hills, and that this article was written specifically to back a certain political point of view in a very local curriculum dispute. :whoknows:

Yeah that. ^^^

The article almost seemed incomplete. Maybe that was intentional.

[twa]

My take is that mountains are being made out of mole hills, and that this article was written specifically to back a certain political point of view in a very local curriculum dispute. :whoknows:

Yep, even considering the textbooks in social studies as history books is flawed.

The time would be better spent teaching them fundamentals of scholarship and building a thirst for knowledge in the early grades.

Education should not be indoctrination by educators

[Baculus]

It seems the article is meant to be overly dramatic.

The only comment I saw regarding increased religion is that one expert wanted more taught on the Christian worldview/motivations of the Pilgrims and some of the early settlers. If this is not part of the current curriculum I agree. I think this is an important part of understanding the motivations of our country's forefathers.

I don't really understand why the addition of that would require the removal of any material (the biographies mentioned). About a paragraph would do it, IMO.

My take is that mountains are being made out of mole hills, and that this article was written specifically to back a certain political point of view in a very local curriculum dispute. :whoknows:

It was earlier this year that we were discussing the proposed changes in Texas to include Creationism and intelligent design as part of the curriculum, a change that would be reflected in the text books:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/education/22texas.html?_r=1

This issue has been discussed in several of the Texas papers.

http://www.star-telegram.com/state_news/story/1486616.html

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/education/stories/DN-socialstudies_09tex.ART0.State.Edition1.4bfaaf7.html

The only thing that is overly dramatic are the sweeping changes that some would like to make to the text books. I am still puzzled, though, why you believe this issue is being exaggerated. Also, it is evident that the main thrust behind these efforts are religious based due to efforts by social conservatives.

[Burgold]

Education should not be indoctrination by educators

This is an odd phrasing within the context of this thread. A secularist would stomp his foot and say, YES! The school is absolutely not the place for indoctrination especially via educators.

[Baculus]

Yep, even considering the textbooks in social studies as history books is flawed.

The time would be better spent teaching them fundamentals of scholarship and building a thirst for knowledge in the early grades.

Education should not be indoctrination by educators

So, now basic history is considered "indoctrination"? With this sort of attitude, no wonder kids don't know much about American history. I think there is an old battle to what we should teach or children as the historical legacy of this nation, but it is important for kids to develop a sense of connectivity to those who can before them.

Here is the thing that confuses me: When I was a child, the Christian roots of this nation were obvious when we discussed, in the classroom, the early Colonists and their religious practices and motivations. But here is the thing -- we just discussed their religious connections without going in depth to Christianity itself, and perhaps this is what some people desire.

[Baculus]

This is an odd phrasing within the context of this thread. A secularist would stomp his foot and say, YES! The school is absolutely not the place for indoctrination especially via educators.

I know, that's what I found puzzling.

Edit: A spelling puzzle. Is it "advisers" or "advisors"? Hmmph.

[twa]

So, now basic history is considered "indoctrination"? With this sort of attitude, no wonder kids don't know much about American history. I think there is an old battle to what we should teach or children as the historical legacy of this nation, but it is important for kids to develop a sense of connectivity to those who can before them.

Here is the thing that confuses me: When I was a child, the Christian roots of this nation were obvious when we discussed, in the classroom, the early Colonists and their religious practices and motivations. But here is the thing -- we just discussed their religious connections without going in depth to Christianity itself, and perhaps this is what some people desire.

If it was basic history (facts,dates,motivations) either side in this bs wanted you might have a point.

Do they really need a textbook for that?

[Baculus]

If it was basic history (facts,dates,motivations) either side in this bs wanted you might have a point.

Do they really need a textbook for that?

Social studies books tend to have a lot of "basic" history. And a good textbook is useful for outlining the course material and providing some information. Of course, if a teacher desires, they can just use source material if they have their own self-designed curriculum.

But you are missing the point: These people want individuals, such as Marshall and Chavez removed from these books for questionable reasons.

I just don't think some people support the "diversity" element of social studies which have been introduced over the last several decades. This is why some school districts have experienced efforts to change such supposed "liberal indoctrination" in the classroom.

[Larry]

An observation:

I seem to remember reading, somewhere that a very large number of states (like, more than half of them) policies on textbooks is "We use whatever's approved in Texas". (I think Texas was the state that sets the standards that everybody else follows, but I may have the state wrong.)

If that's the case, then this certainly isn't a "local issue".

[jpillian]

I am still puzzled, though, why you believe this issue is being exaggerated. Also, it is evident that the main thrust behind these efforts are religious based due to efforts by social conservatives.

I think it's being exaggerated because the article really doesn't provide a lot of evidence that the suggested changes from the experts reviewing the social sciences curriculum are suggesting a pervasive inclusion of Christian teachings throughout their recommendation.

What one expert recommended was this:

Marshall, one of the expert reviewers, also recommends that school children get a better understanding of the motivational role the Bible and the Christian faith played in the settling of the original colonies. He provided multiple examples of early Americans parlaying their biblical views into the communities and governments they established — beginning with the Pilgrims who risked their lives in coming to America.

“In light of the overwhelming historical evidence of the influence of the Christian faith in the founding of America, it is simply not up to acceptable academic standards that throughout the social studies (curriculum standards) I could only find one reference to the role of religion in America's past,” Marshall said in his review.

That doesn't seem outlandish to me.

Nothing about the Gospel message or why Christianity should be the bedrock of our society today. Simply that the influence of Chrisitinaity in the founding of the country should be emphasized.

Now of course, this depends pretty heavily on what is currently in the curriculum -- something none of us (probably) have. Is there any mention of this aspect? Is there all sorts of material regarding this aspect, and Marshall is just wanting more?

If the article was wanting to be objective instead of speculative, it probably would have answered that sort of question. It also probably wouldn't have used the catchy little intro, which implies that we'll nearly be substituting Bibles for social studies books:

Biographies of Washington, Lincoln, Stephen F. Austin? Not fit reading material for children in the early grades.

Cesar Chavez? Not worthy of his role-model status.

Christianity? Emphasize its importance.

Such suggestions are part of efforts to rewrite history books for the state's schoolchildren, producing some expert recommendations that are sure to inflame Texans, no matter their political leanings.

I think a fairer piece would have probably established this is a routine process, that any additions to the curriculum must be balanced with subtractions, and would have minimized the "inflammatory" angle. Instead, the writer does the exact opposite, leaves key information out, refers to the process as "rewrit[ing] history books", and assures that it will "inflame Texans". In the end, I don't think many would be "inflamed" if it weren't for the direction to be so inclined, given the meager evidence for such riling in the article.

As a result, I think the writer has an angle. Perhaps its merely making a boring issue as scintillating as possible. Perhaps its at the behest of certain politicians. Who knows? But I don't this article says as much as he initially leads the reader to think it will.

[twa]

No, but a good textbook is useful for outlining the course material and providing some information. Of course, if a teacher desires, they can just use source material if they have their own self-designed curriculum.

outlining the course material and providing some information seems so benign don't it? :evilg:

How about simply using source material for facts and teaching students to think instead?...Who knows they might even develop a thirst for reading and reasoning.

Naw, that might be dangerous

[Baculus]

An observation:

I seem to remember reading, somewhere that a very large number of states (like, more than half of them) policies on textbooks is "We use whatever's approved in Texas". (I think Texas was the state that sets the standards that everybody else follows, but I may have the state wrong.)

If that's the case, then this certainly isn't a "local issue".

Texas was also used as a test model for some of the test-based standards, AKA standardized testing, which have been pushed this decade. (Which, incidentally, was also based upon flawed data.)

We are getting away from teaching the basics, and I believe children are not receiving a better education because of this.

BTW, if your comment about the book purchasing is correct -- other districts following the lead of Texas -- then this issue does loom even larger, especially as a wedge issue. This issue doesn't involve just history books, but biology textbooks as well.

"As members of the 15-member Texas Board of Education, Mercer, Dunbar, and McLeroy are some of the most powerful decision-makers in the country in terms of what children read in public school science class.

And last week they, and a bare majority of their fellow board members, pushed through new science standards that could very likely determine what your kid learns in biology class in the next decade."

http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/scienceenvironment/1308/evolution_challenged_in_%E2%80%9Ctextbook%E2%80%9D_case:_as_goes_texas,_so_goes_the_nation

This page outlines a bunch of articles which discusses this issue, and demonstrates that, during this decade, it has been an ongoing battle.

http://www.texscience.org/biology.php

[Burgold]

I think it largely depends what stage of development you are talking about, twa. I mean it is good to understand the theorems and logic behind higher math, but there are some foundational things you need to expose people to before you get into higher order stuff.

If we're talking 1st through 4th grade, I a textbook with its simple way of telling the story is a good starting point and still allows the teacher room to jump off and add meat to the discussion.

I remember a fair ammount of talk about Puritans and Pilgrams and escaping religious oppression, so it's certainly not a new concept, but as conservatives are always saying... teaching morality in the classroom is wrong. That is the job of the parent not the teacher.

[Baculus]

outlining the course material and providing some information seems so benign don't it? :evilg:

How about simply using source material for facts and teaching students to think instead?...Who knows they might even develop a thirst for reading and reasoning.

Naw, that might be dangerous

A well designed textbook is very useful for the instructor and can provide a student with an introduction to source material (without having to purchase additional books, for either the student or the district).

I don't think reading and reasoning is the objective behind some of these efforts. Removing Cesar Chavez from the textbooks, because he was a union leader and organizer (and Hispanic civil rights activist), does not exactly serve this purpose.

[twa]

Bac, teaching reading and reasoning is NOT the objective for either side in this....That is the problem imo.

[Baculus]

Bac, teaching reading and reasoning is NOT the objective for either side in this....That is the problem imo.

You'd probably have to speak to Blondie about that.

By and large, though, most teachers want a fact-based curriculum.

[Toe Jam]

By and large, though, most teachers want a fact-based curriculum.

And as a college student, that's what I want. I'm paying to learn solid fact that can be proved. Or, in the case of science, theories that make sense.

[twa]

You'd probably have to speak to Blondie about that.

By and large, though, most teachers want a fact-based curriculum.

The teachers are not in control though.

Now why would I want to talk to a Aggie about reading or reasoning?....isn't that a waste of time? :insane:

[Baculus]

The teachers are not in control though.

That is part of the issue at hand -- teachers by and large do not want a textbook designed with some opposition stance in mind. Case in point, removing Thurgood Marshall from the text books or pushing for Intelligent Design in spite of protests from biology instructors.

That is part of the issue at hand.

Now why would I want to talk to a Aggie about reading or reasoning?....isn't that a waste of time? :insane:

Hah!