New Education Standards in Texas

[Kheldarson]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...y.html?hpid=z4

This just highlights a lot of what's talked about here and elsewhere. How are we supposed to address the issues if those in charge want to hide them? Texas wants to avoid the Civil War and its consequences in society. Is it no wonder that we as a society are struggling when the history is being lost?

[mjr]

This just highlights a lot of what's talked about here and elsewhere. How are we supposed to address the issues if those in charge want to hide them? Texas wants to avoid the Civil War and its consequences in society. Is it no wonder that we as a society are struggling when the history is being lost?

The article mentions the causes of the civil war in a list, with slavery last.

I don't know that in that particular context the order of that list matters.

But I do think that leaving out elements of the Civil War is a disservice to the students.

It seems to me that it's best to present the information in as neutral and non-opinionated manner as possible, and go from there. I do think that presentation of the information could be an issue. I'm not sure there's a good way to present it, other than factually, and people will argue about that, too.

I've used a few different phrases before that I think are relevant here:

1. Opinions aren't facts
2. Something isn't true just because you say it is.

And I think that's what's probably going on with regard to that article. There are a lot of people that are putting their own slant on the material, and calling it "fact".

[KellyHabersham]

Not wanting to take this thread off-topic, but it reminded me of something which I've noticed taking an online class in learning German:

My college uses Rosetta Stone software, and part of their material includes cultural files on different aspects of Germany. In the "History" section, it skips everything between the Weimar Republic and the Berlin Wall being built, except for a mention of the "White Rose Group".

[s_stabeler]

Not wanting to take this thread off-topic, but it reminded me of something which I've noticed taking an online class in learning German:

My college uses Rosetta Stone software, and part of their material includes cultural files on different aspects of Germany. In the "History" section, it skips everything between the Weimar Republic and the Berlin Wall being built, except for a mention of the "White Rose Group".

in that case though, it might actually be justified- the point of the course is to learn German, not to teach German history. I can actually see then leaving it out simply to avoid arguments.

oh, and mjr, nobody is saying that the standards ignore slavery completely. However, the standards downplay slavery- they imply that slavery was a side-issue, while states rights were more important- nope. The only rights the Confederates cared about that the US did not was on the issue of slavery. The list in question is fine- it's the rest of the textbook, which downplays Slavery and promotes states rights as the cause of the Civil War, that is the problem.

But the greater issue is how educational standards are set by people using their political beliefs, rather than the facts. And yes, I agree that both sides do it- that does NOT make ti acceptable for either side.

[Aragarthiel]

However, the standards downplay slavery- they imply that slavery was a side-issue, while states rights were more important- nope.

It's sort of amazing how different people can learn different things. In every history textbook I've seen, trade issues between the North and South were what caused the Civil War, and slavery only became a big issue later. I've also had people argue with me about how slavery is portrayed in textbooks. I was taught about the Middle Passage, how African tribal leaders sold their people to Americans who packed them on ships like sardines and sent them to plantations, but I've encountered people who believed that slaves were kidnapped from their home countries by Americans. It seems absurd to me but most people only study what's written in textbooks, and it kind of makes me wonder how truthful textbooks really are.

[mjr]

oh, and mjr, nobody is saying that the standards ignore slavery completely. However, the standards downplay slavery- they imply that slavery was a side-issue, while states rights were more important- nope.

That's correct. I should have worded it better.

I haven't actually seen the text that they're using. I would like to, just to see how they're treating that part of history.

If it's "Oh, by the way, there was also slavery..." then they definitely need more coverage of it. Same for if they make passing references to it.

But the greater issue is how educational standards are set by people using their political beliefs, rather than the facts. And yes, I agree that both sides do it- that does NOT make ti acceptable for either side.

We're in 100% agreement here. And while that is the correct stance to take, there will always be opinions (however they're influenced) as to what's important and what's not. I'm not sure how that could be remedied.

[Kheldarson]

, and it kind of makes me wonder how truthful textbooks really are.

They're not, and it's a problem. There's a certain allowance we give (like an elementary student doesn't need to know about the Middle Passage to start being taught about how the Civil War occurred), but states and textbooks design standards and content around a particular narrative. The main narrative is that of heroes. Like Christopher Columbus. At no point does the curriculum update itself to point out the damage he caused or the fact that his trip was a fluke; it all maintains the narrative that he was an amazing man who stood up to disbelief and discovered something great. Which is a great base lesson for younger students (as long as the flat earth part is dropped), but older students should be taught the nuances. But the narrative remains instead.

[Aragarthiel]

Like Christopher Columbus. At no point does the curriculum update itself to point out the damage he caused or the fact that his trip was a fluke; it all maintains the narrative that he was an amazing man who stood up to disbelief and discovered something great.

In high school I took a World History class that was apparently pretty objective, since it not only covered the achievements of explorers like Columbus but spent just as much time clarifying that there were consequences to for those achievements. The class also corrected things that we were incorrectly taught as children, like that Columbus discovered America.

I spent all of my elementary school and most of my middle school years in Arizona and moved to Georgia for high school. I still remember having to look things up because Arizona history hadn't taught me about this ancient civilization or that battle, but at the same time I was teaching other students things that textbooks here seemed to leave out. These things really need to be standardized everywhere, in my opinion.

[HYHYBT]

Ah, but if they're standardized everywhere, then everybody has the same holes in their knowledge.

As for the Civil War... as I was taught, the most direct issue was secession: the Constitution neither provided a mechanism by which states could leave the Union nor stated that they were not allowed to do so. Sooner or later, it was going to come up.

A step back, the main reason it came up when and how it did was slavery. A step back from that, the main reason for the disagreement between North and South about slavery was the difference between their economies. You can go from there to the reasons for those differences, why the population was denser in the north and so forth and so on, depending on interest and time, but it's not reasonable to dismiss the rest out of hand for "it was slavery, nothing else, period, the end" any more than it is to pretend slavery had nothing, or almost nothing, to do with it.

[Kheldarson]

Ah, but if they're standardized everywhere, then everybody has the same holes in their knowledge.

True. There's also the problem of state history years.

[Gravekeeper]

And yes, I agree that both sides do it- that does NOT make ti acceptable for either side.

This is another case of "both sides are bad" not holding up to scrutiny. The degree to which one side in particular does this is actually *really* scary. Texas, disturbingly, is responsible for a great deal of the school textbook market as its the largest market in the country. Which in turn are subject to Texas and its whims.

There are no qualifications whatsoever to sit on the education board in Texas that makes the decisions on the context of their textbooks. The board in question has a 15 member block of Christian fundamentalists led by a *dentist* who basically wild neigh unlimited power of this. The Texas State Teachers Association is basically locked in an unending, bitter and fucking ridiculous battle with the State Board of Education over the shit it tries to get into textbooks on an annual basis. This is just the latest bullshit.

Previous bullshit included trying to downplay/remove the role of minorities in American history, promoting American Exceptialism and Christianity, and prominently featuring conservative American political figures over everyone else.

They then claim that any opposition to their insanity is, of course, just a liberal attack on True America(tm) which is really conservative. Even when that opposition came from a group of Texas historians who described the board as "distorting the historical record and the functioning of American society."

So yeah, both sides are not bad here. One side is bad, fucking crazy and has no business whatsoever being allowed near public education. >.>

[s_stabeler]

actually, this is one situation where the "both sides are bad" argument does hold some water- the issue is that the State Board of Education really should have some qualifications to sit on it. (I would suggest requiring a certain number of years teaching experience)

[Kheldarson]

actually, this is one situation where the "both sides are bad" argument does hold some water- the issue is that the State Board of Education really should have some qualifications to sit on it. (I would suggest requiring a certain number of years teaching experience)

Or at least a background in education. I'd be more qualified than a dentist and I only had a year's experience teaching.

[Andara Bledin]

The class also corrected things that we were incorrectly taught as children, like that Columbus discovered America.

Did they teach that he was a lousy business man, a crappy cartographer, and a mass-murdering shit who liked to hunt natives for sport?

[Gravekeeper]

actually, this is one situation where the "both sides are bad" argument does hold some water- the issue is that the State Board of Education really should have some qualifications to sit on it. (I would suggest requiring a certain number of years teaching experience)

Whose fault do you think it is that there are no qualifications? >.>

The last time a teacher sat on the board was 2007. She was forced to resign after <gasp> promoting ( sending an email about a talk ) evolution over intelligent design ( she was a *science* teacher after all ). The call to remove her came from the deputy commissioner ( a former lobbyist and poli sci major ) of the Texas state education agency specifically because the commissioner was offended at the implication thateducation in Texas supports evolution.

Said teacher was immediately placed on administrative leave before being forced to resign because her email "implies endorsement of the speaker and implies that TEA endorses the speaker's position on a subject on which the agency must remain neutral."

So no, both sides are not bad here. One side is a bunch of lunatics and assholes. Though it is noteworthy that there are even a few moderate Republicans in Texas that are trying to do something about the lunatic asshole faction that is collectively ruining education as a whole.

Show me anywhere else in the US where those on the left of the US spectrum are trying to undermine science with religious ideology on a state level and I will concede both sides are bad. -.-