Texas BOA Approves Changes To Conservative Ideals In Textbooks

• I Wear Pants

  Public education can't just be "left to the educators". Its effects are too far reaching to do that.
• georgemc80

  ^^^
  Well I can't see any other group more qualified to handle it.
• majorspark

  

  And who handles politics? Guess we leave it to the politicians.
• georgemc80

  ^^^
  Is that supposed to be a valid point?
• majorspark

  

  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.

  Good points.
  
  I mentioned earlier on you first point the real implementation is local and in the hands of the educator.
  
  On the point of textbooks being printed for the larger states I read that with new digital technology this is not as large of an issue. It is easier and less costly to customize a textbook.
• majorspark

  

  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.
• believer

  

  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.

  Well said.
  

  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.

  Group think right?
• jmog

  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

  Not that I agree with all the Texas BOA did, but if you think the liberals haven't used "political slants" in changing public school textbooks for decades, you haven't been paying attention until this story came up.
• Footwedge

  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.
• I Wear Pants

  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.

  This.
  
  Any group made up of like minded individuals will not accomplish much good.
• believer

  

  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.
• georgemc80

  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

  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.

  Because religion isn't taught, by default, secularism IS taught? I don't follow your reasoning here at all.
  
  The rest of your post doesn't make sense either.
• Swamp Fox

  Perhaps if we had taken more time to explain a few things about birth control to some of our young impressionable kids, there would have been fewer abortions. It's one of those Conservative paradoxes. They oppose sex education and oppose abortions. And to top it off, they oppose programs to make thinngs a little more tolerable for those kids who were brought into this world as the result of rape incest or any of a number of other tragic consequences of unprotected sex. I find the Conservative reasoning on these issues a little bit inconsistent.
• believer

  

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

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

  believer wrote:

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

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

  I disagree. I don't think any public classroom promotes atheism. I also don't think that the public classroom denagrates Christians, Jews or any other religious affiliations.
  
  If Mr Jones, the math teacher, starts promoting the evils of religion, then I think Mr. Jones is in deep doo doo.
• Paladin

  Most people with half a brain understand that schools do not promote religion. It has no place in schools. It has a place in your personal life, in church, Sunday schools or your family setting. As usual, the "family values" crowd who promotes a nasty cultural war with society wants to promote religion in a "govt. run school" that they otherwise rail against. Hypocrisy of the first order. And, I can assure that the National Tests ( SAT/ACT) will not accept "the new version" for answers to their tests. Once the public is educated on the outrage perpetrated by the wingnuts, there will be a pendulum swing back , new members voted in & revise the texts. Mean time, teachers will ignore the Conservative politics & faulty revision of history and teach accordingly as it should be. Public 1, WingNuts 0.
  
  Its sad we have to endure the disruptive nature of society by these Neanderthals, but the "hordes" are always beat back.
• I Wear Pants

  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.

  Any profession that is large has incredible diversity.
  
  Teachers aren't special in that regards. Actually, teachers aren't particularly more special than any other profession. They do a job that needs done and most of them work incredibly hard to provide a good product (in this case that product is providing the best learning environment they can for their students). Just like most other people do.
  
  This isn't the end of the world and I'm sure most teachers will still be teaching the same things they were but these new standards are still really stupid in my mind.
• jmog

  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

  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.
• I Wear Pants

  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.

  College is an entirely different ballgame than high school in my opinion as far as the teaching of religious ideas goes.
• bigmanbt

  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.

  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.
• LJ

  

  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.

  I graduated from Otterbein (Methodist Liberal Arts college) and was required to take 3
• jmog

  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.

  You didn't have to take a humanities class? One that covered the history of art, religion, and literature?
  
  Did you graduate with an associates? I find it hard to believe that you didn't have to take a humanities class at all.
• jmog

  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.

  By your statement all religions should be ignored completely in history books then? As if they never existed?
  
  I see no problem talking about religions in a historical sense at any level, its part of human history whether you like it or not.