• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Must-know figures could change for Texas students

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
112,907
Reaction score
60,363
Location
Sarasota Fla
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Associated Press – Wed Sep 16, 5:23 pm ET

The conservative-dominated Texas State Board of Education debates changes beginning Thursday to the social studies curriculum of the state's 4.6 million K-12 students, and both conservatives and liberals say the other is attempting to rewrite history...

Some of the proposed changes in the social studies standards, known as the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills, include referring to the United States as a republic instead of a democracy and requiring students to be able to identify prominent conservatives such as former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Eagle Forum president Phyllis Schlafly. Some of those behind the proposed changes cast the debate as a way to nudge conservative figures into what they say are liberal-dominated lessons.

I worry for this country when deciding who should be in history and social study books becomes a partisan issue.
 
I worry for this country when deciding who should be in history and social study books becomes a partisan issue.

Unfortunately, the entire subject has been thoroughly politicized. I was just thinking about it today after a particularly anti-U.S. lesson. Instead of just telling kids the facts and then using them to present all sides of a historical argument, they point to one interpretation of the facts and say "this is the truth".

Ultimately, it is the teacher who decides how to teach the subject, and thus the students are at the mercy of their teacher's political views.
 
I will write my State Board of Education (Texas) over this.
 
I worry for this country when deciding who should be in history and social study books becomes a partisan issue.

It has been for a long time.
 
I worry for this country when deciding who should be in history and social study books becomes a partisan issue.

Jeez. Can't believe it tbh

Education a partisan issue? I suppose some things aren't above politics o_O
 
I worry for this country when deciding who should be in history and social study books becomes a partisan issue.

Too late. It's already happened.
 
I worry for this country when deciding who should be in history and social study books becomes a partisan issue.
Why Newt Gingrich and Phyllis Shaffley? As much as I agree with them on most issues, they don't become important enough "figures" for me to be in a social studies class untill AFTER they..well...you know...become "history".

Also, the US is a republic, and according to research, is reffered to as such in other states. so I don't see how that as an issue.
 
Last edited:
Jeez. Can't believe it tbh

Education a partisan issue? I suppose some things aren't above politics o_O
Oh yea! it always has been since the beginning of time here. Out of all departments in the Texas State, the education department is probably THE most corrupt. It's foolish for anyone here to believe that the Texas school boards are about "schools", it's all about their personal gain, power and prestige.
 
Um, USA was founded as a Constitutional Republic.

I guess if that fact gets out you socialists are pretty screwed, eh?

:lol:
 
Have you ever read a history textbook. Most are biased, especially with 20th century history.
 
I worry for this country when deciding who should be in history and social study books becomes a partisan issue.
That's kinda what happens when you turn it over to the government. Shouldn't be much of a surprise I wouldn't think.
 
It has been for a long time.

Yeah, I know. The article says this comes up periodically. This is just the first time I have really been made aware of it, and it saddens me.
 
Why Newt Gingrich and Phyllis Shaffley? As much as I agree with them on most issues, they don't become important enough "figures" for me to be in a social studies class untill AFTER they..well...you know...become "history".

Also, the US is a republic, and according to research, is reffered to as such in other states. so I don't see how that as an issue.

Newt I understand, but Shaffley makes no sense to me.
 
Newt I understand, but Shaffley makes no sense to me.
Nah, I wouldn't have Newt in there unless you want to discuss the historical nature of the Contract with America or something.
 
Schfly was the biggest figure in convincing people to shoot down the Equal Rights Amendment in the late 1970s. Showing Right wingers in American history isn't that big a deal. Virtually all US History texbooks feature the Progressive Movement and the New Deal quite prominently.
 
Schfly was the biggest figure in convincing people to shoot down the Equal Rights Amendment in the late 1970s. Showing Right wingers in American history isn't that big a deal. Virtually all US History texbooks feature the Progressive Movement and the New Deal quite prominently.

Ya but the Progressive Movement and the New Deal actually CHANGED things, and thus were an important part of history. I think it's much more difficult to point to someone like Phyllis Schaffley and claim her as an important historical figure because she helped preserve the status quo.
 
Nah, I wouldn't have Newt in there unless you want to discuss the historical nature of the Contract with America or something.

I think the Contract with America was important, even though I did not care for it. While I am far from a Newt fan, I think he was one of the most important nonpresident in politics of the last 20 years.
 
Ya but the Progressive Movement and the New Deal actually CHANGED things, and thus were an important part of history. I think it's much more difficult to point to someone like Phyllis Schaffley and claim her as an important historical figure because she helped preserve the status quo.

People/events that "defend the status quo" aren't essentially any more or less important in history than other events...context is what matters, and that requires an understanding of many different perspectives.

In general, I have always been disgusted with the way history is taught in schools. Very rarely do the teachers actually instill an understanding of context. Too often it is taught as a concrete and/or isolated series of cause and effect that really ignore many other factors altogether.
 
Last edited:
People/events that "defend the status quo" aren't essentially any more or less important in history than other events...context is what matters, and that requires an understanding of many different perspectives.

In general, I have always been disgusted with the way history is taught in schools. Very rarely do the teachers actually instill an understanding of context. Too often it is taught as a concrete and/or isolated series of cause and effect that really ignore many other factors altogether.

During Elementary/High School, there simply is not time to get too far in depth on many subjects. Just in US History, you have close to 300 years to cover in one hour a day chunks.
 
During Elementary/High School, there simply is not time to get too far in depth on many subjects. Just in US History, you have close to 300 years to cover in one hour a day chunks.

Most of the education should happen at home.

When I gradute and become a teacher, I will base my approach on home reading and research and lively debate, role playing, and speeches during class. If Kids show that they are reading and researching I will lay of the tests.
 
During Elementary/High School, there simply is not time to get too far in depth on many subjects. Just in US History, you have close to 300 years to cover in one hour a day chunks.

Very true. But why try to cram it all in under a single, very often incorrect and incomplete, context as if it is all undisputed fact? I think this is the problem.

With the time they do have, they could do a much better job, focusing on fundamentals. I'm sure SOL requirements don't help with the limited time teachers have either.
 
Back
Top Bottom