Texas board adopts new social studies curriculum

[Dav]

Refusal to acknowledge the role of religion in the works of the founding fathers. Harsher grading on "politically incorrect" work despite it being accurate. Injection of anti-American and anti-Christian rhetoric into lesson plans. Bias in presenting the civil rights movement and who was behind it. Injection of racially divisive rhetoric into lesson plans.

I could go on but that's enough to start with.

Continued:

Placing FDR (and to a lesser extent, Kennedy) on a high alter, teaching the Great Depression as a failure of the free market and Hoover as a laize-fair president, pushing isolationism by painting everything bad as the fault of an American action (two of my previous history teachers have honestly taught as fact that America was responsible for the Khmer Rouge) plus generally emphasizing everything bad America has ever done, conveniently passing over things like Article 1 Section 8, etc. The two worst things when it comes to lefty slant are the Great Depression and Cold War; I'm starting to come around to the view that the teachers, rather than teaching history, should just provide the cold, hard facts, and let the students research things like the causation behind them. It's pretty much impossible to teach causation without having some sort of slant. Little details count, and there are always some that are left out.

That's just history, too. Not even to mention all of the environmental BS they push on us in science class.

 

[Redress]

I don't think it's necessarily bad to understand how others view us but I have gone into classrooms here at Berendo Middle School and seen Che Guevera posters displayed prominently in classrooms. There's also a tendancy by faculty to take a decidedly anti-American stance when it comes to current events. I know that anecdotal evidence is pretty irrelevant to a debate, but I will share this with you: I had a US History teacher in high school who gave us a slide show of Japanese internment camps in the US but never once mentioned the atrocities the Japanese were perpetrating in Manchuria and other districts of China at the same time. Also, the pure evil that was occuring in Germany took a back seat to the fact that we dropped the bomb on Japan.

I don't think my experience was at all singular or unique.

Just want to discuss this part of your post. The Che Guevera poster is a bad idea in a public school. As far as the internment camps, I can see the argument the teacher might make. By putting the two together, it might suggest that somehow the interment camps where justified, or be viewed as making an excuse for them. The internment camps where simply wrong. Was this from when you attended school? Where the Japanese atrocities mentioned maybe an earlier day?

The last comment I want to make is that there is a difference between a teacher imposing his views, and a textbook doing it. Neither is appropriate, but the textbook reaches a whole lot more kids, and is I think seen as more authoritative.

 

[jallman]

Continued:

Placing FDR (and to a lesser extent, Kennedy) on a high alter, teaching the Great Depression as a failure of the free market and Hoover as a laize-fair president, pushing isolationism by painting everything bad as the fault of an American action (two of my previous history teachers have honestly taught as fact that America was responsible for the Khmer Rouge) plus generally emphasizing everything bad America has ever done, conveniently passing over things like Article 1 Section 8, etc. The two worst things when it comes to lefty slant are the Great Depression and Cold War; I'm starting to come around to the view that the teachers, rather than teaching history, should just provide the cold, hard facts, and let the students research things like the causation behind them. It's pretty much impossible to teach causation without having some sort of slant. Little details count, and there are always some that are left out.

That's just history, too. Not even to mention all of the environmental BS they push on us in science class.

I agree with you on the Depression and how it was taught as a total collapse of the free market. And they do tend, along with history books, to elevate FDR to a place that is almost sacrosanct. Same thing with Kennedy, but always just assumed that it was the result of him having been assassinated and the nostalgia of that era in them.

 

[Redress]

I agree with you on the Depression and how it was taught as a total collapse of the free market. And they do tend, along with history books, to elevate FDR to a place that is almost sacrosanct. Same thing with Kennedy, but always just assumed that it was the result of him having been assassinated and the nostalgia of that era in them.

With Kennedy I really think that is a big part of his mystique. No one really talks poorly of him because it just would not feel right. Hell, the textbooks I used in high school where written by people who probably remembered clearly where they where when they heard he was killed.

I will say that I never understood any of his mystique until I read Thirteen Days, which kinda led me to develop a real admiration for his handling at least of the missile crisis.

 

[jallman]

Just want to discuss this part of your post. The Che Guevera poster is a bad idea in a public school. As far as the internment camps, I can see the argument the teacher might make. By putting the two together, it might suggest that somehow the interment camps where justified, or be viewed as making an excuse for them. The internment camps where simply wrong. Was this from when you attended school? Where the Japanese atrocities mentioned maybe an earlier day?

The last comment I want to make is that there is a difference between a teacher imposing his views, and a textbook doing it. Neither is appropriate, but the textbook reaches a whole lot more kids, and is I think seen as more authoritative.

No, she seriously got out a slide show of the internment camps and went on for almost an entire class about them. Now, I don't think the camps were right either and I don't think they should be glossed over. But it was presented like we just decided we didn't like the yellow people and rounded them all up and treated them EXACTLY like the Nazis treated the Jews, which wasn't even close to accurate. The camps were a reaction to a devastating attack on our military and, while they weren't right or Constitutional or even justified, they were not an act of pure evil perpetrated on a people for the advancement of a political agenda and racial cleansing.

The atrocities of Japan in China and the South Pacific were never once mentioned. I came away from that class as a junior in high school having no concept of the fact that Japan was on a rampage of oppression, murder, rape, and destruction throughout the east until I read a history of WW2 later that year (which was incidentally inspired when I got a copy of Axis and Allies and wanted to know why Japan started with so many territories in China).

 

[TheNextEra]

As well as Christianity. To deny it's influence is just closing your eyes to history.

Are you claiming ONLY Christianity has those parts? Are you denying that other religions have those or are you ONLY giving credit to Christianity?

 

[pro-bipartisan]

Continued:

Placing FDR (and to a lesser extent, Kennedy) on a high alter, teaching the Great Depression as a failure of the free market and Hoover as a laize-fair president, pushing isolationism by painting everything bad as the fault of an American action (two of my previous history teachers have honestly taught as fact that America was responsible for the Khmer Rouge) plus generally emphasizing everything bad America has ever done, conveniently passing over things like Article 1 Section 8, etc. The two worst things when it comes to lefty slant are the Great Depression and Cold War; I'm starting to come around to the view that the teachers, rather than teaching history, should just provide the cold, hard facts, and let the students research things like the causation behind them. It's pretty much impossible to teach causation without having some sort of slant. Little details count, and there are always some that are left out.

That's just history, too. Not even to mention all of the environmental BS they push on us in science class.

What "environmental bs: is currently being taught in schools?

 

[jallman]

With Kennedy I really think that is a big part of his mystique. No one really talks poorly of him because it just would not feel right. Hell, the textbooks I used in high school where written by people who probably remembered clearly where they where when they heard he was killed.

I will say that I never understood any of his mystique until I read Thirteen Days, which kinda led me to develop a real admiration for his handling at least of the missile crisis.

Hey I read that. And you're right, it was a very good insight into how he was as a president. I'm not saying he was a bad president but his big legacy was that he got assassinated, not his exemplary foreign or domestic policy.

 

[Dav]

I don't think my experience was at all singular or unique.

It's not. Teachers, like scientists and other academics, are overwhelmingly liberal. And your experiences sound very similar to ones I've had.

The sad thing is, most of my history teachers have overall been very good teachers and kept the class interesting. They just also teach with a heavy bias.

Just want to discuss this part of your post. The Che Guevera poster is a bad idea in a public school.

Reminds me of one of my old teachers. I remember how shocked I was near the end of my Sophomore year, when I was looking at my history teacher's wall and saw a little Che Guevara picture and quote. I knew she was super-liberal; she made no secret of that, which in a way I liked. Unlike the other teachers, she never worked from the pretext of objectivity, and so it was easier to openly argue with her, because she made it clear that there was a position where she was coming from. The others taught their own interpretation as objective fact, and it's hard to start an argument with fact. Anyways, I knew she was liberal, but not that liberal. Probably a good thing I never mentioned it, since she ended up writing my college recommendation. Anyways, I don't know what's worse, putting up a Che Guevara picture, or NOT putting it up and teaching with the same slant.

The last comment I want to make is that there is a difference between a teacher imposing his views, and a textbook doing it. Neither is appropriate, but the textbook reaches a whole lot more kids, and is I think seen as more authoritative.

No, the teacher takes precedence over the textbook every time. The teacher decides how to teach what is written in the textbook, which parts of it to read, what to tell them about it. The textbook can't really argue back if the teacher doesn't like what is in it.

 

[Redress]

No, she seriously got out a slide show of the internment camps and went on for almost an entire class about them. Now, I don't think the camps were right either and I don't think they should be glossed over. But it was presented like we just decided we didn't like the yellow people and rounded them all up and treated them EXACTLY like the Nazis treated the Jews, which wasn't even close to accurate. The camps were a reaction to a devastating attack on our military and, while they weren't right or Constitutional or even justified, they were not an act of pure evil perpetrated on a people for the advancement of a political agenda and racial cleansing.

The atrocities of Japan in China and the South Pacific were never once mentioned. I came away from that class as a junior in high school having no concept of the fact that Japan was on a rampage of oppression, murder, rape, and destruction throughout the east until I read a history of WW2 later that year (which was incidentally inspired when I got a copy of Axis and Allies and wanted to know why Japan started with so many territories in China).

This to me sounds like a teacher issue, and not a more across the board issue. I was lucky that while my history teacher in HS was a serious liberal(aging hippy though thinking back, he probably was not that old, just seemed like it then) who liked his kids to question established positions, and a government teacher who was a raging far right conservative, but respected any one who stood up to his positions and argued against him.

 

[Redress]

It's not. Teachers, like scientists and other academics, are overwhelmingly liberal. And your experiences sound very similar to ones I've had.

The sad thing is, most of my history teachers have overall been very good teachers and kept the class interesting.

Why is this sad?

Reminds me of one of my old teachers. I remember how shocked I was near the end of my Sophomore year, when I was looking at my history teacher's wall and saw a little Che Guevara picture and quote. I knew she was super-liberal; she made no secret of that, which in a way I liked. Unlike the other teachers, she never worked from the pretext of objectivity, and so it was easier to openly argue with her, because she made it clear that there was a position where she was coming from. The others taught their own interpretation as objective fact, and it's hard to start an argument with fact. Anyways, I knew she was liberal, but not that liberal. Probably a good thing I never mentioned it, since she ended up writing my college recommendation. Anyways, I don't know what's worse, putting up a Che Guevara picture, or NOT putting it up and teaching with the same slant.

Now, I don't really see a problem with a teacher like that. If you are upfront with your slant, and let students argue against your views, I think that makes a good teacher. It would be one who is not upfront and does not allow dissent I would worry about, no matter their ideology.

No, the teacher takes precedence over the textbook every time. The teacher decides how to teach what is written in the textbook, which parts of it to read, what to tell them about it. The textbook can't really argue back if the teacher doesn't like what is in it.

You are much closer to school aged than I, I am not going to argue you on attitudes of kids today. But I also think in your very post here you show what I was trying to say. A teacher can present their views as slanted, a textbook is seen as more objective.

 

[jallman]

You are much closer to school aged than I, I am not going to argue you on attitudes of kids today. But I also think in your very post here you show what I was trying to say. A teacher can present their views as slanted, a textbook is seen as more objective.

I see what he's saying though. With kids in a class, I think the teacher's slant can easily override any objectivity in the textbook. They read the textbook once if you're lucky...they listen to the teacher lecture for an hour for about 180 days out of the year.

 

[Black Dog]

Are you claiming ONLY Christianity has those parts? Are you denying that other religions have those or are you ONLY giving credit to Christianity?

You have got to be ****ing kidding me?

We are talking about Christianity and it's influence on the US, it's people and government. It's not like Hinduism had any affect at all. :roll:

Even to this day the US is over 70% Christian. It was much higher in the days of the writing of the Constitution.

PS I have no idea what "parts" you are talking about and how that is relevant to one comment out of context.

 

[Redress]

I see what he's saying though. With kids in a class, I think the teacher's slant can easily override any objectivity in the textbook. They read the textbook once if you're lucky...they listen to the teacher lecture for an hour for about 180 days out of the year.

Oh yeah. It's the difference between a good teacher and a bad one. In classes like History, Government and Current Events, I think asking teachers to be totally objective is not going to work real well. They may try, but I don't think they will succeed. A teacher who openly admits they have a slant, and respects and encourages other opinions is to my mind a good teacher. I was fortunate to have two such teachers, and loved both their classes.

 

[Dav]

Why is this sad?

I forgot to finish the post; I edited to add that they just had a heavy bias. It's sad because it shows that it happens to even the best teachers, and bias is not just a failing of substandard teachers. It's also sad in my view because good teachers are more effective at planting their bias in students than bad ones.

Now, I don't really see a problem with a teacher like that. If you are upfront with your slant, and let students argue against your views, I think that makes a good teacher. It would be one who is not upfront and does not allow dissent I would worry about, no matter their ideology.

That's the thing- teachers should make it more clear that what they teach isn't established fact, and encourage discussing different views, and then it wouldn't really matter how biased they are. Everyone is biased, but it's better if they just come out and admit it than if they stay under the delusion that they aren't. Ironically, as a teacher I don't think she was even as good as the two of mine that came after her (one of which was the head of the Young Democrats club, the other had described himself as a far-left guy), but her methods were a lot better in some ways.

You are much closer to school aged than I, I am not going to argue you on attitudes of kids today. But I also think in your very post here you show what I was trying to say. A teacher can present their views as slanted, a textbook is seen as more objective.

Fair enough, I guess. Still, the textbook is only a tool for the teacher, who ultimately can do whatever they want with it.

 

[Boo Radley]

I see what he's saying though. With kids in a class, I think the teacher's slant can easily override any objectivity in the textbook. They read the textbook once if you're lucky...they listen to the teacher lecture for an hour for about 180 days out of the year.

You still have to prove a teacher's slant. Too many really don't know what goes on in a classroom and frankly might well see an honest discussion as slanting. If you want a biased view pushed, you'll see anything other than that bias as being a teacher's slant.


In any case, I recommend visiting the classroom on occasion. For reasonable people, this can be enlightening.

 

[hazlnut]

Question: In the new history, is Jesus a founder?

 

[Dav]

Question: In the new history, is Jesus a founder?

Isn't he?

 

[hazlnut]

Isn't he?

Is that the cover of the new textbook?

 

[j-mac]

You still have to prove a teacher's slant. Too many really don't know what goes on in a classroom and frankly might well see an honest discussion as slanting. If you want a biased view pushed, you'll see anything other than that bias as being a teacher's slant.


In any case, I recommend visiting the classroom on occasion. For reasonable people, this can be enlightening.

Ward Churchill wasn't really slanted as a teacher, just really, really PO'd!
:rofl


j-mac

 

[texmaster]

What "environmental bs: is currently being taught in schools?

You're kidding right?

A national campaign was launched today to get public schools that have shown Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" to give equal time to the opposing view of global warming.

The Independent Women's Forum launched its Balanced Education for Everyone campaign today. It hopes to have the 2009 documentary "Not Evil, Just Wrong" shown in classrooms around the country. "Not Evil, Just Wrong" claims to expose erroneous claims about global warming.

Classroom Gore: Global Warming Goes to School [Mackinac Center]

 

[texmaster]

Just want to discuss this part of your post. The Che Guevera poster is a bad idea in a public school.

A bad idea? I'd argue is far worse than that. Its like saying teaching George Wallace was a stand up guy.

Che Guevera was a renowned racist and murderer. The idiocy of children or adults putting his image on anything than a trash can smacks of stupidity.

As far as the internment camps, I can see the argument the teacher might make. By putting the two together, it might suggest that somehow the interment camps where justified, or be viewed as making an excuse for them. The internment camps where simply wrong. Was this from when you attended school? Where the Japanese atrocities mentioned maybe an earlier day?

As long as both sides were discussed no problem here.

The last comment I want to make is that there is a difference between a teacher imposing his views, and a textbook doing it. Neither is appropriate, but the textbook reaches a whole lot more kids, and is I think seen as more authoritative.

Oh I totally disagree. Teachers have a far larger impact on children than textbooks ever will. Teachers can put anything into "context" Books can't talk back.

 

[tryreading]

Below what?



And your info from no place is going to do what? :lol:

What link? I gave his name and credentials, if you are that interested find it yourself.

Riiiiight. My info from no place. The Library of Congress is a pretty shady source, isn't it?

My info is the actual text from letters that still exist in the LOC, written by Jefferson in his own hand.

I posted links for people like you and texmaster, but you two are a waste of time. You don't read what's posted, or you won't or can't grasp its meaning.

 

[Black Dog]

Riiiiight. My info from no place. The Library of Congress is a pretty shady source, isn't it?

My info is the actual text from letters that still exist in the LOC, written by Jefferson in his own hand.

I posted links for people like you and texmaster, but you two are a waste of time. You don't read what's posted, or you won't or can't grasp its meaning.

I know exactly what they mean. As for the intentions of Thomas Jefferson, I will take a PHD and published author on the subject over your interpretation.

Sorry if you disagree.

The moment you resorted to personal attacks, this was over anyway.

 

[tryreading]

I know exactly what they mean. As for the intentions of Thomas Jefferson, I will take a PHD and published author on the subject over your interpretation.

Sorry if you disagree.

The moment you resorted to personal attacks, this was over anyway.

I was called a liar earlier. It must have been texmaster. Sorry, if it wasn't you.

But, again, for maybe the eighth time on this thread, I posted two original documents, and one explains the purpose of the other. Read them if you want to, or not.

If you do read them, then why not give your own interpretation of the author's intent? If you don't read them, then there was no reason for you to argue with me anyway.