Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
The Texas Freedom Network continues to live blog the Texas State Board of Education hearings where the collection of ignorant dolts on that board debate and amend the social studies standards. And it's getting downright surreal. They actually removed Thomas Jefferson and the Enlightenment from the history standards. Seriously.
9:27 - The board is taking up remaining amendments on the high school world history course.9:30 - Board member Cynthia Dunbar wants to change a standard having students study the impact of Enlightenment ideas on political revolutions from 1750 to the present. She wants to drop the reference to Enlightenment ideas (replacing with "the writings of") and to Thomas Jefferson. She adds Thomas Aquinas and others. Jefferson's ideas, she argues, were based on other political philosophers listed in the standards. We don't buy her argument at all. Board member Bob Craig of Lubbock points out that the curriculum writers clearly wanted to students to study Enlightenment ideas and Jefferson. Could Dunbar's problem be that Jefferson was a Deist? The board approves the amendment, taking Thomas Jefferson OUT of the world history standards.
9:40 - We're just picking ourselves up off the floor. The board's far-right faction has spent months now proclaiming the importance of emphasizing America's exceptionalism in social studies classrooms. But today they voted to remove one of the greatest of America's Founders, Thomas Jefferson, from a standard about the influence of great political philosophers on political revolutions from 1750 to today.
9:45 - Here's the amendment Dunbar changed: "explain the impact of Enlightenment ideas from John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Voltaire, Charles de Montesquieu, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and Thomas Jefferson on political revolutions from 1750 to the present." Here's Dunbar's replacement standard, which passed: "explain the impact of the writings of John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Voltaire, Charles de Montesquieu, Jean Jacques Rousseau, Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin and Sir William Blackstone." Not only does Dunbar's amendment completely change the thrust of the standard. It also appalling drops one of the most influential political philosophers in American history -- Thomas Jefferson.
9:51 - Dunbar's amendment striking Jefferson passed with the votes of the board's far-right members and board member Geraldine "Tincy" Miller of Dallas.
The standard was about the Enlightenment and political revolutions that led to modern liberal democracy. So they removed the Enlightenment references and Thomas Jefferson, who played a key role in the two most prominent revolutions in the history of the Western world, and replaced them with Thomas Aquinas, who lived 500 years before the Enlightenment, and John Calvin, who lived 200 years before the Enlightenment and was a major figure in an entirely different period of history, the Reformation, which preceded the Enlightenment.
Yes, you should, in fact, be mouthing the words "what the fuck" right about now.
And the stupidity continues:
11:21 - Board member Barbara Cargill wants to insert a discussion of the right to bear arms in a standard that focuses on First Amendment rights and the expression of various points of view. This is absurd. If they want students to study the right to bear arms, at least try to find an appropriate place in the standards for it. This is yet another example of politicians destroying the coherence of a curriculum document for no reason other than promoting ideological pet causes. Republican board member Bob Craig of Lubbock is suggesting a better place for such a standard. But the amendment passes anyway. The board's far-right faction is simply impervious to logic.11:30 - Board member Pat Hardy notes that elsewhere the standards already require students to study each of the freedoms and rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. No one seems to care.
11:33 - Bob Craig tries, once again, to talk some sense into these folks. Board member Cynthia Dunbar argues that the original standard's focus on the rights of "petition, assembly, speech, and press in a democratic society" unfairly emphasizes the First Amendment over others. She suggests taking that out altogether if the Second Amendment isn't included. Board member Ken Mercer argues that the right to bear arms is too important not to include here. But it IS included in the standards. The purpose of the original standard is to have students understand the rights to free expression in a democratic society. The right to bear arms is not relevant to that purpose.
Yep, that one passed too. Oh, and this about church and state:
12:28 - Board member Mavis Knight offers the following amendment: "examine the reasons the Founding Fathers protected religious freedom in America by barring government from promoting or disfavoring any particular religion over all others." Knight points out that students should understand that the Founders believed religious freedom was so important that they insisted on separation of church and state.12:32 - Board member Cynthia Dunbar argues that the Founders didn't intend for separation of church and state in America. And she's off on a long lecture about why the Founders intended to promote religion. She calls this amendment "not historically accurate."
12:35 - Knight's amendment fails on a straight party-line vote, 5-10. Republicans vote no, Democrats vote yes.
12:38 - Let the word go out here: The Texas State Board of Education today refused to require that students learn that the Constitution prevents the U.S. government from promoting one religion over all others. They voted to lie to students by omission.
If you have children in school in Texas, I strongly suggest moving.
Politics
Comments
"If you have children in school in Texas, I strongly suggest moving."
As much as I agree with the sentiment, I can tell you that as a teacher, we don't need to overreact to these.
Honestly, teachers will cover the material in the standards but if a teacher actually sticks to ONLY the standards in my opinion he is not doing his job.
Again - I agree with your sentiment. Texas is having BIG BIG issues. Just don't underestimate teachers :)
Posted by: Josh | March 12, 2010 12:17 PM
Only if you care about them growing up in reality. If you want them to group up in a 1984 style neo-conservative dream land, Texas here we come!
Posted by: Dennis N | March 12, 2010 12:18 PM
It's worse than you think: it's been reported for years that textbook publishers kowtow to Texas standards and sell the same texts to other states. So there might not be any place to to move to. This Texan high school teacher is just as appalled as you are.
Posted by: noel | March 12, 2010 12:25 PM
in texas, you should *always* underestimate teachers *and* administrators. the few who surprise you will never outnumber the majority of disappointments.
Posted by: irsmrt | March 12, 2010 12:31 PM
Yes, you should, in fact, be mouthing the words "what the fuck" right about now.
The word "theocratic" comes to mind...
Posted by: 386sx | March 12, 2010 12:32 PM
The title of this post is misleading. They are not removing Jefferson from the history curriculum; they are only removing him from a unit on Enlightment thought (and simultaneously shitting all over the rest of the criteria for that unit, thereby making it an incoherent mess of random philosophers rather than anything students might, you know, learn from).
Not that I'm defending the Texas BOE. The conservative wing's actions are truly shocking. I just don't want some conservative blog to be like, "Liberals lie about Texas BOE and Thomas Jefferson!"
Posted by: James Sweet | March 12, 2010 12:37 PM
It doesn't matter what you write James, the wing-nut blogs would seize on the live blogging entry being 2 minutes off and make that the focus of debate. They're insane like that.
Posted by: Dennis N | March 12, 2010 12:40 PM
I always wondered if these morons would ever stop wanking to their fantasies about "The Founding Fathers" long enough to realize that the actual founding fathers don't neatly fit into their crazy, right wing, jingoistic box. I guess the solution is just to completely ignore those parts of reality they find inconvenient. Why do I continue to be surprised? I should really know better by now.
Posted by: peaches | March 12, 2010 12:50 PM
You know what'd be fun? Find a crapload of undocumented immigrants in TX and pit them against native Texassholes and see who actually does better on a citizenship test. Given the track record for TX education, pretty soon someone who doesn't even read English will be able to beat them on every subject except for the best kind of cheap beer, why contraception doesn't work, and why Jesus was a white homophobe (/snark)
Posted by: Rob Monkey | March 12, 2010 12:56 PM
Hold on, they removed the reference to Thomas Jefferson but they left in Voltaire? Is it because they don't know who he was?
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Voltaire
Prophetic words, indeed.
Posted by: DaveL | March 12, 2010 12:58 PM
They have a word for people who don't fit into that crazy, right wing, jingoistic box: antichrist. Since the founders can't be antichrist, they must fit into the box. QED.
Posted by: Scott Hanley | March 12, 2010 1:17 PM
If we don't teach kids about the enlightenment, maybe in a generation or two we can return ourselves to that blessed pre-enlightenment era that these folks love so much.
Posted by: James Hanley | March 12, 2010 1:22 PM
Maybe colleges should just stop accepting Texan applicants unless they can pass a special test or something. That would probably light a fire under the voters.
Posted by: charley | March 12, 2010 1:31 PM
So now the Right Wing theocrat-inclined morons are trying to re-edit history so that it no longer has a "liberal bias".
Someone better tell them that *reality* is known for having a "liberal bias".
And people don't seem to want to believe us when we talk about the ambitions of the Religious Right. This is the kind of historical and cultural education they want our children to have: A version of history trumpeting America's "exceptionalism" and the right to bear arms while almost but not quite ignoring anything even smacking of "liberalism" like free speech, free press, and (most importantly) free religion.
Has anyone gotten the feeling yet that they aren't even *trying* to hide their wingnuttery anymore? These are people for whom the word "patriotism" equates to religious adoration. This is a glimpse into the minds of the maniacs...their vision of what America should be like. Ignorant of relevant history and flying the flag no matter what.
What is it going to take to get people to see these ideological hacks for what they are?
Posted by: Scott M | March 12, 2010 1:49 PM
Well, maybe I'm an ignoramus because I don't know who "Jefferson" or "Voltaire" or "Hobbes" are or why I should care about them.
But I do know this: It's a mistake to teach the impulsive faith-based worldview of John Locke without at least giving equal time to the more pragmatic approach of Jack Shephard.
Also, I don't know that Rousseau needs to be in the course; I mean, yes, she did a few important things but overall she's been a pretty minor influence.
Posted by: chaos_engineer | March 12, 2010 2:13 PM
I think we should all ship in and send her James Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious assessments and all other written material from Madison concerning separation of church and state. Then again to Ms Dunbar, Madison would be "not historically accurate".
Posted by: Goldbrick4 | March 12, 2010 2:13 PM
This just in...The Texass Bored of Edjacayshun today removed Thomas Jefferson from its history standards for high school students. Bored spokesmoron I.M. Clueless told a news conference that students had "no need to larn about some dry-cleanin' guy that used to live next door to Archie Bunker". Details at 11.
Posted by: wtf | March 12, 2010 2:14 PM
Unfortunately, sometimes the teachers are as wing-nutty as the SBOE people. I breathed a huge sigh of relief when my dad never managed to get the U.S. or Texas history position he wanted when he went into teaching and was forced to teach math. He can't do much harm there, even if he did once insist that college-level trigonometry was the only way to solve one of my high-school geometry homework problems...
Although, not knowing the circumstances of his inability to get those positions, maybe there is hope. Maybe he spouted off to the interviewer about his whacked-out pseudo-historical fantasies and they rejected him for that reason.
I like to hope that's the case so I can sleep at night.
Posted by: Erin | March 12, 2010 2:22 PM
One possible outcome is that books written to the new Texas SBOE standard will become so unpalatable that the publishers won't be able to sell them to other states.
Posted by: Jim Ramsey | March 12, 2010 2:52 PM
Huh? Sorry, chaos_engineer, you Lost me.
Posted by: Scott Hanley | March 12, 2010 2:57 PM
John Fucking Calvin?!?
Sounds like they might as well just replace the curriculum with Conservapædia.
Posted by: Ivan | March 12, 2010 3:04 PM
At last, the teabagging right are dropping the pretense that their movement is descended from a distinct interpretation of the same Enlightenment impulses that both parties have always claimed to represent in America. A populist conservative streak has existed in America since the founding, but they were resolutely pro-Enlightenment. Remember, the Democratic-Republicans that were becoming dominant in the early nineteenth century were pro-French, pro-Enlightenment, pro-democracy, anti-British, suspicious of the established churches, and were led by Jefferson. These are the people, if anything, who have been the faction suspicious of centralization of power in the United States, and who the Republicans in the current party system are descended from. Modern-day liberals are arguably descended from the Federalists, who argued that an educated elite should lead the society towards greater virtue using the authority of the central government.
Now the theocrats have appeared seemingly out of nowhere, and are telling us to forget about Jefferson, and forget about the revolution, and forget about the Enlightenment. We must read Calvin, and shut up.
Posted by: Chuck | March 12, 2010 3:18 PM
Since Texas is such a large market, their standards and California's pretty much dominate the market. So textbooks are written for Texas, or for California, and other states must just buy one or the other.
Posted by: Foo | March 12, 2010 3:21 PM
A 15, 20 -
dammit! you got me! just glad my post some how got eaten.
Totally fell for it!
well played.
Posted by: VikingMoose | March 12, 2010 3:29 PM
"11:30 - Board member Pat Hardy notes that elsewhere the standards already require students to study each of the freedoms and rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. No one seems to care."
Yay for Pat--my rep on the TBOE. Relatively sane for a 'Pub, although I see she voted the party line on Knight's amendment.
Lord, I hadn't actually looked at this before. I get confused when reading about other DFW TBOE members, so I finally looked at the district map. It took me a bit to verify that I'm really in district 11. This map was quite clearly drawn by the famous cartographer Gerald Mander. Yeesh.
Posted by: Scott Simmons | March 12, 2010 3:39 PM
John Calvin? The bastard who burnt Michael Servetus?
You've got to be kidding me.
Posted by: rnb | March 12, 2010 3:41 PM
Hey liberals! This is why we need vouchers.
Posted by: dontworry | March 12, 2010 3:49 PM
I just listened to the American RadioWorks documentary from Feb. 26th titled The Great Textbook War. It described the textbook controversy in Kanawha Cty, W.V way back in '74. That story was so infuriating and it seems like some things never change. Which state will go bat crazy next? It's like a perpetual Whack-a-Mole battling this stuff. The perseverance of the TFN is simply inspiring.
Posted by: JMP | March 12, 2010 3:57 PM
"This is why we need vouchers." - yup - vouchers would finish the job of destroying public education, which is just what these loony-tunes want.
Posted by: dean | March 12, 2010 3:59 PM
I just listened to the American RadioWorks documentary from Feb. 26th titled The Great Textbook War. It described the textbook controversy in Kanawha Cty, W.V way back in '74. That story was so infuriating and it seems like some things never change. Which state will go bat crazy next? It's like a perpetual Whack-a-Mole battling this stuff. The perseverance of the TFN is simply inspiring.
Posted by: JMP | March 12, 2010 4:01 PM
Chuck @ 22 - I've never been able to draw a line from modern day conservatives back to any of the framers (not necessarily the founders). How does one do that? Especially when you consider that the most common historic thread inside the conservative movement is the type of people it attracts and their attraction to strong authority figures, dogma over enlightenment thinking, and authoritarianism in general.
I read Andrew Sullivan daily and he's taught me a grate deal regarding how the British brand of distinctly different conservatism flowed from Burke through Oakeshott, Churchill, Thatcher, and today's Tories. But I can't do the same for America's brand.
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 12, 2010 4:05 PM
Is there any way Texans can get an injunction against these fools???
Is there a lawyer in da house????
Seriously: is class action an option? Or what?
Posted by: Greg Kavalec | March 12, 2010 4:08 PM
Man, you liberals are all for social engineering by the elite ... except when the elite are bible thumping nuts.
"... finish destroying public education "
Rhetorical question: would you send your kid to the typical public school? (answer, hell no, not if you had the money, admit it). The schools are already ruined. ferkrisakes.
Back when the smartest women in society ran the schools, public schools weren't a problem.
Now schools are a joke.
Screw the NEA and the creationists, I'm with common sense along with the parents.
Posted by: dontworry | March 12, 2010 4:11 PM
"The title of this post is misleading. They are not removing Jefferson from the history curriculum; they are only removing him from a unit on Enlightment thought..." et al--but sadly, no--
First, state ed organizations are moving generally toward more direct accountability between classroom evaluation and state standards. Though there will always be the option to teach more than the standard requires, the standards steer the objectives which steer the school's scope; more and more also the tests.
The real hope here should be the "tipping point" reaction of teachers on the ground. Such an overtly anti-educational change--not the particulars, but the naked intent to make the curriculum a national gesture of adherence to the far-right exceptionalist distortion of reality--should stimulate a rebellion among teachers and departments. And the department second-best suited to making the case--social studies. (English is best, but the standards for English teachers are often vague enough to create wiggle room.) When a school's department openly repudiates the standard--teachers Jefferson and leaves out Calvin and freaking dull-ass Blackstone and Borgia and Goldwater and who-all--and challenge the authority of the sboe, and win on the simple platform of factual accuracy--then maybe.
It's our job to continue to point and laugh. Ha-ha.
ice
Posted by: ice9 | March 12, 2010 4:14 PM
What's stopping other states from using older textbook editions that got history right if this leads to incomplete textbooks?
Posted by: beergoggles | March 12, 2010 4:53 PM
Are we allowed to have votes of no confidence in an entire state? (I know that there are some intelligent people left, but at this point I really wonder sometimes how many of them there can really be who haven't already cast that vote with their feet)
Posted by: Perpetual Dissent | March 12, 2010 4:57 PM
Although much of the dialogue above is the epitome of right-wing political correctness, in looking back over my own education (pre-college) I can barely recall anything derived from any textbook from any subject.
In all seriousness, it's all just a blur to me today.
So whatever was written in those textbooks from Grades 1 to 12 couldn't have been that profound - esp as many of my teachers (namely in high school) used lesson plans of their own, and the usage of traditional, state-endorsed textbooks was not very heavy.
Posted by: CHV | March 12, 2010 4:59 PM
Is Texas vying for the most ignorant state?
Posted by: Owen | March 12, 2010 5:08 PM
Texas outbuys California because Texas buys for the whole state while California buys by the district, or used to anyway.
Dunbar has publicly called for the end of public schools and as such ought to be prevented from speaking on any school board. This does present a good opportunity for other states and district to finally band together and bury Texas. What group could help with that?
Why in the world are politicians and ignoramuses setting curricula anyway?
Posted by: MikeMa | March 12, 2010 5:21 PM
@10:
As far as pithy Voltaire quotes go, I've always been a fan of his last words.
When on his deathbed and asked by a priest to renounce Satan, he responded, "Now, now, my good man; this is no time for making enemies."
Posted by: Technogeek | March 12, 2010 5:24 PM
CHV - I'm 50 and I remember the major themes in history, even elementary school (5th grade and up). For those that are interested in a subject, it creates a framework which requires work if subsequent studies force you to modify your paradigm.
I also vividly remember elementary science classes trying to teach us what a theory and hypothesis were. It was a shock; it instantly opened my eyes because I could sense how different this was then what my preacher was telling us all on Sunday. I also felt far more at home in the rooms that taught this than I did at church.
Jerry Coyne shows a page out of the new standard where they're looking to create saints out of the conservative movement's leaders, including the scoundrel Phyllis Schafly: http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/03/12/god-1-hispanics-0/
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 12, 2010 5:31 PM
And with that kind of asshattery in the standards, other states are likely to begin insisting on non-Texas versions.
Posted by: James Hanley | March 12, 2010 5:39 PM
kids surf net
old people read books
Posted by: dontworry | March 12, 2010 5:44 PM
Mr. Heath @ 41:
I'm not saying these kooks in Texas aren't off-base, just that ultimately we decide what elements (what is factual in terms of history, etc) to accept in our education and discard the rest.
Posted by: CHV | March 12, 2010 6:09 PM
WTF? That's one of the most idiotic statements I've read in a long time. Does TFN think this is about some limp-wristed New England Commonwealth or something?
This is Texas! The right to bear arms is absolutely essential to "free expression in a democratic society." How the Hell else do you expect a Texan to express himself if he doesn't have firearms to do it?
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | March 12, 2010 6:41 PM
@41
Phyllis Schlafly?!?
Shit, now my comment about Conservapædia looks rather prescient. I must be psychic.
Posted by: Ivan | March 12, 2010 6:47 PM
> Hold on, they removed the reference to Thomas Jefferson but they left in Voltaire? Is it because they don't know who he was?
=cD that was the part where i was thinking 'wtf'. im glad somebody else noticed that.
Posted by: Anonymous | March 12, 2010 6:49 PM
Wow, this makes very good sense to me dude.
jess
www.fbi-logfiles.int.tc
Posted by: John WOods | March 12, 2010 6:57 PM
I agree, although Shephard is probably more appropriate for science class. At least until season 6.
Probably, although it can be argued that her distress call (and the deactivation of same) had a great deal to do with events on the island, especially starting in season 4. And I think you're underestimating the enormous impact her daughter Alex had on Linus. That effect is still being felt, particularly in the sideways reality.
Posted by: Rick R | March 12, 2010 7:33 PM
CHV, your comments would be on target, but for economic realities. States are starved for cash to operate schools. The availability of funding from States legislatures and federal sources is directly dependent upon "teaching to the tests." The tests involved are based strictly upon the written standards, which care little about how well the students are academically prepared for critical thinking and creative problem solving.
It is like employing meat inspectors. The product may taste like crap and be unusable for any reasonable use by a discerning palate, but as long as the product meets the criteria on the checklist, it passes inspection. That is the kind of students that are being, and will increasingly be, produced. I fear that not even the most stalwart teacher can fight against that rising tide of politically driven ignorance and insanity.
Posted by: Underground Sanity | March 12, 2010 7:44 PM
If anyone believed that public schooling has anything to do with education, they are sadly mistaken. The purpose of public schooling is docility training. DO NOT expect your children to come out of the kiddie jail knowing anything more than how to shut up and do as they're told.
-jcr
Posted by: John C. Randolph | March 12, 2010 8:26 PM
- vouchers would finish the job of destroying public education,
Don't be an idiot. Vouchers are the only hope of forcing government schools to educate, because they'd have to compete with other providers.
Want to know why European schools do so much better with far less funding? In Europe, kids aren't just assigned to schools geographically. Their parents can choose where they go, and the funding follows the students (effectively, a voucher system). If any European school graduated an illiterate the way that US schools routinely do, their reputation and attendance would be devastated.
-jcr
Posted by: John C. Randolph | March 12, 2010 8:33 PM
*headdesk*
Posted by: WMDKitty | March 12, 2010 9:07 PM
Because Europe is a single country with a uniform school system. Gotcha.
Posted by: lukas | March 12, 2010 9:17 PM
Please. someone tell me what can be done to stop this. I've never been so disgusted with anyone in my life as I am in these people. Are there protests? I live in New Jersey. I'll fucking COME TO TEXAS. I'm losing my shit here.
Posted by: kaybi | March 12, 2010 9:19 PM
From @peaches
> I always wondered if these morons would ever stop wanking
> to their fantasies about "The Founding Fathers" long enough
> to realize that the actual founding fathers don't neatly
> fit into their crazy, right wing, jingoistic box.
LOL! Oh yes. Dead on!
I'm sure they'd be shocked to find that if they were teleported into the past to meet The Founding Fathers they'd discover they were mostly like libertarians, Ron Paul Republicans and atheists/agnostics (they would have claimed to be agnostic but only religious with a Gnostic Christian sensibility of abstraction - there's a reason for all the hermetic symbols and such from early America).
Something like this goes for al-Queda-leaning Arabs as well. If you took any "Bring back the Caliphate" fanatic back to the actual days of the Caliphate, they'd be shocked to discover that the Arab Caliphate was mostly like the current liberal West world, and Europe was superstitious and primitive akin to the world they were born into! El Cid was religious fanatic terrorist in the style of bin Laden!
Posted by: Jeff | March 12, 2010 9:36 PM
Well, so far, we only have two people, John C. Randolp and "don'tworry" who are complete asshat ideologues. Ed, you're not doing it right unless you can bring at least 8 truly clueless fuckheads to the thread.
Posted by: democommie | March 12, 2010 9:39 PM
Vouchers will not do anything to hold government accountable. Such programs will create a more consumer-based ranking of schools, faculty, and students.
Vouchers will not guarantee that you can send your children to better schools. Not every child can attend the school of their parents' choice. Vouchers are a band-aid, a distraction, that looks interesting to conservatives because it ties taxes to some ridiculous notion of consumerism: you get to choose where you spend you money.
Let's be frank. The goal of the conservative movement in the US is to privatize all social goods: health care, education, military, et al.
I'm not worried about bullshit BOE standards. Local politics has always been where these rhetorical culture wars have been fought. In some way, I almost admire a system where these morons get a chance to be heard. And when nonsense like this happens, we are reminded that we must continue to debate in the public spaces for the US to work as it ideally should. I kind of like that.
I'm more worried about our students and our culture. The market is not the place to cultivate democratic discourse.
If you want to see what ranking--I want the freedom to take my money and send my student to the best school or school of my choice--does to educational institutions and public schools, look to Republic of Korea. I am a public school teacher here right now. Poor kids, poor families, and their schools find it impossible to compete for the resources parents pour into the highest ranked schools, where you guessed it, the wealthiest children in Korean society attend. It's wonderful for the wealthy children who attend resource rich schools.
They do have a lot of nice stuff. But choice will do and does do nothing to improve their education. The teachers don't get better because parent's have choice. We just end up dividing society further along class lines and instilling classism as a social good rather than an unjust harm into students' minds. They become not smarter but privileged. Educational standards suffers.
In addition, vouchers will do nothing to teach parents how to improve their roles in education and reinforces the notion that it's the state that should be responsible for safeguarding our values. It unbelievably ironic that conservatives support vouchers.
In other words, it's about taxes not education. It's about money not values. It's about choice not freedom.
Posted by: gary norris | March 12, 2010 9:52 PM
in addition, vouchers has nothing to do with the topic: how do these idiots get positions on the BOE? leave it to a conservative or libertarian to obfuscate.
Posted by: gary norris | March 12, 2010 10:16 PM
Michael Heath "…they're looking to create saints out of the conservative movement's leaders, including the scoundrel Phyllis Schafly:…"
She wasn't a scoundrel. All she did make a career of telling American women that they should want to not be able to choose to have a career.
I just did a search on Sourcewatch and it turns out that she was funded by Big Irony.
Underground Sanity "That is the kind of students that are being, and will increasingly be, produced."
Which is perfect. It readies them for the jobs of the future, in engine plants, assembly lines and steel foundries. You know, the kind of jobs that will keep American strong and independent.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | March 12, 2010 10:25 PM
Errrrr I thought Jean Jacques Rousseau was a dude. (And invented scuba diving as I recall.)
Posted by: 386sx | March 12, 2010 10:29 PM
I don't see what all the fuss is about.
The school board is just trying to be historically accurate. It is a documented historical fact that the enlightenment never occurred.
At least in most of Texas.
Oh, and that Jefferson fella was a Yankee!
Posted by: Lance | March 12, 2010 10:49 PM
"If you have children in school in Texas, I strongly suggest moving."
Unfortunately this you won't be making your kids safe from this idiocy by moving them out of Texas. Texas has the largest standardized market for text books in the nation, so the standards set out by the Texas School Board effectively become applied to the rest of the country. Because the market is so large, publishers just take the books written for Texas guidelines and sell them across the country. If you want to do something, run for election on your local school board.
Posted by: Jesse | March 12, 2010 11:43 PM
Its crazy making for sure. But the interesting news is that their are proposals and drafts that have been submitted, to create federal standards for state run public schools. They do receive federal funding after all. So, If Texas manages to pull this off, it may become even more expensive when they have order new text books twice. The second time to make sure that their curriculum adheres to federal standards. Or they could finally seceded from the union. You never know with this bunch.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35792943/ns/us_news-washington_post/
Posted by: Seeing Eye Chick | March 12, 2010 11:48 PM
Geez, it must be catching. I can't seem to keep my homonyms in order or my tenses. Or maybe its the hard cider.
Posted by: Seeing Eye Chick | March 12, 2010 11:50 PM
States need to band together to form their own standards and agree to by more text books than TX, thereby causing TX to have to take the books that they make for everyone else.
Posted by: Tom | March 12, 2010 11:56 PM
Seeing Eye Chick "I can't seem to keep my homonyms in order or my tenses."
Tense homonyms? Hold, on, I'll get my massage oil.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | March 13, 2010 12:05 AM
Okay, these guys are insane. I'm a Christian conservative, and even I think that this is nuts. We aren't all like this, just some rather extreme people. The Enlightenment is one of the most important period in the last several hundred years, and should be taught. I agree with you fully on that.
Posted by: Osamandius | March 13, 2010 12:20 AM
Regarding Vouchers: NBER working paper, "Long-Term Consequences of Secondary Secondary School Vouchers." Conclusion: They can (emphasis on "can,") increase performance. RAND has a good research brief on the mixed results found in studies.
Charter schools also can have positive benefits.
Posted by: James Hanley | March 13, 2010 12:44 AM
Down here in Texas, we are trying to replace extremist Ken Mercer with a university professor. Wherever you are reading this, please support Rebecca Bell-Metereau for Texas State Board of Education: http://www.voterebecca.com
Posted by: Alfred Stanley | March 13, 2010 12:52 AM
386sx (#61) - Invented SCUBA diving?!? I thought that was that chick, Jules Verne. - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | March 13, 2010 12:56 AM
This site provide the latest science activities and whole information about elementary science curriculum.And guide to their Visitors.
Posted by: Shumila | March 13, 2010 2:24 AM
Dean says:
' "This is why we need vouchers." - yup - vouchers would finish the job of destroying public education...'
Vouchers would enable poorer parents to send their kids to private schools which would benefit the kids and the overloaded public school systems. What's the problem with that?
Posted by: Paul Williamson | March 13, 2010 2:26 AM
Most of the Texas SBOE needs to die in a vomit fire. They're marginally better than the Gablers but that's like saying life under the Taliban was better than life under the Khmer Rouge.
The voucher canard has nothing to do with the SBOE curriculum butchery, though vouchers are part of the wingnut plot to destroy free public secular education. The ultimate goal of voucher proponents is to starve local school districts by diverting public cash to private religious or for-profit schools and bust teachers' unions; I wouldn't be a bit surprised if there's a resegregation dimension to it too.
You can paint a happy face of 'choice' or 'competition' on them, but ultimately the voucher concept is a perfect wingnut storm to destroy secular society and government and punk down poor brown people,
Like I said, those SBOE fuckers need to die in a vomit fire along with Rick Perry, Dr. James Leininger, and Bob 'Swift Boat' Perry. Too bad the Tex Dems are useless as a condom in a convent, Nobody sane in TX has the charisma and cajones to take down Perry and his wingnut circus. Thus my fervent, futile wish for so many TX pols and hacks be immolated in a cleansing, righteous vomit fire.
(N.B. Because it's the most disgusting, painful, and ridiculous concept to lodge itself in my brain this year, that's why.)
Posted by: Bob | March 13, 2010 3:09 AM
Argh my brain hurts, Thomas Jefferson and the idea of the separation of Church and State are so important you CANNOT leave them out an American History textbook without severely jeopardising the truthfulness and purpose of said textbook.
In Australia, thank the Lord (lol), we don't even have school boards. I am ever so grateful for that. Daftest thing ever. Can't you get you get rid of them? Politicians can influence the curriculum though.
Posted by: Jin Graf | March 13, 2010 3:23 AM
I must also add that as a future politician in Australia, i am hoping to lead the charge for critical thinking and civics classes and comparative religion classes to be compulsary from year 3-8/10. absolutely necessary for democracy and effective government. In 15 and mad as hell at the apathetic illiterate people there are in the country and thinking of ways to stop the idiocracy.
Posted by: Jin Graf | March 13, 2010 3:27 AM
I'd like to agree with Osamandius. I'm a Texan and a Christian conservative (yes, the two are different), and these people do not represent all Texans; they are extreme and apparently have a lot of free time on their hands.
I also agree with Gary Norris in admiring a system where different perspectives can be heard, although I go further than his 'almost'. The question may more rightly be, do we care enough to join the conversation where it's happening (writing on a blog is pretty easy and doesn't require much long-term commitment).
And perhaps that's a lot of the difficulty in [public] education. I've had my kids in public school, I've homeschooled them, I've sent them to private school. And the easiest (oops, I meant 'best') schooling of all was when I could send them out the door and not think much more about it, even though I wasn't saying that out loud at the time.
It's not a tremendously exciting, rewarding, jump-up-and-down kind of experience to just plug away at it year in and year out - things like 'life of my own' come to mind - but it's kind of what we committed to when we had children. So if I have to get in there and sort out what the textbook gets right vs. what it's fiddling around with, then I do it, day in and day out. At one juncture, we schooled our three oldest at home, and it was hard to pull off when they were all three grades apart. And private school is no bed of roses, either.
I've gotten a bit off track from what I originally wanted to say and that is, please don't lump all Texans into one pot. There's far more diversity there, but like watching or reading the news, only certain kinds of things make headlines. Oh, and not all Christian conservatives, in Texas or elsewhere, like or even watch anything on the Fox network.
Posted by: Donna McDonnel | March 13, 2010 3:51 AM
UHHHH.....Chaos_Engineer? Ummm are you a graduate of the Texas public education system too?
Jean-Jacques Rosseau was a man, not Danielle Rosseau the female character from ABC's LOST.
And yes you should be familiar with Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Hobbes
Hobbes was one of the father's of the idea of a social contract between the governors and the governed and held in contrast to Rosseau's "Noble Savage" that life in a state of nature was "...poor, nasty, brutish, and short." This implied the importance of a social contract for everyones's benefit a sacrifice of true anarchistic fredom for security.
And if you have any interest in modern philosophy or politics it is imposible to overlook these two Leviathans of history.(se what i did ther?)
Posted by: Will | March 13, 2010 4:30 AM
Sorry for the overreaction I didn't quite get the lost reference even after making the joke myself.
That statement was just so spit takingly stupid I had to kneejerk out a comment as fast as I could.
Posted by: Will | March 13, 2010 4:37 AM
Donna McDonnel & Osamandius,
Sadly these clowns DO represent all of Texas. They are the elected school board.
It is not enough to feel bad. You have to strive to have competent people do work for you. Texas and other places like it elect people by a yardstick so twisted, there's no wonder shit like this happens. Elect the best people regardless of church and politics. The results will astound you.
Posted by: MikeMa | March 13, 2010 5:08 AM
"explain the impact of the writings of John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Voltaire, Charles de Montesquieu, Jean Jacques Rousseau, Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin and Sir William Blackstone."
Right Calvin and Hobbes, a quick search on those names reveals the quote "Reality continues to ruin my life".
How very apt.
Posted by: Matty | March 13, 2010 5:33 AM
Screw moving to a different state. As soon as I'm done with college, Canada, here I come!
Posted by: Daniel N. | March 13, 2010 5:35 AM
Reaction 1: Thomas Aquinas and Jean Calvin - that would be a cage fight I'd pay to see!
Reaction 2: Since when were either of them political philosophers? (OK, I know, ever since Dubya called Jesus his most important political thinker)
Reaction 3: Does Texas actually allow Nutbar and her friends to use cutlery unsupervised?
Posted by: Amadan | March 13, 2010 5:46 AM
I don't get the point of pretending to kids that Jefferson wasn't a creature of the Enlightenment. It is simply incorrect to say that Thomas Aquinas or John Calvin should be discussed as part of the Enlightenment. It is so arbitrary and stupid. Even the religious schools don't teach that.
Posted by: sg | March 13, 2010 6:54 AM
Texas also killed capitalism, they will no longer be teaching it. Apparently they don't really understand what it is, they just know the word was coined by Marx.
Posted by: Texas killed capitalism. | March 13, 2010 7:02 AM
Will - allow me to introduce you to an (apparently) alien concept: 'HUMOUR'.
Try it, you might like it. ;) - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | March 13, 2010 7:34 AM
This is a perfect example of why curriculum should not be decided by popular politics. I can't imagine what these revisionist knuckleheads are going to do when they get to the Civil War; probably require that students be taught how Fort Sumter opened fire on Charleston, starting the war, and how Lee was victorious at Gettysburg.
sg: The point is to remove the Enlightenment from the curriculum because they disagree with it. Their intention is to lie, which shows you just how "moral" these moral crusaders are, even by their own standards; bunch of vile hypocrites.
Posted by: Julian | March 13, 2010 8:59 AM
I'd also like to point out how it's the self-proclaimed small government, hands-off conservatives who are busily politicizing education here and elsewhere in the Union. The only principle these disgusting scolds have is forcing others to listen to what they think. Remember that the next time someone complains to you about liberal "social engineering"; the damage these paranoid liars can do is truly remarkable, and we can all thank the likes of Rush Limbaugh for their prevalence.
Posted by: Julian | March 13, 2010 9:07 AM
If Aquinas then Aristotle and the Ancient Greeks. And Islam and eastern Christianity for preserving and propagating the thing we call science and natural philosophy. And, the heretics. Let's not forget to teach the controversy.
Since we're talking Jefferson too then we should also include Epicurus* (featured bonus is that the early Christians had to battle the latter Epicureans for hearts and minds).
In fact, if Aquinas and the RC are to be discussed there should be a section devoted to identifying from where they appropriated all of the ideas that they went about Christifying. In the interests of fairness.
*"I TOO AM AN EPICUREAN" Jefferson to William Short (October 31, 1819). Jefferson also included Jesus and his philosophy as the most moral. However, Jefferson is not seen as sufficiently Christian as needed to pass muster today. One by one all of the founders failing the Sufficiently Christian test will be written out of history if the radical Christians get their way. Their battle is not about fair representation but about elimination of ideas that threaten their world view.
When in Rome.....
Posted by: jimmiraybob | March 13, 2010 9:45 AM
Osamandius stated @ 68:
It's not relevant that there are outliers to the norm such as yourself. The fact is that about 28% of the country think like this or vote for people that either do or enact policy as if they do. That share is obviously far higher in Texas. Let's remember that these board members setting this policy were popularly elected to their positions and not only did they not hide their willingness to promote revisionist Christian Nation propaganda, but featured it as a key plank in their platform, coupled to their anti-science position of course.
I do appreciate your frustration; I was a 29 member of the GOP who tried to reform the party to discard conservatism and go back to republicanism. I gave up and left the party when the party's 2008 convention delegates unanimously approved of Sen. McCain's nominee, Sarah Palin, to be his VP running mate. But at some point a person has to decide whether reform is even possible and if it's not, than I would argue the ethical act is to both sever relations and publically condemn their unconscionable acts.
Given that Christianists are getting ever crazier and more extreme, I recommend walking away. That is if you are on a journey for objective truth and seeking groups that benefit, not harm society; rather than merely seeking emotional comfort which such groups do continue to offer if one is willing to remain willfully ignorant and blindly submissive.
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 13, 2010 10:15 AM
It's a good thing Mt Rushmore isn't in Texas, or we'd see the state Board of Ed staging a live re-creation of the Taliban and the Bamiyan Buddhas, only with bigger artillery.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | March 13, 2010 10:23 AM
Donna McDonnell @ 77:
Your so-called diversity is not what is represented in your state government, particularly your secessionist-friendly Governor and anti-history/anti-science/anti-founding principles school board, who I might add are elected.
Please read my post @ 90, it applies perfectly to your rationalization, i.e., outliers are irrelevant, the fact is conservative Christians are getting elected because they identify as conservative Christians and are doing harm to student education along with damage in many other areas as well because of their religious and political beliefs, not in spite of them.
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 13, 2010 10:27 AM
Mike Ma writes: "It is not enough to feel bad. You have to strive to have competent people do work for you. Texas and other places like it elect people by a yardstick so twisted, there's no wonder shit like this happens. Elect the best people regardless of church and politics. The results will astound you."
Where would that be? California or New Jersey- two states that would not have textbook policies like the one in Texas but both of which are financial basket cases. At least Texas does not confiscate a good percentage of the income of their citizens to fund wasteful government spending.
Posted by: Paul Williamson | March 13, 2010 11:25 AM
Paul Williamson writes:
"Vouchers would enable poorer parents to send their kids to private schools which would benefit the kids and the overloaded public school systems. What's the problem with that?"
George Will said essentially the same thing on Face the Nation about 5 years ago. Sam Donaldson then reminded him that the vouchers being discussed at the time were for around $2,500 and the private schools they were discussing cost about $8,000 a year or more, and if poorer parents could not afford $8,000, why did he think they could afford $5,500?
Will turned his gaze to the floor and blinked uncontrollably and said nothing.
Posted by: slpage | March 13, 2010 11:35 AM
I was wondering why insert Blackstone after Calvin. So I went to wikipedia and found this nugget.
William Blackstone's Commentaries summarized his attitude toward Roman Catholics as follows:
As to papists, what has been said of the Protestant dissenters would hold equally strong for a general toleration of them; provided their separation was founded only upon difference of opinion in religion, and their principles did not also extend to a subversion of the civil government. If once they could be brought to renounce the supremacy of the pope, they might quietly enjoy their seven sacraments, their purgatory, and auricular confession; their worship of reliques and images; nay even their transubstantiation. But while they acknowledge a foreign power, superior to the sovereignty of the kingdom, they cannot complain if the laws of that kingdom will not treat them upon the footing of good subjects.
— Bl. Comm. IV, c.4 ss. iii.2, p. *54
I propose that the inclusion of Calvin (??) and Blackstone is part of an anti-Catholic bias inherent in many streams of evangelical fundamentalism.
Posted by: bobcat | March 13, 2010 11:37 AM
I'm sure they won't teach any more about Montesquieu[1] than the separation of powers (1 of 33 chapters in his Esprit de Lois) but if they really taught him, I wouldn't mind if they skipped Jefferson. It seems clear to me that Montesquieu's writings turned Jefferson into a revolutionary.
[1] His name is Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu et la Brede. Calling him Charles de Montesquieu got a smirk out of me.
Posted by: Joshua Simeon Narins | March 13, 2010 11:40 AM
This is what I wrote in my most recent post on the matter:
Aquinas was virtually never cited by the Founders (though there a story to be told on his silent influence). Blackstone, though important as a "common law" authority, was a Tory and a supporter of British absolutism. And Calvin likewise, in no uncertain terms, taught Romans 13 means submission to tyrants is obedience to God.
Posted by: Jon Rowe | March 13, 2010 11:48 AM
sipage wrote: "George Will said essentially the same thing on Face the Nation about 5 years ago. Sam Donaldson then reminded him that the vouchers being discussed at the time were for around $2,500 and the private schools they were discussing cost about $8,000 a year or more, and if poorer parents could not afford $8,000, why did he think they could afford $5,500?"
Of course if they are poverty stricked they won't be able to afford either amount. Poorer is clearly relative but accurately applies to medium income families when compared to affluent families in no need of vouchers. To some middle income families $2,500 can mean the difference between an affordable option and one that is not. That may not be obvious to an upper income person like Sam Donaldson.
Posted by: Paul Williamson | March 13, 2010 12:12 PM
Jon Rowe "And Calvin likewise, in no uncertain terms, taught Romans 13 means submission to tyrants is obedience to God."
Pah! Everybody knows it's all Psalms 109 now.
Paul Williamson "Poorer is clearly relative but accurately applies to medium income families when compared to affluent families in no need of vouchers. To some middle income families $2,500 can mean the difference between an affordable option and one that is not."
Yeah! You tell it! Screw the poor!
Posted by: Modusoperandi | March 13, 2010 1:27 PM
You know what? The more time passes, the more I wonder if the goal of the far-right is not simply to establish a dictatorship where they would rule as a Nobility of the Robe, and in order to do that, they need to dumb down the population and create a virtual history where the enlightment is banned.
Posted by: Laurent Weppe | March 13, 2010 1:33 PM
What Gary Norris said.
Privatizing schools with vouchers is like privatizing social security with Retirement Savings Accounts (or whatever they're called.) It won't benefit the consumers of education (the kids) so much as the providers. (Can you say "Channel One"? Sure you can.)
Posted by: Chris Winter | March 13, 2010 2:01 PM
bobcat - I propose that the inclusion of Calvin (??) and Blackstone is part of an anti-Catholic bias inherent in many streams of evangelical fundamentalism.
It’s interesting that you mention this. The first time that I read through Daniel Dreisbach’s report to the Texas Education Agency, the one thing that stood out was its emphasis on the Protestant contribution:
There are three instances of Catholicism being mentioned; one in reference to "Charles Carroll of Maryland, a Roman Catholic and signer of the Declaration of Independence" (p. 7), one quote in which Catholics are clearly established as minority participant in the founding,
and one in reference the Roman Catholic Church, the Crusades and Islamic conquest of the Christian holy places,
Interesting little conflation if I do say so myself. I wonder that if he could find a way to unravel the Inquisitions from the reformed Protestant history he'd have brought that up too (dang that whole Calvin and Servatus thing).
Dreisbach is the contributing purported historian of integrity, especially regarding religion and the Constitution. However, his intent is clear. It is to establish a Reformed Protestant stamp on American History – not Catholic, not Jewish and certainly not Islamic. As to the contributions of classical Greece and Rome (in case anyone was wondering), Dreisbach’s got that covered too,
Posted by: jimmiraybob | March 13, 2010 2:53 PM
"Privatizing schools with vouchers is like privatizing social security with Retirement Savings Accounts (or whatever they're called.) It won't benefit the consumers of education (the kids) so much as the providers."
Private schools greatly benefit the kids. The test scores are an objective indicator. So are smaller classes. Why would parents spend 8-10,000 a year to send their kids to private schools unless it benefitted the kids?
Posted by: Paul Williamson | March 13, 2010 2:55 PM
Drat, I hit post instead of preview. In addition to some cleaning up I wanted to highlight, "One cannot appreciate the most basic, fundamental features of the American constitutional design ... without understanding the Reformed theological doctrine of radical depravity and the attendant necessity to check mankind’s fallen nature."
A classic case of if the doctrine fits then it must be the cause. I would argue that one can understand the most basic, fundamental features of the American constitutional design without any religious intervention if you study enough history. One thing that most of the leading founders did religiously.
Posted by: jimmiraybob | March 13, 2010 3:01 PM
"Rhetorical question: would you send your kid to the typical public school? (answer, hell no, not if you had the money, admit it). The schools are already ruined. ferkrisakes."
I am more able than you can know to send my kids to private schools: I don't because our public school system is fantastic. I'm not surprised "dontworry" and "jcr" have posts that are so incredibly stupid: once you start with the position they have facts and investigations are not needed. Just because the education system seems to have failed the two of you (lack of effort?) doesn't mean it fails everyone.
Note: comments about how "in the old days everyone learned to read and write well, and those were one-room schools", don't cut it either, because that isn't historically accurate either.
James, I'm usually interested in your posts, but I must disagree with your comments about charter schools and vouchers. studies here in michigan show charter schools are carefully sucking the best prepared students out of public schools, and still don't perform well on our (I admit, stupid) state-mandated tests.
There is no doubt many public schools need massive help - detroit looms very large in Michigan's discussions - but
Posted by: dean | March 13, 2010 3:24 PM
Ok, now we're getting somewhere. So having accepted that those below the "medium income" families cannot afford private schools with or without vouchers, what kind of schools will they be able to send their children to, now that the voucher system has diverted the funding that would otherwise have come from "middle income" families?
Posted by: DaveL | March 13, 2010 4:14 PM
dean wrote:
"I am more able than you can know to send my kids to private schools: I don't because our public school system is fantastic."
I'm glad you have a great public school system. I wish all kids in the USA had that advantage. But that's not the case. Those whose school systems are not adequate would benefit from better private schools. This should be about the kids.
Posted by: Paul Williamson | March 13, 2010 4:31 PM
David L writes:
"So having accepted that those below the "medium income" families cannot afford private schools with or without vouchers, what kind of schools will they be able to send their children to, now that the voucher system has diverted the funding that would otherwise have come from "middle income" families?"
Why assume the funds are diverted from public schools when it costs schools money to teach pupils? The vouchers can take the form of tax rebates and need not have any connection at all to school budgets except perhaps in the sense that classroom sizes are decreased and therefore made more accomodating to both teachers and students.
Posted by: Paul Williamson | March 13, 2010 4:39 PM
McLeroy is quoted here: (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html)
as pushing through the requirement to talk about republican voting records for civil rights. guess they want credit for that now too. what reality is he in that he thinks the republicans of the early 60s are like him or his party today?? I believe you linked to their 1956 platform on an earlier post and it was night and day.
Posted by: TheSlat | March 13, 2010 4:41 PM
Amusing/amazing--same root word.
Sorry, I was educated fairly well and all ...
The simplest solution--Occam's Razor (not something I am at all sure the Texas BOE has ever known), would make the eloquent demand that, instead of excluding people and their part of history, you would include all of history, and not just some of it.
Thank God my son was educated before this bloviated bull-shyte came about.
Of course, that requires ... ah ... knowledge.
Good to know our children are in such good hands, ya think?
Posted by: jb | March 13, 2010 4:42 PM
At Julian:
A Proposal for Required Units:
1. It Was Never About Slavery
2. The Slaves Did Not Want Freedom
3. Blacks Who Fought For The Confederacy
4. Stalin, Hitler, Lincoln & Mao
Posted by: Dr X | March 13, 2010 5:45 PM
Sure, all this money for vouchers is going to magically appear and won't have anything to do with reducing funding for public schools. Did I mention I have a bridge for sale?
Posted by: DaveL | March 13, 2010 5:46 PM
Dr X,
I have friends from the deep south who have spouted 1. & 2. with feeling. I have tried to reason with them but it was far too late for that.
Posted by: MikeMa | March 13, 2010 5:48 PM
I agree with everyone else here. Only left-wing extremists should be allowed to dictate educational standards.
Posted by: mike | March 13, 2010 7:25 PM
I think most everyone here, drive-by troll Mike, would prefer that reality dictate educational standards.
But we also know the issues you have with reality...
Posted by: NJ | March 13, 2010 8:02 PM
Mike wrote:
Do you ever feel a desire to leave your imaginary world for a brief dose of contact with reality?
Posted by: Dr X | March 13, 2010 8:24 PM
And they voted down teaching hiphop as well. Shame.
Seriously, if you don't like it, try homeschooling. It' a win-win.
Posted by: John | March 13, 2010 8:37 PM
Homeschooling is for the children of morons like you.
Posted by: Dr X | March 13, 2010 8:45 PM
Too true! Fundie homeschoolers do the world a valuable service- somebody has to flip our burgers.
Posted by: Rick R | March 13, 2010 8:59 PM
No, you don't have move out of Texas with your kids. Just make sure you read this stuff to your kids (hey, start with "The Midnight Ride of Paul Revere," there are good kids' versions out there; I grew up with "Ben and Me").
And make sure your kids get into an International Baccalaureate program, or stick with the Advanced Placement history programs.
Homeschooling? Sure, if you've got an advanced degree and a fair chunk of money. Not wise otherwise.
More seriously, did you see the news that Diane Ravitch, the research brains behind the Reagan and Bush education reforms, has given up on No Child Left Behind? Wrong, now she says.
How far behind is Checker Finn?
Posted by: Ed Darrell | March 13, 2010 9:14 PM
Someone made the comment that
"Man, you liberals are all for social engineering by the elite ... except when the elite are bible thumping nuts."
But then Conservatives are all for social engineering by the wealthy and the pious.
Liberals believe in true Democracy, and Freedom for all. Liberals believe that the only way to achieve that is by telling the truth and the whole truth, based on science and reason. Liberals believe that Democracy means the EQUAL sharing of power in a society tempered by a strong constitution that provides for individual Freedom. Liberals believe that society should be engineered ONLY when not doing so would result in a society that was not truly Democratic, or lacks individual Freedom.
In short, Liberals believe in, and follow the concepts of the Enlightenment.
Conservatives believe in the obfuscation of truth to control and manipulate society. Conservatives believe that the power should be in the hands of the corporate elite, the wealthy elite, and the Christian elite. Conservatives believe that society should be engineered when it does not benefit, or meet the ideals of the aforementioned elite.
In short, Conservatives are in direct opposition to the concepts of the Enlightenment.
So why should it come as any surprise that a group of Conservatives are denying students the opportunity to learn of the Enlightenment, and Thomas Jefferson’s contribution to it?
Conervatives
Posted by: liberal patriot | March 13, 2010 9:21 PM
Dave L wrote:
"Sure, all this money for vouchers is going to magically appear and won't have anything to do with reducing funding for public schools. Did I mention I have a bridge for sale?"
It's not even a drop in the bucket. In a nation which spends trillions on the federal level alone you seriously think some vouchers are going to bankrupt this country? If you're that concerned about spending you should be more concerned about the USA's growing debt problem. But to focus on some kids of working class families whose alternative are some very substandard inner city schools hardly seems compassionate. Besides, I thought progressives believed in choice.
Posted by: Paul Williamson | March 13, 2010 9:46 PM
My point was simply that the left-wing partisans here (yes, you are) are completely fine with social engineering that reflects their inherent biases - which you consider "reality".
Your suggestion that we should only teach "real" history reminds me of the idiot above who suggests that we should teach "all" history. Sorry, it doesn't work like that. These people only have so many hours to teach. You have to pick and choose your topics and, sorry, while there may be an objective and unbiased reality to present those who are able to present it to us are long dead. Your modern perspective of history does indeed reflect your own biases whether you're willing to admit it or not.
What's most hilarious about the inflamed responses here that you're massively overreacting to very minor changes in the curriculum. A slightly less left-wing interpretation of history will not harm our real educational achievement, unless you consider left-wing indoctrination to be the major goal of our education system.
I see nothing here about teaching math that says 2+2=5. I see nothing here that undermines science education. There is nothing here that would reduce students' abilities to compete on the world stage in any productive profession. All I see is outrage that students will no longer be indoctrinated with politically correct viewpoints that might undermine support for left-wing politicians.
Posted by: mike | March 13, 2010 10:14 PM
Paul:
Are you insane? I hope you're referring to the total federal budget, since the current Dept. of Education budget is $63.7 billion (excluding stimulus funds, which are running out), which is not just for K-12 but also post-secondary funding such as Pell Grants. You are exaggerating the federal contribution to education by a wide margin; most of the funding for schools comes from state and local funding (which, if you're like me and live someplace like Illinois that is slashing education funding, sucks).
Here's an idea: Instead of taking money away from "very substandard inner city schools," how about giving them the funding that they really need to do their jobs? I'm not one to say that we should just throw money at the problems of education, but money would be a good start, and it's too easy - and simplistic - to say that these schools are just incompetent. Vouchers won't solve any of the problems, and it will make it harder for the schools that are already struggling to keep up.
Of course, all of that is, as someone earlier pointed out, totally irrelevant to the TX BOE idiocy.
Posted by: Mr. B | March 13, 2010 10:15 PM
"Here's an idea: Instead of taking money away from "very substandard inner city schools," how about giving them the funding that they really need to do their jobs?"
LOL! NYC and DC public schools spend the most money per student in the country and have the worst results.
Money is not the answer.
Posted by: mike | March 13, 2010 10:24 PM
To Paul Williamson @103
Perhaps because the parents are more concerned that their kids get a religious education or are segregated from races or classes of people the parents don't like. There are plenty of reasons people send their kids to private schools that have nothing to do with educational quality.
And the masterstroke @108:
Did you think before typing that? Perhaps because total educational cost is not purely a cost of attendance.
Here's a word problem for you: You have 10,000 kids in a district with a budget of $10M. 1,000 parents each use a $1,000 voucher to go to Promised Land Charter School, leaving the district with $9M. Moribund High needs a new roof that will cost $1M and increases in energy price means an additional $1M is spent on school utilities. Assuming money not spent on energy and roofing is used to provide education, compare the education-$/student ratio with and without vouchers. Show your work.
For extra credit, show the effect of doubling the fixed costs ($4M for energy & roofing) on the education-$/child spent in the public system. How would the voucher value have to change if the education-$/child is the same before and after vouchers in the public system?
Parents: Discuss your local school budget with your child, filling in values for tax revenue, fixed costs, overall attendance, and your child's teacher's salary. Explain how playing XBox rather than studying will lead to a job that pays as little as teaching.
Posted by: Bob | March 13, 2010 10:41 PM
"If you have children in school in Texas, I strongly suggest moving."
I know I have differed with some on the nuances of this topic but I have to agree with Ed on this one. If you are there move. Bringing to light "possible"(to be polite and not get off topic here) distortions in the historical record that give all credit for liberal democracies and individual rights to the Enlightenment should not be fought by going 20 million miles in the other direction and erasing Jefferson from World History. This is insane!
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 14, 2010 1:30 AM
Hell, the country's almost bankrupt as it is, but that's not the point. The point is that you actually seem to think all these middle class voters will be willing to cover the cost of these vouchers and kick in several thousand per year per child for private school and still be perfectly happy to support a system they no longer use.
Fat chance, that. It's not going to happen.
Please don't act as if vouchers offer these families an alternative. You have already admitted that private school is out of their reach with or without them, and my memory isn't that poor.
Progressives recognize that in the real world, people's choices are limited by economic realities. You are not offering the poor a choice of schools, and you've already admitted as much. You are offering the middle and upper class the option of jettisoning the poor to fend for themselves in a neglected and underfunded system.
Posted by: DaveL | March 14, 2010 8:07 AM
Bob, a district with 10K kids is more likely to have a budget on the order of $100M. But don't let the facts get in the way of a good argument.
Posted by: lukas | March 14, 2010 8:13 AM
Fairly soon, no science-based or even relatively contemporary company that depends on an educated workforce is even going to consider setting up shop in Texas. Even Republicans can get fairly hard-nosed when it comes to profits. Maybe when they see how cutting edge companies avoid them like the plague they might start wondering about their so-called educational standards.
Posted by: Al Wood | March 14, 2010 8:51 AM
Lukas - nice to see Texas is the seventh lowest spending state in the union, see how much they 'think of the children' (in between executing innocent people that is).
Al Wood - Companies will still move to Texas to take advantage of the low taxes (evidently next to nothing is spent on education), they just won't hire Texans. Perhaps the Texas State Anthem should be called "You want fries with that?" - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | March 14, 2010 9:15 AM
Why would parents spend 8-10,000 a year to send their kids to private schools unless it benefitted the kids?
108: "Perhaps because the parents are more concerned that their kids get a religious education or are segregated from races or classes of people the parents don't like."
Not all private schools are religious and if they are there is the First Amendment protecting the exercise thereof. Vouchers need not recompense for the time spent in those classes. Obama sends his kids to private schools as do many minorities. They do it for the kids.
Posted by: Paul Williamson | March 14, 2010 10:41 AM
Dave L: Please don't act as if vouchers offer these families an alternative. You have already admitted that private school is out of their reach with or without them, and my memory isn't that poor.
Untrue Dave. I said that for the poor vouchers would not make a difference. They would for medium income working families.
Dave: Progressives recognize that in the real world, people's choices are limited by economic realities.
That's an argument against government involvement in universal health care, social security, medicare, medicaid and much more. Economic reality. Why help lower income people when you can cite econoic reality?
Dave: You are not offering the poor a choice of schools, and you've already admitted as much. You are offering the middle and upper class the option of jettisoning the poor to fend for themselves in a neglected and underfunded system.
Less students in those public schools means fewer costs and smaller classroom sizes which I already pointed out is a benefit to the poorer students. The only real argument I've seen so far is the religious one. If that's the hidden objection bring it out in the open.
Posted by: Paul Williamson | March 14, 2010 10:53 AM
So if poor families cannot afford private schools now, and vouchers won't make a difference in that, isn't it accurate to say that private school is out of reach for them with or without vouchers? If they don't make a difference for poor families then then they don't offer them an alternative, now do they? Are you just being deliberately obtuse?
Just the opposite. You must have some pretty skewed vision of 'economic reality' where poor people choose not to have health insurance, retirement savings, and private schooling. How on earth does leaving them to fend for themselves constitute "helping" lower income people? Does your idea of "lower income people" bottom out somewhere in the middle class, and ignore the existence of lower income people by implicitly denying either their income or their personhood?
Nonsense. You're ignoring the real argument that it's complete bullshit to pretend middle-income taxpayers will fund this program and kick in thousands more per year per child and still be perfectly happy to fully fund the school system they abandoned. This is pure fantasy.
Posted by: DaveL | March 14, 2010 11:02 AM
Ignoring the unseemly spat about public schools and vouchers, the key thing I'd say to Christian Conservatives is that if this is how Councils address problematic aspects of history then the Council of Nicea must have been a riot.
Posted by: Bernard | March 14, 2010 4:18 PM
This is getting a bit off topic. But I think vouchers are a good idea for all of the reasons Milton Friedman gave for them.
Posted by: Jon Rowe | March 14, 2010 4:41 PM
Jon - Friedman's voucher arguments, which I was required to learn in my college econ classes, would be great given his framework. The problem isn't the idea of vouchers, but that the actual framework of our reality isn't remotely close to Friedman's fantasies, arguably because times have changed.
I state this as a fan of Friedman's who concept on this on welfare did help me conclude that we need to switch from taxes collected mostly on wealth creation and business & personal income and instead base it primarily on consumption for principles related mostly to his wanting people to decide how to spend money rather than the government. I prefer his tax policies more due to their transparency and providing people with more power on when to pay their taxes while recognizing his rate allocations weren't sufficiently progressive.
Some defects in his thinking on vouchers, which was based on his thinking in the 1950s, was his belief that people are rational economic actors. They certainly are not; this idea was discredited only recently so we shouldn't be too hard on Friedman regarding his advocacy. He also didn't account for parents with motives superior to optimizing their children's education, such as attempting to indoctrinate more members into their religion. He also failed miserably to work out the financing of how allocate funding which created diseconomies of scale regarding physical plants and extra-curricula activities.
Milton Friedman is a perfect example of why I promote our considering libertarian ideas while simultaneously promoting the idea their ideas are normally utopian to a fault. Jefferson had his Madison, Friedman lacked a similar check.
I am a fan of how Friedman created a mindset that eventually led to the Clinton Administration focusing on small initiatives that focused on creating objectives that rewarded people consistent with societal objectives rather than implementing a new government-run program. I also embrace much of his Monetary policies, especially managing the supply of money, though I think its defective to believe his monetary policies alone can manage a government's fiscal policies. I prefer a hybrid approach where the Fed pursues sound monetary policy and the government uses Keynesian principles in both good-times and bad. China provides a good benchmark with the exception they've had the luxury of getting with keeping their currency value artificially low.
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 14, 2010 7:40 PM
Recently I read Richard Beeman's _Plain Honest Men_, a book about the Constitutional Convention of 1787, and was surprised to learn that the delegates (who did not include Jefferson, btw) explicitly rejected prayer to begin the daily session. Two motions that would have added a daily prayer were made by, of all people, Benjamin Franklin, but in both instances, he was met with embarrassed silence. So, are we to conclude that the delegates, who actually framed the original constitution, were churchy men who wanted to foist religion on everyone else? That's not the message I get!
Posted by: Ed Uthman | March 15, 2010 11:05 AM
Ah, if only our current State Board of Education had the dedication and patience to read this generally thoughtful discussion. The U.T. students had it right in their simple slogan on their t-shirts: We need a smarter State Board of Education. I hope all of you will consider supporting my campaign to defeat Ken Mercer in District 5 and return respect for education to the board. It will take every single available vote to overcome his conservative machine. Please visit voterebecca.com
Posted by: Rebecca Bell-Metereau | March 15, 2010 4:16 PM
Such stupidity!
Anyone familiar with even the barest essentials of American history knows the contributions Jefferson made to the Age of Enlightenment and to our Constitution!
I suggest you all read the book "America'a Constitution, A Biography", by Akhil Reed Amar, one of America's foremost constitutional historians.
The separation of Church and State was a paramount consideration in the birthing of our Constitution!
Unfortunately, these right wing conservatives are so impressed with their own ignorance that,for them, faulty reasoning has become a way of life. As for myself, when I wish to obtain a logical an reasonable response from either a member of the religious right on an inanimate stone, I ALWAYS pick the stone! But, then again, should I expect more from one who believes an individual can return from the dead? Simply mind-boggeling!!
Posted by: Ron Feltman | March 16, 2010 12:00 PM
What I love about these "conservative" (whatever that means) Texans is, they honestly think they're more "American" than the rest of us. But if you look at what these know-nothings believe you realize that, if we were back in 1776, they would be supporting the British, and screaming to hang the founding fathers.
Posted by: george | March 17, 2010 11:20 AM
...unless the King of England was brown...
Posted by: Modusoperandi | March 17, 2010 3:20 PM
mike wrote:
I see nothing here about teaching math that says 2+2=5. I see nothing here that undermines science education
Read more on the issue and see how sociology and economics are being dealt with, too. Especially economics.
Part of the whole reason we teach civic classes is so that children understand how their government functions, why it functions the way it does, and what events brought it to this point. This helps make them something that a Democracy depends on to actually work -- informed voters. People who know how to catch the system when it slips and hold it accountable. People who can read a bill or a candidates political stance and figure out the way it will affect their lives, how it fits within their own moral code, and make decisions based on that knowledge. (Now if we can figure out how to get them to actually read bills and propositions instead of accepting what some ELSE tells them they mean...)
Uniformed voters are easily lied to and easily controlled by the powers that be.
Also, just in case you're confused; "reality" is being used here to mean information that can be backed up by multiple, reliable sources. It's kinda like when you need your social security card, state ID, and Birth Certificate to prove you are who you really say you are. There's still the chance that you could be lying your ass off and it's all forged, but most people would accept it as reality at that point. (And there are ways of proving forgery.) The same for history; there's enough verifiable data to show that the Founding Fathers weren't all that Christian that we'd be remiss in not accepting as reality.
The "small changes" mentioned are actively ignoring the existence of someone who's philosophy had a big impact on the formation of our government. What makes it worse is that they're ignoring someone who's philosophy they disagree with --- putting their motives for excluding him in a really suspicious light.
Posted by: sadie | March 17, 2010 9:09 PM
I received this in an email from Gail Lowe, chairman of the Texas State Board of Education. The stories published in the NY Times and other publications were false:
Thomas Jefferson and the Texas Social Studies
by Gail Lowe
"It did not take long for reverberations from the Texas State Board of Education's preliminary vote on Social Studies requirements to spread across the country. And predictably, the media coverage was woefully inaccurate and blatantly distorted.
The New York Times probably was not the first to report on the board's deliberations, but it joined a host of prominent Texas news outlets that incorrectly claimed Thomas Jefferson had been dropped from the curriculum framework used in Texas public schools.
Apart from Thomas Jefferson, the only historical figure with more emphasis in the Texas Essential Knowledge & Skills standards is George Washington. The State Board of Education expects students at the elementary-grade level, in middle school and again in high school to study these Founding Fathers and to be well-versed in their contributions to American history and government.
Thomas Jefferson is included along with John Adams, Samuel Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Nathan Hale, the Sons of Liberty and George Washington as Founding Fathers and patriot heroes that Texas fifth-graders should study for their notable contributions during the Revolutionary period.
During Grade 8, in which the history of the United States from the early colonial period through Reconstruction is presented, the Social Studies TEKS framework requires students to explain the roles played by the following significant individuals: Abigail Adams, John Adams, Wentworth Cheswell, Samuel Adams, Mercy Otis Warren, James Armistead, Benjamin Franklin, Bernardo de Galvez, Crispus Attucks, King George III, Haym Salomon, Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, the Marquis de Lafayette, Thomas Paine and George Washington.
The U.S. Government course required for high school graduation mandates that students "identify the contributions of the political philosophies of the Founding Fathers, including John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, John Jay, James Madison, George Mason, Roger Sherman and James Wilson on the development of the U.S. government."
In addition, high school students must "identify significant individuals in the field of government and politics, including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Marshall, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan."
To say the State Board of Education has excluded Thomas Jefferson from the curriculum framework is irresponsible and untruthful. Jefferson not only penned the words of the Declaration of Independence, served as the third President of the United States and was father of the University of Virginia, but his promotion of the ideals of states' rights and a limited federal government have permeated our nation for centuries. No study of American history would be complete without his inclusion. That is why Thomas Jefferson warrants such strong emphasis in the TEKS standards the State Board of Education has approved."
Posted by: Paul Williamson | March 19, 2010 5:15 PM
Only going to say one thing.
History and Ideology are two totally different things.
Posted by: Daniel | March 19, 2010 7:43 PM
Paul Williamson -
To say the State Board of Education has excluded Thomas Jefferson from the curriculum framework is irresponsible and untruthful.
Who said that, Mr. Williamson? Certainly this blog posting didn't. What it said was:
The standard was about the Enlightenment and political revolutions that led to modern liberal democracy. So they removed the Enlightenment references and Thomas Jefferson, who played a key role in the two most prominent revolutions in the history of the Western world, and replaced them with Thomas Aquinas, who lived 500 years before the Enlightenment, and John Calvin, who lived 200 years before the Enlightenment and was a major figure in an entirely different period of history, the Reformation, which preceded the Enlightenment.
Which is both true and idiotic. If you have a beef with an NYT story then perhaps you should link to it, rather than asking us to trust the self-serving interpretation of a member of the board.
Posted by: Taz | March 19, 2010 8:32 PM
Which is both true and idiotic.
Boy, that was a poorly chosen phrase. I meant, of course, that the quoted part is true and the action is idiotic on the part of the Texas BOE.
Posted by: Taz | March 19, 2010 8:35 PM
Since it was not part of the Louisiana Purchase, give Texas back to Mexico
Posted by: lars95028 | March 20, 2010 11:28 PM
Posted by: Graham Shevlin | March 21, 2010 12:52 PM
I live in Texas and I will say that collectlively, the kids here are dumber than a box of rocks. They won't understand the nuances of this right wing Goebbels style assualt. Thomas Jefferson's venerated memory is safe and sound.
Posted by: Justin | March 27, 2010 2:29 PM
Hmm. 'spose someone could suggest something absolutely horrible like, ohhh.... parents being at least partially responsible for the teachings of their children instead of just turning it over to someone else (state, whoever) and whine about how poor the education is later.
That would take actual effort tho. :-|
Posted by: Zuperchicken | March 28, 2010 3:03 PM
interesting. would like for greg kavalec to contact me.
Posted by: jay smith | February 25, 2011 3:06 PM