…and this is a 
The state of Texas is considering striking the name of Neil Armstrong from the social studies standard. I hate to be the voice of restraint here, but I don't think it's as bad as it sounds. The reasoning given is completely bogus (because Armstrong wasn't a scientist? Give me a break), but the action is not unreasonable. The state should not be in the position of dictating the niggling details of instruction — they should be laying down the law on the broad picture of what is taught, but not how it was taught.
So what the curriculum should do is say that the social studies classes for that grade level should do is discuss the space program, its goals and its effects on American society. It shouldn't be saying that the teacher has to do this by asking students to memorize the names of famous astronauts — that's a pedagogical decision that should be made by the teacher. I would hope that most teachers would see that talking about the people in the space program is a great way to humanize the topic, but I wouldn't want the BOE to be meddling to that degree in the classroom.
Similarly, I think it is fair for a state curriculum to insist that biology classes cover the principles of evolution…but it would be inappropriate to demand that it be done by teaching about Darwin. You can do a fine job of discussing evolution without mentioning ol' Charles even once.
Education
Comments
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
September 21, 2009 1:08 PM
But you can't properly discuss the moon walk without mentioning Neil.
From the links, however, I can't really gather what reason is given for leaving Armstrong's name out of the standard, so I can't really figure out whether or not it would be appropriate (if the science strand is small, Neil might not make the cut).
Still, I can't go along with your analogy, PZ.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
September 21, 2009 1:13 PM
Sure you can. If the ss strand says teach about the moon landing in 1969, it doesn't have to say that you must mention Neil Armstrong. Most teachers will, anyway. What do you want to be sure kids come away with? The fact that the space program reached the moon, or the fact that the guy in the lunar module was named Neil?
If the biology strand says students should learn about 19th century arguments for evolution, it doesn't need to insist that A.R. Wallace get a shout out.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
September 21, 2009 1:32 PM
I did put "properly discuss" into my comment quite on purpose, since I realize one cursorily mention the moon landings without giving any names. It depends, I think, upon how much is said about it, or how long the science strand is
What I'm getting at is that evolution stands upon facts about the "natural world" and is not about people (the history of evolutionary thought is, by constrast), but the moon landing is a story of people and of machines. The Eagle would be a part of any proper discussion, although I think most of us would find that name less important.
So anyway, I stick with saying that the analogy is at least weak.
I agree, certainly, that the "he's not a scientist" bit is nonsense, for Neil was part of the scientific discoveries about the moon, regardless. Maybe it was partly due to chance, he picked up some pretty good rocks, or so I've heard on TV. He likely learned his geology lessons well.
Well, I've probably said all that this subject deserves from me, so this most likely is it for me on this thread.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: Ranson
|
September 21, 2009 1:34 PM
I say we send Buzz Aldrin down to clean house.
Posted by: CD Jameson
|
September 21, 2009 1:36 PM
Since when did the Texas BOE care about who is and isn't a scientist?
Posted by: Chiroptera
|
September 21, 2009 1:40 PM
You know, if a school unit on space flight is detailed enough to explicitly mention Neil Armstrong by name, then it should also say something about Yuri Gagarin.
Just my opinion.
Posted by: Strangel
|
September 21, 2009 1:42 PM
Yeah, 'cause "A man" is one syllable less than "Neil Armstrong" so they could possibly have more time to teach other important stuff without naming "he who did it."
Hey, PZ... Georgia is flooding. Think somebody prayed too hard this time?
Posted by: PsyberDave
|
September 21, 2009 1:47 PM
I am in favor of removing ALL non-scientists from social studies text books. George Washington wasn't a scientist. Who needs him? What did he ever do? He didn't exactly invent the peanut. BUT, George Washington CARVER did!1!! Now you're talkin'! He invented peanuts so we could have all sorts of things, like, uh, well there's peanut butter, of course, and peanuts, both roasted and raw. And you can salt them. Oh, and there's peanut butter and jelly. The dude is totally better than George Washington.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
September 21, 2009 1:49 PM
Neil Armstrong, huh? If I were conspiracy-minded, I'd suspect they're only doing that to cover their tracks after excising a lot of significant non-male, non-white historical people (e.g.César Chávez, Thurgood Marshall, Anne Hutchinson) from the curriculum.
or are they cutting out all of the requirements for teaching about particular individuals in history altogether?
Posted by: Evan
|
September 21, 2009 1:49 PM
But this is terrible! After all, as we know from Heinlein's later work, the name of the first person to walk on the moon is a totally reliable unique identifier for any given world in the parallel multiverse. So how the heck is a kid supposed to know he's traveled from Earth Zero to Earth Prime if we don't bother teaching him who Leslie LeCroix was?
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
September 21, 2009 1:53 PM
Indeed, the whole race to the moon affair makes absolutely no fucking sense unless you mention Sputnik and Yuri Gagarin first.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
September 21, 2009 1:55 PM
What about Ham the Chimp?
Posted by: JSW
|
September 21, 2009 1:56 PM
So when will Batman get added to the school standards? I'd about bloody time, I say.
Posted by: Zifnab
|
September 21, 2009 2:01 PM
It's all bogus and absurd. They're just taking a hatchet the curriculum because they can. Discussing the space program without mentioning Neil Armstrong is like discussing the European discovery of America without mentioning Christopher Columbus.
I'm more troubled by their insistence of including hyper-partisan instruction on Reaganomics and the '94 Heroes of the Republican Revolution in the course study, but this just goes to show how their work is exceedingly sloppy.
They just don't give a shit. They'll do whatever they want to the curriculum because they can.
Posted by: Heaventree
|
September 21, 2009 2:17 PM
Well, I'm sure every Texas classroom has to have that crappy piece of kitsch picture of Washington kneeling in prayer beside his horse.
Posted by: Arwen
|
September 21, 2009 2:26 PM
I'm just afraid that down the line some conspiracy wingnut will use this for "proof" that man didn't land on the moon.
It just seems odd to me that the state that tries so desperately to put god in the classroom is now trying to remove man from the classroom. Are they planning on teaching nothing except for god? That's how it seems to me.
I agree that states shouldn't nail down a curriculum so that a teacher has no leeway but I don't see that as the motivation here. Has it been a problem? Are there really social studies books out there available for purchase that don't mention Neil Armstrong? Or are they just jealous that an Ohio boy beat out a few Texans? lol
The further we get away from a real space program, the more unreal it seems to people. I remember being a little girl and thinking that by the time I am the age I am now, I could be living on the moon. I'm devastated to realize that it's going to be a very long time before we even make a scheduled trip back. It's amazing to me the length of time that they say they will need to get back. It's longer than the time that it took to get to the moon in the first place. It seems that after 40 years, we should be able to wake up one morning, decide to go to the moon and have a functioning rocket headed there with passengers and equipment within a year's timeframe especially since we are using old rocket technology to do so.
I'm so very disappointed by the state of our space program and I think that Texas removing Neil from the standards is just a symptom of a much larger disease.
Posted by: Electric Monk's Horse
|
September 21, 2009 2:33 PM
The TBOE would probably prefer to leave the whole Apollo program out of the history books.
First, it was a great triumph that was JFK's idea, and the right-wingers hate it when liberals look good.
Second, it was socialistic. They vastly enhanced a government agency to do the job, instead of leaving the whole thing to private enterprise.
Third, the moon is associated with witchcraft, werewolves, devil worship, and other bad things. Or, even worse, it's made out of blue cheese, and that's FRENCH! The ultimate evil.
Fourth, they never did find a god up there.
Posted by: mattheath.wordpress.com
|
September 21, 2009 2:38 PM
If a teacher is dumb enough to want to teach the moon landing without naming Armstrong, all the curriculum guidelines in the world won't make their classes worth going to.
Posted by: Arwen
|
September 21, 2009 2:46 PM
I think it's clear that the next step is to remove the moon landing from the classroom. Heck, the world is flat and the stars are fires placed in the sky by god just above where airplanes fly so it's clear that it just never happened.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
September 21, 2009 2:51 PM
They can cover American history without mentioning Christopher Columbus, too. As a person with a shitty memory, I am in favor of this approach.
Posted by: srogers.myopenid.com
|
September 21, 2009 2:54 PM
It never ceases to amaze me how casually people accept the idea of the government determining the content of education. As if somehow it makes everything OK if they just say that you have to teach Apollo and leave it to the teacher to decide how to do that. Kind of like having the state tell the newspapers to run 3 stories a week on the benefits of the latest civic project and leaving it up to the journalist as to how to substantiate it.
Posted by: Desert Son, OM
|
September 21, 2009 2:56 PM
mattheath,
So true.
As an aside, I'd be curious to know how many also mention Buzz Aldrin, and, for some really interesting statistics, Michael Collins . . .
. . . and then go on to mention the six other moon landings (not counting Apollo 13's aborted attempt).
No kings,
Robert
Posted by: Tulse
|
September 21, 2009 3:08 PM
You really want the individual teachers in Texas to decide what to teach? You want a full school day of "love Jesus or else"?
Posted by: Zifnab
|
September 21, 2009 3:11 PM
Well, to be fair, the government pays for it. So, to a degree, it makes sense for the government to step in and say, "Hey, by 4th grade you should be learning English grammar. By 8th grade, you should be teaching Algebra." I mean, Texas mandates a class on Texas History to be taught in middle school and I'm perfectly fine with that. Leaving aside the demonization/deification games that get played, it makes sense for students to know how the state was originally founded and what events brought it to it's current situation.
And the partisan games don't start or end in the Capital either. Every PTA has it's bullies and it's ideologues. Every church group has it's own take on history. You need a certain degree of mandate to keep Classroom A and Classroom B or High School A and High School B from getting completely different educations, if for no other reason that to answer the age old question "Is our children learning?"
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
September 21, 2009 3:13 PM
It never ceases to amaze me how casually people accept the idea of the government determining the content of education.
Down with public education, right?
Posted by: davem
|
September 21, 2009 3:17 PM
César Chávez, Thurgood Marshall, Anne Hutchinson, Neil Armstrong.
From the other side of the pond, one thing stands out: We have heard of Neil Armstrong. Needed to google the others.
Oh, and Movable Type is causing grief. Rejected my log in twice. Now, just when I was going to give up, suddenly, it knows me again... sigh...
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
September 21, 2009 3:18 PM
[massively OT]
oooh, MAJeff, are you going to the Fargo thing? if so, do you know anything about the afternoon thing at NDSU?
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
September 21, 2009 3:40 PM
oooh, MAJeff, are you going to the Fargo thing? if so, do you know anything about the afternoon thing at NDSU?
I'm going but know nothing about an afternoon at NDSU. I'll be teaching at UND and heading down from there. Might be bringing some other first-year faculty.
Posted by: Chiroptera
|
September 21, 2009 3:46 PM
srogers.myopenid.com, #21: It never ceases to amaze me how casually people accept the idea of the government determining the content of education.
Well, it stands to reason that if members of a community are going to mandate universal education then they can set the standards and curriculum to determine what it means to be educated.
After all, if anybody can decide to make up whatever they want and count that as "education", then mandating universal education won't mean a whole lot, eh?
Unless of course one is against the whole idea of mandatory education to begin with.
-
P.S. That's funny. Some threads will allow one to login with Typepad and others don't. I had to go to a different thread to login in order to comment on this one.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
September 21, 2009 3:49 PM
i see. well, it seems no one knows anything about it (other than it's on the flyer for the Freethinker Event), so possibly I'll have to skip it for lack of information.
I'll be there for the theater thing definitely, so maybe I'll see you there :-)
[/OT]
Posted by: Chiroptera
|
September 21, 2009 3:59 PM
Electric Monk's Horse, #17: Fourth, they never did find a god up there.
Slightly off-topic, but one wonders why, if the gods were going to allow the moon landing, they threw such a hissy fit over the Tower of Babel.
Posted by: qetzal
|
September 21, 2009 4:00 PM
At the same time that the Texas SBOE is proposing to write Neil Armstrong out of the textbook requirements, some are also trying to write in people they like more:
Link
Posted by: Tulse
|
September 21, 2009 4:04 PM
It's like they're not even trying to hide it anymore.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
September 21, 2009 4:05 PM
Phyllis Schlafly?!?!
only if they're using her for teaching the definition of "massive, groundshaking hypocrisy"
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
September 21, 2009 4:06 PM
students should be expected “to identify significant conservative advocacy organizations and individuals, such as Newt Gingrich, Phyllis Schlafly and the Moral Majority.”
Should the Ladies Against Women be along with Schlafley?
Posted by: Richard Eis
|
September 21, 2009 4:15 PM
If I get one more creationist telling me I worship Darwin......grrrrr so If I didn't know better I would like to see Darwin's involvment tempered a little.
but I know better...
Posted by: ukko
|
September 21, 2009 4:22 PM
I remember back when the came for Laika... Neil we hardly knew ya!
Posted by: Cycle Ninja
|
September 21, 2009 4:24 PM
Make that Buzz Lightyear.Posted by: Blondin
|
September 21, 2009 4:38 PM
Ahem. Don't you mean LOUIS Armstrong?
Posted by: Stever
|
September 21, 2009 5:41 PM
A lot of you are forgetting that this shows up as an answer on crossword puzzles more than rarely.
I understand that the occasional exercise of frequently dredging up otherwise useless recollections to solve these puzzles can help stave off Al's Hammer disease and keep the mind sharp. I got the one for "giant leap" with ease.
Posted by: Sherry
|
September 21, 2009 5:44 PM
This would never ever happen in Ohio.
(Neil Armstrong is my homeboy.)
Posted by: Tuxedo Cartman
|
September 21, 2009 5:57 PM
I agree with you PZ. You make a very convincing argument. But... something about the idea that there will be a school somewhere asking kids who wrote the Declaration of Independence (a relatively unimportant act in the scheme of things), but not who was the the first man to walk on the moon!!! THE FUCKING MOOOOON!!!
Maybe it's just me, but I consider that one of the pinnacles of human achievement of all time, and it still causes me to go slack-jawed in awe every time I think about it. I'd rather kids flunk out on Shakespeare than not know who Lance "Fucking" Armstrong is (yes, I do believe that's how the history books should remember him too.)
Posted by: Stever
|
September 21, 2009 6:04 PM
I never saw Lance Armstrong as an answer on a crossword.
Posted by: gyeong-hwa
|
September 21, 2009 6:12 PM
Well those of us who are into biking, sports, and health, we would know who Lance Armstrong is. But I'm not sure if it's imperative for students to know who held the Vélo d'Or for three consecutive years.
:)
Posted by: llewelly
|
September 21, 2009 6:14 PM
Chiroptera | September 21, 2009 3:59 PM:
In the Apollo days, Americans were more godly, and all the NASA scientists and engineers spoke English, the language Jesus wrote the bible in.
Posted by: lordshipmayhem
|
September 21, 2009 6:31 PM
I think the reason they'd like to not mention Neil (or likely Buzz or Michael) is because he's not from Texas.
LBJ, on the other hand, probably rates a mandatory mention, especially as the Space Center in Houston is named for him.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler
|
September 21, 2009 6:38 PM
You can do a fine job of discussing evolution without mentioning ol' Charles even once.
Does a student fully grasp a concept with no idea of the history of that concept (particularly when said concept is a work in progress)?
Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook
|
September 21, 2009 6:57 PM
@Pierce: yes. I remember learning all sorts of things in science class with no historical context for them. A coherent scientific framework to make it hang together sensibly is all that's needed. I'm thinking of stuff like Boyle's law, Ohm's law, Newton's laws - which even have names attached. And we certainly never studied the lives of Newton and Leibniz when we learned calculus.
Posted by: davem
|
September 21, 2009 7:58 PM
Let me guess - he cycled to the moon?PS Moveable Type still giving me grief - when presented with your name/password filled in, you must then re-enter them, and all's ok. Arrggh!
Posted by: ZK
|
September 21, 2009 8:06 PM
I have a 4yo daughter. We've been touring the Science Museum (and the Natural History Museum) here in London once in a while for the last two years or more[1]. She already knows that men went to the Moon and tells me so in the space and rockets gallery, OK so she also says that they were called Wallace & Grommit, but that's just her mucking about, she does know that is a joke, and one day when she's old enough she will learn from me (if nobody else) names such as Aldrin, Armstrong, Collins, et al.
She's already heard the names of Swan, Edison[2], and various others, because after evening story time she asks me "tell me a true story daddy" and I ask what she wants to hear about then she asks anything from "how do lightbulbs work?" to "how are handbags made?" and even "what did you do at work today?" (that's the hardest one to answer, odd but true).
She's also heard of Darcy Bussell, Tchaikovski etc because she loves ballet, which I confess is not my bag but it's her's so naturally we indulge her. I don't think she's some shining light of childhood prodigy for it, it's just the way kids are given the chance: little sponges soaking up anything and everything that catches their interest.
We've been having our "Carl Sagan Moment" of late (only kids ask the big questions), she's been asking why it's getting dark earlier. Wow! I was stunned/delighted that she asked, and have promised to explain it (anyone care to offer advice about how to demonstrate it to a 4yo? please?).
Anyway, the point is that none of this requires her professional educators to tell her about Neil Armstrong. I can't believe they wouldn't when it came to discussing the moon landings, but they don't actually have to.
Not to worry, leave that to we parents, we'll certainly make sure our kids know who the heroes of our times (and earlier) were!
Cheers.
ZK
[1] The science museum is only a few stops up the line for us, it's free, and it has a wonderful playground for kids in the basement, plus two very well stocked, wonderful, and not overpriced shops on the ground and third floors.
[2] She laughed out loud at the name Joseph Swan, then nigh on wet herself laughing at the name Thomas Alva Edison. Kids, eh?
Posted by: Fred
|
September 21, 2009 8:11 PM
Maybe the Texas BOE fears that Madalyn O'Hair was right.
Posted by: timeslice
|
September 22, 2009 12:49 AM
Now don't be too hard on these TBOE folks. After my family came to Texas, I myself was educated in this great state. I was taught social studies by the best football coaches money could buy. And, of course, we appropriately did not discuss Korea or Vietnam.
For goodness sakes, they are only making minor updates. Instead of just having to know about the importance of 1898, 1914-18, 1929, 1941-45, and 1957...they now have to learn about 1968, 1989, 2001, and 2008 as well. The curriculum is much more expanded. Why, they were even ahead of their time when I was in school. For sure the importance of 1957 was the invention of Tang.
With education like that...it just shows why Texas is NOT currently experiencing a recession or any economic downturn (Rick Perry said so). Soon we'll secede and then everyone will be sorry for makin' fun of us. We'll charge extra fees on the export of all those Dell computers, too.
Posted by: bastion of sass
|
September 22, 2009 2:28 AM
For a good start, I propose that children be taught that "conservative advocacy organizations and individuals, such as Newt Gingrich, Phyllis Schlafly, and the Moral Majority were, and are, hypocritical, selfish, nasty, and immoral."
Posted by: David B
|
September 22, 2009 4:28 PM
It's 57% now.
I rather hope CNN has got its act together enough to disallow multiple votes and scripts.
It would be much more telling if enough atheists were seen to be pissed off enough to bother to vote to make the poll a massive no, and would be a step towards making politicians sit up and pay attention to secular concerns, which means IMO stopping pandering to people who believe in sky fairies.
Don't just vote - link to message boards, blog it if you have one or can post on one, anything else you think might be useful.
David B
Posted by: bobscience
|
February 5, 2010 9:18 AM
'm devastated to realize that it's going to be a very long time before we even make a scheduled trip back