Boy am I glad I homeschool!

[chiguirre]

Check out this story about Texas' new social studies standards:

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35839979/ns/us_news-education/

 

I probably shouldn't comment more than that or this will become a rant or a political thread, so I'll leave it at that. I am glad that I get to be the one to teach my kids history, civics and, especially, economics (I'm a geek and I love econ!)

[jlovebaker]

how sad that the Texas school system is going to use schools to indoctrinate their students instead of educate them. Sounds like something that might happen in a third world country but not here. Poor kids.

[Mermaid Mama]

I could not find the article.

Can you link directly to it instead of that main page?

[jlovebaker]

cutting and pasting the link. It took me straight to the article - not the home page.

[Guest Alte Veste Academy]

Here is a direct link.

 

As a Texan, I find this very disturbing. I agree that I'm grateful to be teaching my kids at home, where I can make sure they look at things from many different perspectives to get the larger picture of history.

 

I found this to be most disturbing: "Teachers in Texas will be required to cover the Judeo-Christian influences of the nation's Founding Fathers, but not highlight the philosophical rationale for the separation of church and state."

 

We're definitely covering the former but I also choose to highlight the latter. (Actually, we're kind of putting it under a spotlight here.) :lol:

[4wildberrys]

how sad that the Texas school system is going to use schools to indoctrinate their students instead of educate them. Sounds like something that might happen in a third world country but not here. Poor kids.

 

Unfortunately, this is what has been happening since the induction of 'compulsory education'. It's all about the indoctrination du jour. I can't believe how ridiculous textbooks are, though, that they have to fight over teaching basic facts of history. Yeah---I REALLY glad I can teach my kids ALL the facts no matter how un-PC, dirty, messy---but most importantly true--they are! ;)

[Jen in PA]

I would be more upset, but so many of the things I object to here are pretty recent history -- and we all know how rare it is for them to get to the end of the textbook in ps:D

[aude sapere]

Unfortunately, this is what has been happening since the induction of 'compulsory education'. It's all about the indoctrination du jour. I can't believe how ridiculous textbooks are, though, that they have to fight over teaching basic facts of history. Yeah---I REALLY glad I can teach my kids ALL the facts no matter how un-PC, dirty, messy---but most importantly true--they are! ;)

 

Well said!

[joannqn]

A quote from the OPs article:

 

Curriculum standards also will describe the U.S. government as a "constitutional republic," rather than "democratic", and students will be required to study the decline in value of the U.S. dollar, including the abandonment of the gold standard. "

Why is this a problem? Our government IS a constitutional republic, not a democracy. If we were democracy, we wouldn't have representatives. And what is the problem with studying the decline of the U.S. dollar and abandonment of the gold standard. It's what happened, isn't it?

 

This one confuses me too:

 

In addition to learning the Bill of Rights, the board specified a reference to the Second Amendment right to bear arms in a section about citizenship in a U.S. government class.

Why wouldn't you want students to learn about our Constitutional amendments in a U.S. government class? I fail to see why this is a problem. When I was in school, we had to learn them all.

 

Another quote:

 

The leader of the conservative faction, Don McLeroy, pushed through a change to the teaching of the civil rights movement to ensure that students study the violent philosophy of the Black Panthers in addition to the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s nonviolent approach. He also made sure that textbooks would mention the votes in Congress on civil rights legislation, which Republicans supported, according to the Times.

Why not teach all of the civil rights movement? All three aspects, the Black Panthers, Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and the legislation are part of it. Why candy coat history by only teaching about MLK as is done currently?

 

Another article says that a group tried to remove the religious basis for the beginning of our country altogether. Why wouldn't you want kids to learn why the founders came to this country in the first place? I also read that another group lobbied to remove Edison and Einstein from the history book and replace them with Mary Kay and Wallace Amos (founder of Famous Amos cookies). This group also wanted to remove Independence Day, Neil Armstrong, Daniel Boone, and Christopher Columbus. Why? Or what about removing Christmas and adding Diwali? Huh?

Edited March 13, 2010 by joannqn

[jujsky]

I found this to be most disturbing: "Teachers in Texas will be required to cover the Judeo-Christian influences of the nation's Founding Fathers, but not highlight the philosophical rationale for the separation of church and state."

 

 

That's also the part I found most disturbing :glare: Some of the changes I didn't necessarily see as bad. I think history books do gloss over many things (like making the Civil Rights Movement appear to be peaceful blacks against violent whites when there were groups like the Black Panthers out there). I think that a case can be made, however, that they're trying to paint our nation as non-racist historically when that is certainly NOT the case.

[Sarah CB]

A quote from the OPs article:

 

Why is this a problem? Our government IS a constitutional republic, not a democracy. If we were democracy, we wouldn't have representatives. And what is the problem with studying the decline of the U.S. dollar and abandonment of the gold standard. It's what happened, isn't it?

 

This one confuses me too:

 

Why wouldn't you want students to learn about our Constitutional amendments in a U.S. government class? I fail to see why this is a problem. When I was in school, we had to learn them all.

 

Another quote:

 

Why not teach all of the civil rights movement? All three aspects, the Black Panthers, Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and the legislation are part of it. Why candy coat history by only teaching about MLK as is done currently?

 

Another article says that a group tried to remove the religious basis for the beginning of our country altogether. Why wouldn't you want kids to learn why the founders came to this country in the first place? I also read that another group lobbied to remove Edison and Einstein from the history book and replace them with Mary Kay and Wallace Amos (founder of Famous Amos cookies). This group also wanted to remove Independence Day, Neil Armstrong, Daniel Boone, and Christopher Columbus. Why? Or what about removing Christmas and adding Diwali? Huh?

 

It confuses me, too. There were some things in that article that were a little wonky, but for the most part it sounds as though they're trying to be more historically accurate. We're about to study the civil rights movement and I'm interested to find out whether our curriculum mentions the Black Panthers (something I know *nothing* about).

[lionfamily1999]

What bothers me is how much is dropped. I'm okay with most additions, at least they're learning more history, but why drop so much?

 

Also, I'd read a different article the other day (will try to find the link) and it worded the separation of church and state issue differently. In the other article is said they would stop teaching about why the initial colonists moved here for religious freedom... It's the same thing, but worded differently, to the point where, in the other article, it sounded like they were trying to take out the section of history wherein groups moved here for religious freedom (which is of course, why we have a separation of church and state)...

[Cricket]

Also:

 

"students should be required to explain the origins of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and its impact on global politics (they will); and whether former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir should be required learning (she will)."

 

This would be very helpful in today's world especially given the tension in that region and its impact around the world. I don't see how this is a left v. right thing. Seems to me like the curriculum is being beefed up instead of dumbed down. History is never as simple as we would like it to be. Replacing Edison and Einstein with Mary Kay and Wallace Amos? good grief!

[Guest Alte Veste Academy]

Why wouldn't you want students to learn about our Constitutional amendments in a U.S. government class? I fail to see why this is a problem. When I was in school, we had to learn them all.

 

Exactly! This is the bothersome part, if you think about it; that's the indoctrination part. They're picking the ones they think are most important and hyper-focusing on them when, in fact, future citizens should be familiar with all of them. By focusing on one aspect (or a select few) of very complex sets of events, they're effectively presenting the landscape of history through a pinhole view rather than as a panorama. Obviously, there are time restraints in public schools (indeed, even in homeschools) but these are deliberate choices meant to influence the values of the citizenry.

Edited March 13, 2010 by Alte Veste Academy

[Terabith]

I find this account even more disturbing. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html

 

I am particularly bothered by this quote.

 

Cynthia Dunbar, a lawyer from Richmond who is a strict constitutionalist and thinks the nation was founded on Christian beliefs, managed to cut Thomas Jefferson from a list of figures whose writings inspired revolutions in the late 18th century and 19th century, replacing him with St. Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin and William Blackstone. (Jefferson is not well liked among conservatives on the board because he coined the term “separation between church and state.â€)

 

I'm all for teaching kids about Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin, but I'm sorry....Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, third president....He's kind of an important person. It terrifies me that anyone sees this as okay.

 

Another disturbing quote from the article:

 

Mavis Knight, a Democrat from Dallas, introduced an amendment requiring that students study the reasons “the founding fathers protected religious freedom in America by barring the government from promoting or disfavoring any particular religion above all others.â€

 

It was defeated on a party-line vote.

 

This is a fundamental cornerstone of our country's government. Furthermore, it is often discussed in current issues. Without understanding this fundamental fact of our government, students will be shockingly ill equipped to engage in discussion and reasoning required to be literate members of a democratic (or constitutional republic, which is more accurate, and I think that is a good thing to highlight) society.

This is just horrible. I lived in San Antonio for five years. I just can't imagine.

[I talk to the trees]

Ummmm.....I read over the "highlights" box next to the article, and they sound like pretty common sense changes to me.

 

References to "nature and nature's God" in the context of explaining political ideas? That's just an acknowledging that religion has, and continues to drive many political ideologies.

 

We *are* a constitutional republic, not a direct democracy, so what exactly is the problem there?

 

The Bill of Rights is a document with which every American should be fairly well acquainted with (if they plan to keep those rights!)

 

What exactly is wrong with analyzing the decline of the dollar? Perhaps this will inspire a budding economist out there to come up with a way to dig us out of the current financial quagmire we're in.

 

Learning about the influence of conservative groups is just as important as learning about the influence of liberal groups.

 

As far as I am aware, the Black Panthers do have a rather violent philosophy. Making students aware of the differences between them and MLK's peaceful ideology seems like a pretty good idea.

 

 

I'm very glad I homeschool, too. I'd hate to think my child had to attend a public school where the above elements were deliberately avoided.

[LNC]

Is there a specific textbook title/author this article is referring to? I'm confused about whether they are adopting a new social studies scope and sequence or an actual textbook?

[TXMary2]

A quote from the OPs article:

 

Why is this a problem? Our government IS a constitutional republic, not a democracy. If we were democracy, we wouldn't have representatives. And what is the problem with studying the decline of the U.S. dollar and abandonment of the gold standard. It's what happened, isn't it?

 

This one confuses me too:

 

Why wouldn't you want students to learn about our Constitutional amendments in a U.S. government class? I fail to see why this is a problem. When I was in school, we had to learn them all.

 

Another quote:

 

Why not teach all of the civil rights movement? All three aspects, the Black Panthers, Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and the legislation are part of it. Why candy coat history by only teaching about MLK as is done currently?

 

Another article says that a group tried to remove the religious basis for the beginning of our country altogether. Why wouldn't you want kids to learn why the founders came to this country in the first place? I also read that another group lobbied to remove Edison and Einstein from the history book and replace them with Mary Kay and Wallace Amos (founder of Famous Amos cookies). This group also wanted to remove Independence Day, Neil Armstrong, Daniel Boone, and Christopher Columbus. Why? Or what about removing Christmas and adding Diwali? Huh?

 

 

They also wanted to remove Paul Revere. I agree with you, I find nothing wrong with the changes. It isn't as if they have rewritten history and are selling lies to the children which so many secular and christian textbooks do. Secular books slant everything with an anti-american attitude and christian textbooks tend to white-wash everything and leave out cruel parts of our history.

[Guest Alte Veste Academy]

I find this account even more disturbing.

 

This is what I kept thinking and then someone said it in the article you referenced: “...they are not experts, they are not historians...” And, for the record, I do know that historians don't agree. That's why viewing history from different perspectives is even more important.

 

Ummmm.....I read over the "highlights" box next to the article, and they sound like pretty common sense changes to me.

 

References to "nature and nature's God" in the context of explaining political ideas? That's just an acknowledging that religion has, and continues to drive many political ideologies.

 

We *are* a constitutional republic, not a direct democracy, so what exactly is the problem there?

 

The Bill of Rights is a document with which every American should be fairly well acquainted with (if they plan to keep those rights!)

 

What exactly is wrong with analyzing the decline of the dollar? Perhaps this will inspire a budding economist out there to come up with a way to dig us out of the current financial quagmire we're in.

 

Learning about the influence of conservative groups is just as important as learning about the influence of liberal groups.

 

As far as I am aware, the Black Panthers do have a rather violent philosophy. Making students aware of the differences between them and MLK's peaceful ideology seems like a pretty good idea.

 

 

I'm very glad I homeschool, too. I'd hate to think my child had to attend a public school where the above elements were deliberately avoided.

 

You are completely correct. There is no problem with learning any of these things. The problem is that you're excluding other viewpoints and deliberately hyper-focusing on these things. The problem is that you have politicians choosing what goes into history textbooks instead of historians. The problem is that you have party-line votes on what goes into textbooks. Yes, all the things they're including are valuable. However, they offer one perspective through a purposefully chosen lens. Perspective is something we already discuss a great deal here. I don't want politicians choosing the perspective of history for our kids. (And I'm not conservative or liberal, Republican or Democrat...I'm a riddle! :tongue_smilie:)

 

I want the truth...all of it, from everyone's perspective. (I understand that takes more time than is usually available.) :lol:

Edited March 13, 2010 by Alte Veste Academy

[Quiver0f10]

Wow. I sure hope other states follow Texas' lead!

[LittleIzumi]

Here is a direct link.

 

As a Texan, I find this very disturbing. I agree that I'm grateful to be teaching my kids at home, where I can make sure they look at things from many different perspectives to get the larger picture of history.

 

I found this to be most disturbing: "Teachers in Texas will be required to cover the Judeo-Christian influences of the nation's Founding Fathers, but not highlight the philosophical rationale for the separation of church and state."

 

We're definitely covering the former but I also choose to highlight the latter. (Actually, we're kind of putting it under a spotlight here.) :lol:

 

That's the part that bothers me, too. And thanks for the direct link :001_smile:

[TravelingChris]

I taught government this year and we did go over that we are a republic, not a democracy and they learned that some very small towns in the NE are, in fact, democracies. We went over all of the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights and all the amendments.

[Quiver0f10]

deleted

Edited March 13, 2010 by Quiver0f10

[jujsky]

How can they cut Thomas Jefferson?!!??!!?!??!?!?!?! They don't like the idea that he promoted the separation of church & state so he just no longer exists in history texts? One of our most important founding fathers and he's cut? Seriously?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

[elizabeth]

Rev. Peter Marshall is a consultant to the Texas Board of Education. I disagree vehemently with everything he stands for and specifically with his worldview. I am delighted to homeschool and am very dismayed that the power of schoolboards is just recently being brought to the attention of the American public. This has been going on for years in Texas and other locales and it is long overdue for the public to be apprised of the textbook selection process. Home education is the only answer for this family. Frankly, having read samples from many of the publishers vying for the coveted position of either Texas or California adoption as the sales amounts for the publisher would be huge,it is obvious that they are written to the low ability reader and dull as dry toast. Huzzah for homeschooling as we can all choose exactly what we wish without outside approval.

[Guest Alte Veste Academy]

People never like decisions that leave out their perspective. I'm confounded as to how removing some facts about history and including other facts is more historically accurate. If the facts were balanced, that would (obviously? for me, anyway...) help with historical accuracy. However, party line votes and the exclusion of points of view that are perfectly valid just a hop, skip and a jump across state lines can't possibly be historically accurate. They are, by definition, skewed.

Edited March 13, 2010 by Alte Veste Academy

[Cammie]

Exactly why the liberals don't like the descision.

 

 

I would think on a board this diverse this kind of comment would have been self-edited as it contains nothing more than a nasty slam of another group. Can't we rise above this?

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

How can they cut Thomas Jefferson?!!??!!?!??!?!?!?! They don't like the idea that he promoted the separation of church & state so he just no longer exists in history texts? One of our most important founding fathers and he's cut? Seriously?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

 

:iagree::svengo:

[Cricket]

How can they cut Thomas Jefferson?!!??!!?!??!?!?!?! They don't like the idea that he promoted the separation of church & state so he just no longer exists in history texts? One of our most important founding fathers and he's cut? Seriously?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

 

Where did you read they cut Thomas Jefferson? I didn't see that in the article. That would be absolutely ridiculous if they did. I don't see how you can study American history and not mention him.

[Quiver0f10]

I would think on a board this diverse this kind of comment would have been self-edited as it contains nothing more than a nasty slam of another group. Can't we rise above this?

 

 

You are correct. I deleted my post.

[triadofchaos]

The articles that are now hitting the national media about this situation do not give the depth and perspective necessary to understand what has truly happened here in Texas. It would take a great deal of research into the actions of the SBOE over the last 3 years to truly understand what they've been doing to Texas' public education system.

 

The SBOE has done a great deal of damage to social studies standards this year and it will sadly have far reaching effects as Texas is the largest textbook purchaser in the country. The politics on both sides have been unbelievable. They have taken giant leaps away from emphasizing critical thinking skills and evaluation of primary source material to make determinations about the influences and results of various historical events on the past as well as modern day. They have made public education more and more about indoctrination using their own political/religious agendas than about high caliber education. They have thrown so much fuel on the fire of the "culture war" that it's now a raging blaze and the victims are the children. It is a sad, sad day for education in Texas.

 

I am beyond grateful that we home educate.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Where did you read they cut Thomas Jefferson? I didn't see that in the article. That would be absolutely ridiculous if they did. I don't see how you can study American history and not mention him.

 

I believe, if my memory serves me, that this post and video which interviews one of the members of the Texas Board of Education has more info:

 

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/12/textbooks-a-texas-dentist-could-love/?ref=education

[WiseOwlKnits]

One thing you have to remember though is that this doesn't only affect Texas. TX and CA are the two states with the largest number of school children and textbook publishers produce what those two states want to see for that reason. So if you have a child in a public school in Delaware or Rhode Island or Vermont, what your child sees is decided by boards like these in Texas. It's not monetarily feasible for book publishers to make books specific for each state so they cater to the two states that give them the most money and the other states have to pick between what the two big states decide.

 

They mention that in the article, but it seems it's not getting as much attention as it should. This board isn't deciding what TX kids see in public school. It's deciding what your neighbors will be seeing in their schools.

[triadofchaos]

They removed Thomas Jefferson from the high school world history standards addressing the Enlightenment. He will not be required to be discussed when Enlightenment thought, its rise and its international ramifications are addressed by high school world history classes. He was replaced with Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin and one other who I just can't remember off the top of my head right this minute.

 

Some folks speculate that TJ was removed because he favored progressive taxation and he was a Deist.

[Guest Alte Veste Academy]

Where did you read they cut Thomas Jefferson? I didn't see that in the article. That would be absolutely ridiculous if they did. I don't see how you can study American history and not mention him.

 

See post #15 above for the linked article and quote. :001_smile:

[triadofchaos]

One thing you have to remember though is that this doesn't only affect Texas. TX and CA are the two states with the largest number of school children and textbook publishers produce what those two states want to see for that reason.

 

This board isn't deciding what TX kids see in public school. It's deciding what your neighbors will be seeing in their schools.

 

Especially since CA is broke and has said they wont be buying any new textbooks for several years. The power to control public school textbook content has fallen squarely in the TX SBOE's hands and they know it. They are using that big time. Standards are reviewed every 10 years in Texas. This will impact an entire generation of school children.

[Guest Alte Veste Academy]

One thing you have to remember though is that this doesn't only affect Texas. TX and CA are the two states with the largest number of school children and textbook publishers produce what those two states want to see for that reason. So if you have a child in a public school in Delaware or Rhode Island or Vermont, what your child sees is decided by boards like these in Texas. It's not monetarily feasible for book publishers to make books specific for each state so they cater to the two states that give them the most money and the other states have to pick between what the two big states decide.

 

They mention that in the article, but it seems it's not getting as much attention as it should. This board isn't deciding what TX kids see in public school. It's deciding what your neighbors will be seeing in their schools.

 

I agree but we must also remember that there are big "blue states" and big "red states" so the baby reds will probably buy the big red's version and the baby blues will buy the big blue's version.

 

I mostly feel sorry for myself and others like me...the purples. :nopity:

 

ETA: Who knew? There are actual purple states!

 

:lol:

Edited March 13, 2010 by Alte Veste Academy

[Guest Alte Veste Academy]

Especially since CA is broke and has said they wont be buying any new textbooks for several years. The power to control public school textbook content has fallen squarely in the TX SBOE's hands and they know it. They are using that big time. Standards are reviewed every 10 years in Texas. This will impact an entire generation of school children.

 

Oh. Ouch. That's the big blue counterbalance to TX big red.

[Mejane]

How can they cut Thomas Jefferson?!!??!!?!??!?!?!?! They don't like the idea that he promoted the separation of church & state so he just no longer exists in history texts? One of our most important founding fathers and he's cut? Seriously?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

 

There just aren't enough question marks in the world for this kind of thinking. :glare:

[stripe]

Personally, I do think it's about time children learned about other Civil Rights techniques than MLK, but that's just a pet peeve of mine...During Black History Month, I saw many students who ONLY wanted to read about a) MLK or b) Rosa Parks, and NO ONE ELSE. It's a very narrow view of black history and the civil rights movement. I suspect TX has some reasons of their own for wanting to bring that up, though!

 

"students should be required to explain the origins of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and its impact on global politics (they will); and whether former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir should be required learning (she will)."

Hard to imagine how this would be done in an apolitical fashion. I'd like to know what they consider the origins. Edited March 13, 2010 by stripe

[triadofchaos]

Yep, the SBOE had its own reasons. Especially when they proposed an amendment to teach children that the Civil Rights Movement created "unrealistic expectations of equal outcomes" for minorities. :banghead:

[Momling]

Is there a specific textbook title/author this article is referring to? I'm confused about whether they are adopting a new social studies scope and sequence or an actual textbook?

 

As I understand it, states write standards and then adopt curriculum based on the standards.

 

Publishers, wanting their textbooks to be purchased, write their textbooks to reflect the state's requirements. The markets of Texas and California are the biggest purchasers of textbooks and have the most pull in the educational markets.

 

I know it's disturbing... but in the end, the teachers are more likely to be the ones who really introduce history -- not the textbooks. And a teacher will point out inconsistencies or supplement when necessary. It may not be all that hopeless... ?

[Guest Alte Veste Academy]

Personally, I do think it's about time children learned about other Civil Rights techniques than MLK, but that's just a pet peeve of mine...During Black History Month, I saw many students who ONLY wanted to read about a) MLK or b) Rosa Parks, and NO ONE ELSE. It's a very narrow view of black history and the civil rights movement. I suspect TX has some reasons of their own for wanting to bring that up, though!

 

:iagree: Couldn't agree more.

[jujsky]

Where did you read they cut Thomas Jefferson? I didn't see that in the article. That would be absolutely ridiculous if they did. I don't see how you can study American history and not mention him.

 

It's in the NY Times article, not the first article linked. Another poster on this thread added NY Times link. It's on page 2 or 3 of the thread, I think.

[mcconnellboys]

I also think that it is important to teach future citizens about our abandonment of the gold standard.

 

All the things I see mentioned are things that are based in fact and have been left out of our curriculum for far too long.

 

Now if we are going to move from teaching one extreme to another, that will not be helpful either. We need to teach all the facts and let the audience be free to draw their on inferences from those facts.

 

If this is a move to make texts more balanced than they've been for decades, I can't see that it would hurt. I detest textbooks and don't use them for the very reason that they are so very biased and simply rife with error. I'd love to seem them bettered in any way possible.

[Sue G in PA]

Treading gently....it seems to me that the additions are long overdue...everywhere. Our country WAS founded on Judeo-Christian values! We ARE a republic, not a democracy! The far right "agenda" has been crammed down our kids throats for too many years w/out the counterbalance of the other side. Saying that TX is wrong for this is just as bad as saying all states are wrong for teaching evolution. Don't you think? I'm not trying to be nasty and I hope it doesn't come across this way. My kids in ps are taught that evolution is absolute TRUTH while we believe that it is not. However, we grin and bear it and just refer them to the Bible and our belief. I never like when ONE side of the story is presented in absence of the other. Seems like TX is just trying to finally strike a balance. Hope that's okay to say hear...I don't want to be a pot-stirrer...just wanted to present the other side of the 'argument', kwim? However...I am glad that I homeschool my youngers and homeschooled my olders until last year!

[Guest Alte Veste Academy]

My kids in ps are taught that evolution is absolute TRUTH while we believe that it is not. However, we grin and bear it and just refer them to the Bible and our belief. I never like when ONE side of the story is presented in absence of the other.

 

Seems like TX is just trying to finally strike a balance.

 

Well, they're not so much "finally" striking a balance as they are continuing on even more with the same agenda because they have continued to gain power and influence. Let's face it. Most citizens don't really give a lot of thought to what's in the textbooks. It's a select few with kids in schools and a giant number of homeschoolers who pay attention to these things because, frankly, that's our thing. For some of us, it's a big part of why are kids aren't in school.

 

ETA: OK, now I've been thinking on this and I think I get why you think they're striking a balance. Because if PA is a blue state and you're bothered that evolution is presented as fact, then that's the perspective you're coming from. What we have here in TX (and have had for years) is the exact reverse. Our kids are reading textbooks that are very much skewed to the other side. So, to us, this is more in the same direction, decidedly not an effort at balance. It would be similar to your textbooks adding another chapter about evolution, dropping in depth coverage about Mother Theresa in favor of a Darwin bio, and talking up Democratic presidents while demonizing Republican administrations.

Edited March 13, 2010 by Alte Veste Academy

[triadofchaos]

Their goal is not to strike a balance, but to push an agenda. Actually, from my perspective, both ends of the political spectrum are each trying to push their own extreme agendas. But since the board happens to be heavy with more far right-ers than far left-ers, the far right won this round. So the standards now read heavily conservative and heavily Christian. I'd be just as appalled if the far left was in power and the standards read heavily liberal and refused to address the role of religion in the world. Guess I must be a purple too ;)

 

Strict indoctrination of any kind, from any point on the political spectrum is not what education should be about (IMHO of course.) I'd quote Thomas Jefferson to back me up, but apparently he's not a worthwhile thinker to study anymore in Texas.

[Tenaj]

Treading gently....it seems to me that the additions are long overdue...everywhere. Our country WAS founded on Judeo-Christian values! We ARE a republic, not a democracy! The far right "agenda" has been crammed down our kids throats for too many years w/out the counterbalance of the other side. Saying that TX is wrong for this is just as bad as saying all states are wrong for teaching evolution. Don't you think? I'm not trying to be nasty and I hope it doesn't come across this way. My kids in ps are taught that evolution is absolute TRUTH while we believe that it is not. However, we grin and bear it and just refer them to the Bible and our belief. I never like when ONE side of the story is presented in absence of the other. Seems like TX is just trying to finally strike a balance. Hope that's okay to say hear...I don't want to be a pot-stirrer...just wanted to present the other side of the 'argument', kwim? However...I am glad that I homeschool my youngers and homeschooled my olders until last year!

 

Well said! :iagree:

[Guest Alte Veste Academy]

So the standards now read heavily conservative and heavily Christian. I'd be just as appalled if the far left was in power and the standards read heavily liberal and refused to address the role of religion in the world. Guess I must be a purple too ;)

 

Strict indoctrination of any kind, from any point on the political spectrum is not what education should be about (IMHO of course.)

 

Exactly. I want balance and I think our kids deserve to hear different viewpoints, not just the one viewpoint that is put out as fact because one group won the majority vote in a committee.