Boy am I glad I homeschool!

[stripe]

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.

I got the impression that this is a "far right" agenda being advanced here -- with it being judged very important to learn about “the conservative resurgence of the 1980s and 1990s," for example -- I'm impressed they actually get to the '90s in their classes! ;)

 

I agree that the founding fathers were Christian, but I don't think they were very conservative, Evangelical types -- I was under the impression that a fair number of them were Quakers and Unitarians.

 

And I am fascinated by the interest in the gold standard! Even on this board.

 

I am even more fascinated in some of the "cross of gold" standards of must-have topics:

* out with the word “capitalism” -- using “free-enterprise system” instead

* Phyllis Schlafly, the Contract With America, the Heritage Foundation, the Moral Majority and the National Rifle Association

* rejecting discussion of hip-hop, and various Tejano people in local history, and racism

 

I don't really see why "conservatism" = Christian and white perspective and "liberal" = secular and other-than-white, but I may be the only one....

[KrissiK]

Everyone has an agenda. You cannot teach history without an agenda - whether you're a parent, a teacher, a board member, whatever. Those who are against these changes have an agenda, those who are for these changes have an agenda. History is taught from a certain viewpoint - whoever it is that is reporting whatever happened. Yes, children in ps are being indocrinated, but our homeschooled children are being indoctrinated as well. We as parents are passing on our particular beliefs to our children and as we teach history to them (and other subjects, both in school and as we live our lives), we are teaching from our own agenda. We can't help it. One of the reasons I don't want my kids in PS is that I want to indoctrinate them with something other than what they'd get in PS. And I don't mean indoctrinate in the sense that means my kids are going to be mindless followers of whatever it is that I teach them. But, yes, my kids are getting educated from a conservative Christian standpoint. That will be their world view. No one has a neutral world view as much as they would like to think they do.

[Guest Alte Veste Academy]

No one has a neutral world view as much as they would like to think they do.

 

No, but there are people who fall in the middle. There are people who can see and respect aspects of both sides. There are people who purposefully cover both sides of an argument and help kids work out for themselves who they want to be as they go out into the world (obviously to varying degrees, with more freedom given with more maturity). I'm not so naive or narcissistic (my own thoughts, not directed at anything anyone has said) as to think that my kids will agree with everything I believe, so my goal is instead to teach them how to puzzle things out and think for themselves.

 

No, I am not neutral on most individual issues. I usually pick a side while listening respectfully to the arguments of the opposing viewpoint. However, as a whole person, I am not one thing or another with rigid borders. I am an individual with some conservative leanings and some liberal leanings depending on the issue. There are those who see in black and white (or blue and red) and those who see in gray (or purple).

Edited March 14, 2010 by Alte Veste Academy

[Jane in NC]

Thomas Jefferson is out but Phyllis Schafly is in? I find the reordering of priorities to be, well, peculiar to say the least.

[TXMary2]

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.

 

 

I am in Texas and I have yet to see these conservative slanted textbooks you speak of.

[Saille]

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."

 

LOL...I wonder where "Socinian heresy" fits into that lesson...

[Saille]

Treading gently....it seems to me that the additions are long overdue...everywhere. Our country WAS founded on Judeo-Christian values!

 

Sue, I'm reading a book right now called Religious Literacy. It suggests that our lack of understanding of Judeo-Christian influences on our history, not to mention a lack of solid knowledge about the basic tenets of the many other religions practiced by U.S. citizens, puts us at an enormous disadvantage as a population. So far, it's very interesting.

[Shawna in Texas]

I can't find a complete transcript of the debates, but I've been following along with the Texas Freedom Network blog. If you can see past all the added commentary, it's been an eye opener for me. They have a play by play in "Blogging the Social Studies Debates".

 

Here's Steven Schafersman for the Texas Observer. He blogged it.

 

As a homeschooler the nitpicking is sorta comical.

[applesing]

I agree that the founding fathers were Christian, but I don't think they were very conservative, Evangelical types -- I was under the impression that a fair number of them were Quakers and Unitarians.

 

 

In general, the Quakers of the 1700's were much more Evangelical than many Quakers today. The Friends Church has become a lot more liberal, even in the past 50 years. I don't think that we can assume that the beliefs of current Quakers mirror those of our founding fathers.

[Terabith]

Thomas Jefferson is out but Phyllis Schafly is in? I find the reordering of priorities to be, well, peculiar to say the least.

 

:iagree:

[stripe]

In general, the Quakers of the 1700's were much more Evangelical than many Quakers today. The Friends Church has become a lot more liberal, even in the past 50 years. I don't think that we can assume that the beliefs of current Quakers mirror those of our founding fathers.

Actually I wasn't referring to any "liberal" viewpoints such as homosexual unions/marriages at all, and I'm well aware that both the Quakers and Unitarians of today are not the same as the ones back then....I was thinking more about things like religious belief (Unitarians have never believed in the trinity, for example, and Universalists have always believed in various "flavors" of universal salvation, both quite distinct from the evangelical beliefs) -- and I was under the impression that the Quakers have always been pacifists. I would be surprised, then, if a typical Quaker from the 1700s would support current military endeavors in a way typical of most conservative Christians of the present moment.

 

I saw the head of the school board last night on ABC news, where the influence of Texas' decisions on the publishing industry was discussed, as they are quite a large market, and it was implied that whatever Texas decides, most publishers will adopt. For the whole country.