TX vs CA textbook issues?

[creekland]

I just saw this quote:

 

"In California, a key state Senate Committee passed a bill Tuesday designed to prohibit any textbook approved in Texas to be used in the Golden State."

 

in a news story related to TX and future history/social studies texts. Someone out there that knows more please tell me this isn't a blanket proposal as stated, but rather a media condensation to create more of a "wow" factor.

 

Otherwise, does it really mean that ANY textbook that can be used in TX can't be used in CA??? Math? English? Even those "dreaded" science and social studies overall without a specific reason?

 

And we thought CA vs AZ was bad with the immigration bill. This country... or at least CA... really is polarizing. What's so wrong about CA just setting its own standards and TX sets theirs and if one book is ok with both, so be it? If not, publishers will adapt - at least some will. Why even remotely THINK of wording a bill this way?

[MyLittleWonders]

From the sounds of it, it seems that the bill is to prevent Texas' revision of history/social studies from getting into California textbooks. It's probably a completely unnecessary bill in the first place as any textbook approved in CA needs to meet CA standards, which from what I remember of them, would not be met if a textbook followed the proposed changes in Texas. I do not see this as another example of CA being polarizing. CA, with TX, is the largest purchaser of textbooks for schools. We tend to set the tone for what is adopted across the country (well, CA and TX). Usually if a textbook gains approval in CA, then it will gain approval in any other state (again, from what I can remember; it has been a while since I was part of a textbook approval committee, though my dh still deals with it every 7 years with math texts).

 

This article gives the impression that the author of the bill is concerned only with history/social studies textbooks coming out of Texas, or based on Texas' proposed new standards. My hunch is that many states will probably follow, in terms of keeping Texas' revision of history out of their textbooks. CA does have their own standards. Texas has their own. I'm guessing every state in the union has their own standards. But, CA and Texas are HUGE textbook markets. CA seems to be wanting to make it clear to publishers that if they write textbooks based on the TX standards, then they better be prepared to rewrite them to meet CA standards because otherwise, CA won't be buying. (Not that it matters, textbook adoption has been suspended for the next 3-4 years due to our insane budget issues.)

[littlebug42]

Here is what is the issue I believe:

 

http://ttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/17/AR2010031700560.html

 

Texas is apparently making changes to textbook standards that many other people disagree with. So, if textbooks are produced to meet Texas standards, others do not agree with the standards and do not want those books.

[creekland]

It's probably a completely unnecessary bill in the first place as any textbook approved in CA needs to meet CA standards, which from what I remember of them, would not be met if a textbook followed the proposed changes in Texas.

 

I guess this is my point - and by passing the bill, it is ONLY trying to be polarizing. There's no other way I can look at it. It's not as if publishers don't realize there's a difference and say, "whoa, I didn't realize THAT would happen." They know the standards. It's just CA trying to make a statement that they feel TX is wrong. Why should CA CARE what TX is doing??? CA is a big enough market on its own... It appears that "live and let live" is not a CA motto (at least among certain powers in the state). It floors me...

 

At least I was correct in my thinking that the media condensed (and in doing so, hyped) this issue in my original quote.

Edited May 19, 2010 by creekland
Edited to add the last statement as that was my original wonder.

[vonfirmath]

And we thought CA vs AZ was bad with the immigration bill. This country... or at least CA... really is polarizing. What's so wrong about CA just setting its own standards and TX sets theirs and if one book is ok with both, so be it? If not, publishers will adapt - at least some will. Why even remotely THINK of wording a bill this way?

 

What is really funny with this? I've started hearing that the immigration laws in CA (though they may not be being enforced) are very close to the new AZ immigration laws that some CA cities are boycotting.

[Spy Car]

The statement is inaccurate (big surprise). *Heavy Sigh*

 

The bill, not a law yet, mandates a review of materials approved for Texas, as that State's Textbook Committee has notoriously been taken-over by right-wing political extremists who have wrecked havoc with the textbooks. Things like writing Thomas Jefferson out of the history books because he was not a Christian. Texas is a huge state and influential in the national textbook market.

 

The bill seeks reviews of materials to make sure they don't promote racism, religious sectarianism, and plain nuttiness. It is a common sense move.

 

Bill

[Mejane]

Here's a snippet I saved to show the calibre of these SBOE members. It's pathetic.------"The board removed Oscar Romero, a prominent Roman Catholic archbishop who was assassinated in 1980 (as he was celebrating Mass) by rightists in El Salvador, from a world history standard about leaders who led resistance to political oppression. Romero, they argued, wasn’t of the same stature as others listed in the standards: Nelson Mandela and Mohandas Gandhi. One board member argued that “he didn’t have his own movie like the others.†He quickly reversed himself — the film Romero, based on the archbishop’s life, was released in 1989 and starred actor Raul Julia in the title role. (3/10/10)"

 

That's disturbing on so many levels.

[creekland]

The statement is inaccurate (big surprise). *Heavy Sigh*

 

The bill, not a law yet, mandates a review of materials approved for Texas, as that State's Textbook Committee has notoriously been taken-over by right-wing political extremists who have wrecked havoc with the textbooks. Things like writing Thomas Jefferson out of the history books because he was not a Christian. Texas is a huge state and influential in the national textbook market.

 

The bill seeks reviews of materials to make sure they don't promote racism, religious sectarianism, and plain nuttiness. It is a common sense move.

 

Bill

 

The statement is inaccurate, which I suspected, and is good (phew!).

 

However, that doesn't mean the bill is necessary as CA already has their own standards and books for CA must meet them. They are mainly playing with the bill to try to affect another state (or perhaps show their superiority - in their own minds?).

 

I don't really care what TX (or CA) standards are. Let them decide for themselves.

 

I'm not pleased with PA's books (and I'm not sure whose standards they follow) for two reasons. The first is the book they gave me when we started homeschooling my then 7th grader (4 years ago) had the Soviet Union as the largest country in the world and Germany divided and not likely to ever reunite... The second was the book my then 9th grader (also 4 years ago) was using devoted 2 pages to the Japanese Interment during WWII, but only 2 small paragraphs to D-Day. The history teacher that taught from the 9th grade book freely told me he didn't like it either (and he's a liberal - don't know his religious beliefs). He seldom used the book himself choosing instead to supplement about 50% of the material (his words). We stopped using the school's books.

 

All history books are slanted - wasn't that mentioned in a previous thread? It's true. This bill is more about who's way of slanting is preferred and where. Let CA, TX, (and PA) have their own standards. CA should not care about TX enough to make it a separate bill (rather obviously just to get attention). Put it another way... turn the tables and consider TX passing the same bill based on CA's standards. Wouldn't you consider it laughable? That's the way I feel regarding either way.

 

That's my beef.

[momof2girls]

TX is so far to the right the whole world needs to lean to the left to balance it out. :tongue_smilie:

[Spy Car]

The statement is inaccurate, which I suspected, and is good (phew!).

 

However, that doesn't mean the bill is necessary as CA already has their own standards and books for CA must meet them. They are mainly playing with the bill to try to affect another state (or perhaps show their superiority - in their own minds?).

 

Rather, I believe the introduction of the bill is intended as a clear message to textbook publishers that the revisions the Texas authorities have demanded will be unacceptable here. That is a valid "fair-warning."

 

I don't really care what TX (or CA) standards are. Let them decide for themselves.

 

As an American citizen, I care. I care very much. We have a common national destiny, and purposefully miseducating children works against our common good.

 

I'm not pleased with PA's books (and I'm not sure whose standards they follow) for two reasons. The first is the book they gave me when we started homeschooling my then 7th grader (4 years ago) had the Soviet Union as the largest country in the world and Germany divided and not likely to ever reunite... The second was the book my then 9th grader (also 4 years ago) was using devoted 2 pages to the Japanese Interment during WWII, but only 2 small paragraphs to D-Day. The history teacher that taught from the 9th grade book freely told me he didn't like it either (and he's a liberal - don't know his religious beliefs). He seldom used the book himself choosing instead to supplement about 50% of the material (his words). We stopped using the school's books.

 

 

Bad books, are bad books. I have no more time for PC nonsense, than the crazy things that are happening in Texas. I have a child in a public school here in California, so I'm sure starting next year I'll be scrutinizing those texts.

 

All history books are slanted - wasn't that mentioned in a previous thread? It's true.

 

It is said all the time, I don't think the repetition makes it true.

 

Materials can either amplify bias, or try to correct for bias, and can either present one side of the story, or attempt (as best as humanly possible) to give both sides (or more) of the story. And to be fair-minded. It is a standard that can be met, and ought to be met.

 

 

This bill is more about who's way of slanting is preferred and where. Let CA, TX, (and PA) have their own standards.

 

I simply don't agree. When Texas writes Thomas Jefferson out of the history books because he was not a Christian, a line is crossed that is of national concern.

 

CA should not care about TX enough to make it a separate bill (rather obviously just to get attention). Put it another way... turn the tables and consider TX passing the same bill based on CA's standards. Wouldn't you consider it laughable? That's the way I feel regarding either way.

 

That's my beef.

 

First, it is not California, it is one legislator. Bills are introduced all the time in our legislatures to make points. It doesn't mean they pass, or are even "necessary" (at least on some level) but are introduced to make a point. In this case it is a good point and textbook publishers should be on guard that what has been done to schoolchildren there will not be done here.

 

Were I a parent of a child in Texas I'd welcome the help in drawing attention to the problem with the school textbooks. I'm sure many parents are quite upset and bewildered at what's happening there.

 

Bill

Edited May 19, 2010 by Spy Car

[MyLittleWonders]

Thanks Bill. You said it much better than I did. :)

[chiguirre]

TX is so far to the right the whole world needs to lean to the left to balance it out. :tongue_smilie:

 

You know, Texas isn't anywhere near as lopsided as you'd think. I'm not the only dot of indigo in a sea of vermilion. Check out our mayor if you don't believe me:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annise_Parker

 

The textbook turmoil is unfortunate, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's considerably toned down in practice and overturned in a few years.

[lovemyboys]

Regarding the deletion of Thomas Jefferson from world history standards:

 

Let's not jump into hyperbole. The educational standard was regarding the study of the period of the Enlightment. Thomas Jefferson's ideas were not original: he based his ideals on others' ideas. As important as he was to American history, he was not important on a worldwide scale to the formation of the ideas of the Enlightment. And this, rightfully, is why he was deleted from that particular world history educational standard.

 

Thanks for the clarification. It makes a world of difference.

 

As with anything, knowing the facts is crucial to understanding the issue.

[momof2girls]

I know. My dad is an ex-texan and I've a few texan friends that are on the blue side. I'm just a little frustrated... Sorry for the slam and I hope I didn't offend too badly. :001_smile:

 

I remember the Oakland ebonics turmoil back in 2005 so I think each state has its own problems to deal with anyway.

 

You know, Texas isn't anywhere near as lopsided as you'd think. I'm not the only dot of indigo in a sea of vermilion.

[creekland]

Regarding the deletion of Thomas Jefferson from world history standards:

 

Let's not jump into hyperbole. The educational standard was regarding the study of the period of the Enlightment. Thomas Jefferson's ideas were not original: he based his ideals on others' ideas. As important as he was to American history, he was not important on a worldwide scale to the formation of the ideas of the Enlightment. And this, rightfully, is why he was deleted from that particular world history educational standard.

 

I figured it was something like this when one digs deeper. It usually is. Even on forums (especially on forums?). People get all upset at any sort of change even if there are reasons for it. Then they'll pull any "reason" (whether true or not) to tell us all why we should get all upset about it. Both extremes do it on pretty much any issue. Ho hum.

 

I'm pretty die-hard live and let live so neither TX's nor CA's standards for their respective states bother me. What does bother me is when someone miles away feels they ought to control someone else simply because they disagree. I'm reading the book, Open Lands right now. It's about much of Russia's "unknown" history (areas outside of well-known cities). Many times the author talks about how the Tsar, and later, Communists, took over. Almost always it was ideologues who felt everyone should agree with them. I don't want to see that happen here (from either side). I'm sure there are those out there that feel TX hasn't changed ENOUGH, much less too much (regardless of what the changes are). Let each state govern itself. If they don't like what's going on, show it at the ballot box.

 

Maybe we'll skip Canada and do a TX/AZ trip this year! (skipping certain cities in TX to assist AZ) ;)

[Melissa in FL]

I'm curious, Dot. From which source did you retrieve this information? Since it looks like a cut-n-paste, I'm just wondering where you copied it from.

 

It's called "The list of shame in Texas" and was originally posted on the Texas Freedom Network's blog on 3/13. Since then it's been reposted on many very left leaning sites. The Texas Freedom Network has it as their mission to: "advance a mainstream agenda of religious freedom and individual liberties to counter the religious right." Yep, they don't look like they have an agenda at all.

 

Personally, from my own warped history lessons in ultra-liberal land of NY, I'm very glad to see a state showing history from a different view as most history books. It was not until I was homeschooling that I realized how biased my education was.

 

I watched an interview on TV with a dad that explained one of the problems with the current history books is they teach it wrong, including the words of the Declaration of Independence. The words in the history book (for 5th graders called "History Alive! America's Past") was having kids memorize the Declaration as saying "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all people are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." The Publishers had made THE DECLARATION PC! That would get me ticked off too. It's one of our most important documents and they decided to change the words! I'll be looking for material approved by TX!

 

Melissa

[TravelingChris]

I happen to think that many of the changes DOt supplied were well supported. For example, using the term imperialistic is a loaded term and certainly not free of bias. With regards to world history and studying the enlightement, I don't think that Thomas Jefferson is the best example. With regards to communist infiltration of the government, there has been some vindication of some of McCarthy's targets mainly documents from the KGB do indicate that ALger Hiss was actually a Communist. It is also well-known that Sen McCarthy ended up accusing many people, a number of whom had nothing to do with Communism.

[PineFarmMom]

Regarding the deletion of Thomas Jefferson from world history standards:

 

Let's not jump into hyperbole. The educational standard was regarding the study of the period of the Enlightment. Thomas Jefferson's ideas were not original: he based his ideals on others' ideas. As important as he was to American history, he was not important on a worldwide scale to the formation of the ideas of the Enlightment. And this, rightfully, is why he was deleted from that particular world history educational standard.

 

Ah-hah!!! Now we get to the truth of it all!! Thank you for sharing, Kinsa!!

 

This is really humorous!! The "news" (or left-wing blather) about this has the same type of feel that people bash Fox News for. Hmmm...interesting!!!

Edited May 20, 2010 by Texas T

[admin]

This thread can continue if you all stop reporting each other for expressing differing opinions.

 

Adminstrator

[lovemyboys]

Here's a few other things they wasted time and money on:

1. Religious conservatives on the board killed .....

20. The board’s right-wing faction ....... bloc ....

..........Board conservatives argued that what the United States did at the time was not the same as European imperialism. (1/15/10)

 

 

Well this detailed list (from which I just clipped a couple phrases) certainly uses charged language throughout, which leads one to wonder who created it and what the bias of that person/group is.

 

A number of the points are reasonable and worthy of consideration such as the last one. There has long been a liberal cant to many textbooks, if changing some of the more loaded terminology helps to bring balance for students then the contentious debates have been worth it.

 

I've seen several interviews with various board members and have to say that there have been a number of assertions by the more liberal board members that were surprising if not downright odd. They do need balance.

[Spy Car]

Ah-hah!!! Now we get to the truth of it all!! Thank you for sharing, Kinsa!!

 

This is really humorous!! The "news" (or left-wing blather) about this has the same type of feel that people bash Fox News for. Hmmm...interesting!!!

 

Thomas Jefferson was removed from a list of individuals who inspired revolutions in the late 18th and 19th Centuries, and was replaced with Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin, and William Blackstone, for reasons of politics and religion. It is a serious intrusion on the teaching of history and is no laughing matter.

 

Bill

[PineFarmMom]

Thomas Jefferson was removed from a list of individuals who inspired revolutions in the late 18th and 19th Centuries, and was replaced with Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin, and William Blackstone, for reasons of politics and religion. It is a serious intrusion on the teaching of history and is no laughing matter.

 

Bill

 

Personally, I find a lot of the left-leaning propaganda that others call textbooks to be a serious intrustion and no laughing matter as well. Maybe this leaning away from the left and more towards the middle will be a wake-up call that people aren't putting up with the leftist lies anymore.

 

It's interesting how it is only "serious" and "not a laughing matter" to you when it is standing against your liberal viewpoint.

[lovemyboys]

Thomas Jefferson was removed from a list of individuals who inspired revolutions in the late 18th and 19th Centuries, and was replaced with Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin, and William Blackstone, for reasons of politics and religion. It is a serious intrusion on the teaching of history ......

 

 

But some of what seems to be at issue in the TX debates is putting the late 20th, early 21st century lens on history from 100 or more years ago. That is a serious and dishonest intrusion on history, and one that is frequently seen.

 

 

One of the reasons that the series MadMen has been such a hit is just that -- its insistence on remaining as true as possible to the actual mores and structures of that time in history.

[Spy Car]

Personally, I find a lot of the left-leaning propaganda that others call textbooks to be a serious intrustion and no laughing matter as well. Maybe this leaning away from the left and more towards the middle will be a wake-up call that people aren't putting up with the leftist lies anymore.

 

It's interesting how it is only "serious" and "not a laughing matter" to you when it is standing against your liberal viewpoint.

 

Removing Thomas Jefferson is "moving away from the left???"

 

It is absurd. And you are dead-wrong about my beliefs on altering history to fit an ideological bias. I'd no more want Alexander Hamilton removed for being too "capitalistic" than have Jefferson removed because he wasn't Christian enough.

 

You can sling mud when your position is unsuported by reason, but it doesn't reflect well on you.

 

Bill

[Elaine]

 

You can sling mud when your position is unsuported by reason, but it doesn't reflect well on you.

 

Bill

 

The same could be said about you.

[Elaine]

This thread can continue if you all stop reporting each other for expressing differing opinions.

 

Adminstrator

 

Oh, that is hilarious!

 

 

Tattling. :lol:

[Spy Car]

But some of what seems to be at issue in the TX debates is putting the late 20th, early 21st century lens on history from 100 or more years ago. That is a serious and dishonest intrusion on history, and one that is frequently seen.

 

 

One of the reasons that the series MadMen has been such a hit is just that -- its insistence on remaining as true as possible to the actual mores and structures of that time in history.

 

Except, at the time revolutions in Europe, and most notably the French Revolution drew inspiration from the American Revolution and the French looked especially to Thomas Jefferson who was our Minister to France in the years leading up to the Revolution of1789. It is hard to overestimate his influence on the intellectual thought In France, and his importance in World History. To have him written out of history because some zealots resent his religious position or the notion of separating church and state, is to my mind a contemptible proposition.

 

Bill

[Daisy]

LOL. They can't put everyone in every textbook. I imagine Thomas Jefferson gets plenty of coverage in the American History textbook. Thus it makes absolute sense to replace him in a world history textbook with men from other parts of the world. Personally I find John Calvin and Thomas Aquinas wonderful additions to any history course.

 

I figure Texas can do what it wants. California certainly exercises its right to focus on obscure people in history in order to further its own pov.

[Spy Car]

LOL. They can't put everyone in every textbook. I imagine Thomas Jefferson gets plenty of coverage in the American History textbook. Thus it makes absolute sense to replace him in a world history textbook with men from other parts of the world. Personally I find John Calvin and Thomas Aquinas wonderful additions to any history course.

 

 

Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin certainly do have a place in world history.

 

Just not much of a place in inspiring the French Revolution, where Thomas Jefferson did. Jefferson was there, in France, as an exemplar of the American spirit, and was hugely influential as part of the intellectual movement that precipitated he events of 1789.

 

His erasure from history doesn't make sense.

 

Bill

[Joker]

I am a product of a public Texas education. I learned a lot about Thomas Jefferson but I learned nothing about John Calvin and Thomas Aquinas - so maybe they're just trying to balance things out.

 

I find, that as an adult, I am constantly trying to fill in holes. I don't think any school / state has the perfect solution and I think they are all trying to find the best way. Just my 2 cents. :)

[Spy Car]

I am a product of a public Texas education. I learned a lot about Thomas Jefferson but I learned nothing about John Calvin and Thomas Aquinas - so maybe they're just trying to balance things out.

 

I find, that as an adult, I am constantly trying to fill in holes. I don't think any school / state has the perfect solution and I think they are all trying to find the best way. Just my 2 cents. :)

 

Now you will also be able to learn that Joe McCarthy, who charged people (untruthfully) with being communists, a man who was a national disgrace, was actually a good guy. Huh?

 

This is the worst sort of "revisionism" and replaces truth with outright lies. This is not "education" but a dangerous intrusion of extremist ideology on school textbooks.

 

Bill

[creekland]

One needs to remember that there are 180 days in a typical school year. Generally 45 - 50 minutes/day are allotted for each class. Subtract 2 weeks of classes for mandatory testing. Subtract another 5 - 7 days for teacher sick or personal days. Subtract another 5 days or so for "other" things going on at school (movie days, spring days, party days), etc.

 

Then figure out how much can go into a typical WORLD history book. People have to figure out what's more important. Personally, once one looks past the bias, every single one of those changes can make sense. So can leaving more in, but space IS an issue. TX can choose what they want - as can CA.

 

And as to McCarthy... well, we watched a History Channel show that also talked about he had been mis-aligned through much of modern history. It wasn't 100% in favor, but was rather balanced IMO. It certainly was more favorable than what I learned in my ultra-liberal NY ps American History class. I'm learning a LOT from the History Channel that I never learned in ps. Part of that is due to the limited time issue. Part of it is liberal leaders decided what (and how) they wanted us to learn. I try to be FAR more balanced for my own boys. But each state can do as they please as far as I'm concerned. What TX is doing (IF it is right biased) is no worse than what CA is doing (presumably very left biased).

 

Either is only worse to those who are at the polar extremes.

 

Personally, I'm in the middle - right of middle - but those on the far right consider me left. Those far left probably consider me far right. I'm used to it. I'm sure most of us in the middle are. :tongue_smilie:

[JFSinIL]

I think it is a good extra step to point out to the publishers that not everyone wants the same durn book as Texas. We don't want those Texans (or Californians, for that matter) with their huge markets dictating what books the publishers create and try to sell to OUR states.

 

That said, I hate textbooks. ;)

[PineFarmMom]

Removing Thomas Jefferson is "moving away from the left???"

 

It is absurd. And you are dead-wrong about my beliefs on altering history to fit an ideological bias. I'd no more want Alexander Hamilton removed for being too "capitalistic" than have Jefferson removed because he wasn't Christian enough.

 

 

Bill

 

Sure, Bill. You just keep telling yourself that!! Maybe if you repeat it often enough it will somehow make it true. :lol:

[PineFarmMom]

This is the worst sort of "revisionism" and replaces truth with outright lies. This is not "education" but a dangerous intrusion of extremist ideology on school textbooks.

 

Bill

 

Those same words could be said for the twisting that textbooks authors are doing of Ronald Reagan to fit their ideology. Interesting!! I think the true displeasure is that TX isn't clicking their heals and standing in formation.

Edited May 20, 2010 by Texas T