After three days of turbulent meetings, the Texas Board of Education on Friday approved a social studies curriculum that will put a conservative stamp on history and economics textbooks, stressing the superiority of American capitalism, questioning the Founding Fathers’ commitment to a purely secular government and presenting Republican political philosophies in a more positive light.
In recent years, board members have been locked in an ideological battle between a bloc of conservatives who question Darwin’s theory of evolution and believe the Founding Fathers were guided by Christian principles, and a handful of Democrats and moderate Republicans who have fought to preserve the teaching of Darwinism and the separation of church and state.
Since January, Republicans on the board have passed more than 100 amendments to the 120-page curriculum standards affecting history, sociology and economics courses from elementary to high school. The standards were proposed by a panel of teachers.
Some of the changes being made are listed below, the final vote is sometime in May according to one article. But I think it is safe to say only in Texas could something like this be allowed or somehow accepted. But I am sure there are supporters all around the country. Here I thought Tennessee was the equivalent of living in purgatory.
AUSTIN, Texas — The Texas State Board of Education has preliminarily adopted new standards that will direct teachers in social studies, history and economics for millions of students for the next decade.
Worried that high school sociology students would be thrust into the world of “transvestites, transsexuals and who knows what else,” the State Board of Education struck a reference to “sex and gender as social constructs” in the social studies curriculum standards.
Here’s the amendment Dunbar changed: “explain the impact of Enlightenment ideas from John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Voltaire, Charles de Montesquieu, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and Thomas Jefferson on political revolutions from 1750 to the present.” Here’s Dunbar’s replacement standard, which passed: “explain the impact of the writings of John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Voltaire, Charles de Montesquieu, Jean Jacques Rousseau, Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin and Sir William Blackstone.” Not only does Dunbar’s amendment completely change the thrust of the standard. It also appalling drops one of the most influential political philosophers in American history — Thomas Jefferson.
Board member Barbara Cargill wants to insert a discussion of the right to bear arms in a standard that focuses on First Amendment rights and the expression of various points of view. This is absurd. If they want students to study the right to bear arms, at least try to find an appropriate place in the standards for it. This is yet another example of politicians destroying the coherence of a curriculum document for no reason other than promoting ideological pet causes. Republican board member Bob Craig of Lubbock is suggesting a better place for such a standard. But the amendment passes anyway. The board’s far-right faction is simply impervious to logic.
... *facepalm* I...honestly don't know what to say. Its sometimes mind numbing that this state is part of the same country I live in. Directly politically influencing (through curriculum) of republican ideals seems far from what the forefather would want...am i right? *facepalm* x infinity.
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2010/03/texas_boe_removes_jefferson_fr.php Seems the board has 10republican members, 5dems. What do you expect? The main problem seems to be that the standards of Texas are widely used across the country. That said, the few people I do know from Texas are not part of the religious right and are quite nice.
Typical conservative douchemongers ruining my state, every district should have the right to what goes in their curriculum, and education should not reflect political views, If I wanted to take a class on communism in high school, I should be able to.
They also agreed to strike the word "democratic" in references to the form of U.S. government, opting instead to call it a "constitutional republic."
I fail to see the difference between Constitutional republic and Representative democracy!? Actually, a constitutional republic is a form of (representative) democracy. So I do no see a problem with this change (I do not see any reason to do it either...). However, the rest of the (proposed) changes range between dumb and severily retarded... You seriously have some really messed up people in your country...
On March 13 2010 16:30 ggrrg wrote: I fail to see the difference between Constitutional republic and Representative democracy!? Actually, a constitutional republic is a form of (representative) democracy. So I do no see a problem with this change (I do not see any reason to do it either...). However, the rest of the (proposed) changes range between dumb and severily retarded... You seriously have some really messed up people in your country...
Texas has made me politically apathetic.I fucking love it here in Houston, but damn the people running the place are annoying. They're a bunch of bible clinging old fashioned people who can't leap into the modern world.
On March 13 2010 16:30 ggrrg wrote: I fail to see the difference between Constitutional republic and Representative democracy!? Actually, a constitutional republic is a form of (representative) democracy. So I do no see a problem with this change (I do not see any reason to do it either...). However, the rest of the (proposed) changes range between dumb and severily retarded... You seriously have some really messed up people in your country...
Texas has made me politically apathetic.I fucking love it here in Houston, but damn the people running the place are annoying. They're a bunch of bible clinging old fashioned people who can't leap into the modern world.
On March 13 2010 16:30 ggrrg wrote: I fail to see the difference between Constitutional republic and Representative democracy!? Actually, a constitutional republic is a form of (representative) democracy. So I do no see a problem with this change (I do not see any reason to do it either...). However, the rest of the (proposed) changes range between dumb and severily retarded... You seriously have some really messed up people in your country...
Because Republicans want to have the word "republic" in their form of government. Democrats probably don't care too much either way. Propaganda, more or less.
personally, i would be far more concerned with the part that they're erasing the separation between church and state rather than any of the other ideas. Those don't seem too bad atm.
Oh, and all the anti-evolution nuts. That's the shithole.
i still fail to understand how someone can support capitalism and not support evolution.
On March 13 2010 16:21 Jenbu wrote: actually, the type of government the Unites States is, is a constitutional republic and not a democracy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_states
Yes, but with a strong democratic tradition. The purpose behind the change is more significant than the change itself. I mean, certainly loyalty to large corporations has nothing to do with changing the wording from a democracy where people votes count equally and a representative government where whoever has the most money sways the votes...
On March 13 2010 16:30 ggrrg wrote: I fail to see the difference between Constitutional republic and Representative democracy!? Actually, a constitutional republic is a form of (representative) democracy. So I do no see a problem with this change (I do not see any reason to do it either...). However, the rest of the (proposed) changes range between dumb and severily retarded... You seriously have some really messed up people in your country...
They are not the same. The Roman republic for instance, had democratic elements, but was certainly not a pure democracy. Neither did the original American constitution provide for pure democracy. Madison's statements against the anti-federalists are sufficient to illustrate the point.
Confusion of the two indeed suggests that we need our schools to better teach the influences of Montesquieu
This is actually a big issue because a lot of big textbook publishers are in Texas (it's the 2nd biggest textbook publishing state)... this could influence other states due to the change in textbooks... goddamn =.=;
The Board removed Thomas Jefferson from the Texas curriculum's world history standards on Enlightenment thinking, “replacing him with religious right icon John Calvin.” From the Texas Freedom Network's live-blog of the board hearing: Board member Cynthia Dunbar wants to change a standard having students study the impact of Enlightenment ideas on political revolutions from 1750 to the present. She wants to drop the reference to Enlightenment ideas (replacing with “the writings of”) and to Thomas Jefferson. She adds Thomas Aquinas and others. Jefferson’s ideas, she argues, were based on other political philosophers listed in the standards. We don’t buy her argument at all. Board member Bob Craig of Lubbock points out that the curriculum writers clearly wanted to students to study Enlightenment ideas and Jefferson. Could Dunbar’s problem be that Jefferson was a Deist? The board approves the amendment, taking Thomas Jefferson OUT of the world history standards. We’re just picking ourselves up off the floor. The board’s far-right faction has spent months now proclaiming the importance of emphasizing America’s exceptionalism in social studies classrooms. But today they voted to remove one of the greatest of America’s Founders, Thomas Jefferson, from a standard about the influence of great political philosophers on political revolutions from 1750 to today.
"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." “I reject the notion by the left of a constitutional separation of church and state,” said David Bradley, a conservative from Beaumont who works in real estate. “I have $1,000 for the charity of your choice if you can find it in the Constitution.”
With all five minority members dissenting, the conservative-dominated panel voted 10-5 to endorse the proposed standards after rejecting an effort to specifically mention that Tejanos were among the fallen heroes of the Alamo. "I am very distressed," said Mary Helen Berlanga, D-Corpus Christi, who sponsored the unsuccessful amendment. "Until we are ready to tell the truth about history, we don't have a good history or social studies textbook."
Wait wait wait wait wait wait wait They removed Thomas Jefferson? So, they argue that America was founded on christian ideals, and for everyone that this didn't apply to 100% they delete from the history books? 1984, anyone?
EPT
![[image loading]](http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/5393/slide_5393_73765_large.jpg?1268530129239)
![[image loading]](http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/5393/slide_5393_73767_large.jpg?1268530247280)
![[image loading]](http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/5393/slide_5393_73775_large.jpg?1268530415077)
