US Politics Mega-thread - Page 135

On March 03 2013 09:34 oneofthem wrote:

in other words, you are opposed to schools teaching certain things because some parents disagree with them.

Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.

Texas GOP chair explains controversial "critical thinking" platform language
...
To set the record straight, KVUE met with Munisteri at the state party headquarters in downtown Austin.

"The platform plank is against a specific type of teaching called 'outcome-based education,'" explained Munisteri. "The reason why critical thinking is mentioned is some places try to disguise the program of outcome-based education and just re-label it as 'critical thinking.'"

"The fear is that if you choose an outcome, which is a set of values or goals, and that the correct answer always has to be these, that what that could foster is an educational system that's basically redefining values for children different than maybe what their parents or their community teaches them," said Munisteri. "A better to do things is to say, 'Here are the facts on different issues, you make your own conclusions.'"

On March 03 2013 09:43 farvacola wrote:
I'm reminded of a particular day in 6th grade, lunchtime to be specific. My group of friends and I were enjoying our delicious meals when one of the group laid it on us.

"My father has never told a lie."

Much of the table was seemingly dumbstruck, though none of us were truly surprised. You see, this particular friend of mine had grown up in a very conservative and evangelical Christian household, and his rather narrow view of the world made itself known on occasion when the proper subject matter came up in conversation. He would always react to our alternative perspectives with a curt dismissal and dash of righteous indignation, though his more positive qualities as a friend always made up for it.

After myself and others attempted to dissuade him from such an obviously untenable position, that his parents, or anyone's parents for that matter, were infallible, he lashed out. Luckily, he was not the biggest fellow, and his anger was easily contained. Though he is still a rather conservative thinker in some regards to this day, he has a far more realistic perspective on people, family included, and he still thanks us for the sense we knocked him into him long ago.

The moral of the story? At school, kids need to be told that their parents just might be wrong. It really is that simple. And just because a bunch of wrong parents get together and decide that their wrongness is right will not change that.

On March 03 2013 09:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

Does anyone here know the specifics of the terms used here and what the background behind all this is? We seem to be making lots of judgements based on preexisting notions / stereotypes.

On March 03 2013 09:38 Dawski wrote:


Well yes, I would have problem with a one universal public school system teaching kids that abortion is morally ok when the parents don't believe that's so according to their religion. Which is why they advocate for private schools

On March 03 2013 09:38 Dawski wrote:


Well yes, I would have problem with a one universal public school system teaching kids that abortion is morally ok when the parents don't believe that's so according to their religion. Which is why they advocate for private schools

On March 03 2013 09:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

Does anyone here know the specifics of the terms used here and what the background behind all this is? We seem to be making lots of judgements based on preexisting notions / stereotypes.

Edit: found this article:
Link

Interesting... at any rate it sounds like a topic that deserves a healthy debate.

On March 03 2013 09:12 Dawski wrote:


You act as if the world you guys have described isnt indoctrination. Your way of thinking is just as much a belief as is mine. I believe mine is right to absolute certainty and you do yours. Socio-engineering is exactly that.

I have the right to raise my children through my parental rights in the way I see fit as long as I don't cross over their rights as human beings (abuse, etc.). If they disagree with what I teach them as children they will stray from it. I know I did for a good 3 years when I was 20 years old but I came back on my own. The way my parents taught me made me a better person

On March 03 2013 09:23 Sermokala wrote:
"they deserve to be educated in a fashion that allows them to choose their own beliefs."

They're little kids. They're going to be extremely impressionable no matter what Idea of moral neutrality you think the current version of science is. Education in america is most about making sure everyone's "on the same page" about history and should be with science as presenting the latest theory's in whatever we know. It shouldn't be used as a pedestal to combat Ideas that you don't agree with or don't like.

People don't know where gravity comes from and what cause's it but they don't present it as Jesus's love holding everything together as much as they don't teach that Its collections of mass that are the cause of gravity in the universe. Just give people the latest facts and evidence without telling them that what they learned in sunday school is bs because a book written over a thousand and a half years ago has less scientific bearing then one written last year.

And yes I believe in evolution I just don't see how it conflicts with my religion.

On March 03 2013 12:10 Sermokala wrote:
But it isn't on their own terms, nothing is done "on their own terms" when they're still developing and being impression-ed to be the person that they become. "teaching them how to critically think" is the same as teaching them to think the way you want them to think, it just sounds better. Science isn't itself an acceptable standard as much as faith is. It is in the matter that you teach it that gives it its benefits or its faults in the practice that it manifests itself.

Separation of church and state was made for the churches benefit not the states. You cannot deny that the interaction of state and science corrupts, as clearly evident in this case, science as much as it would corrupt the church.

On March 03 2013 10:36 farvacola wrote:

Ok, so higher order thinking skills are a major component of Bloom's Taxonomy, specifically in regards to what Bloom calls the Cognitive domain, to be contrasted with the other two major educational objective domains, Affective and Psychomotor. The Cognitive domain includes 6 "levels"; the bottom three, knowledge, comprehension, and application, are considered the lower order thinking skills, while the top three, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation, are considered the higher. While opinions on Bloom's Taxonomy can vary, it's presence in the classroom is practically ubiquitous, due in part to the presence of HOTS alongside the vast majority of standards based education reforms in the United States (think No Child Left Behind+state education testing). Standardized testing notwithstanding, you'd be hardpressed to find many conventional K-12 school systems in the United States that do not include some sort of HOTS in their curriculum. On a more anecdotal note, a number of my friends have become teachers, and not a single one went through their teacher's ed without learning Bloom's Taxonomy and how to apply it in the classroom.

OBE, or Outcome-based education, is basically a catch all term for education modalities that include an empirical educational measure, or a test. What's funny is that the very definition and meaning of OBE is a hotly contested subject amongst educators, for OBE does not prescribe any particular brand of curriculum or education, just that one measure an associated "outcome". Most complaints leveled towards OBE are actually about a particular curriculum's failure, rather than the notion that a test is a useful component of education.

So basically the Texas Republican Party is saying that HOTS is OBE, and OBE is actually behavior modification/parental authority subversion. In other words, they are putting forth this, "Critical thinking=teaching to a test, teaching to a test=behavior modification, therefore bad." They clearly have no idea what they are talking about.

Knowledge-Based Education – The primary purpose of public schools is to teach critical thinking skills, reading, writing, arithmetic, phonics, history, science, and character as well as knowledge-based education, not job training. We support knowledge-based curriculum standards and tests. We support successful career and technology programs, but oppose mandatory career training. We oppose Outcome-Based Education (OBE) and similar programs. Further, because of an aging U.S. population and global competition, and because much of today’s education teaches children to be employees or perhaps at best managers for employers, we encourage the teaching of entrepreneurial skills and investment skills.

On March 03 2013 11:18 Sadist wrote:
Everything in the world has become politicized.

On March 03 2013 12:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

You're telling me that HOTS / OBE are somewhat ambiguous terms. That makes context pretty important. I don't think you can support your conclusion that 'they have no idea what they're talking about' without establishing what that context is.

For example, here's the Texas GOP platform position from 2010:



Either they made an incredible about face (not impossible!) or we're missing some important context.

In the you-can’t-make-up-this-stuff department, here’s what the Republican Party of Texas wrote into its 2012 platform as part of the section on education:

Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/texas-gop-rejects-critical-thinking-skills-really/2012/07/08/gJQAHNpFXW_blog.html

What's the use of stories that aren't even true? Haroun couldn't get the terrible question out of his head. However, there were people who thought Rashid's stories were useful. In those days it was almost election time, and the Grand Panjandrums of various political parties all came to Rashid, smiling their fat-cat smiles, to beg him to tell his tories at their rallies and nobody else's. It was well known that if you could get Rashid's magic tongue on your side then your troubles were over. Nobody ever believed anything a politico said, even though they pretended as hard as they could that they were telling the truth. (In fact, this was how everyone knew they were lying.) But everyone had complete faith in Rashid, because he always admitted that everything he told them was completely untrue and made up out of his own head. So the politicos needed Rashid to help them win the people's votes. They lined up outside his door with their shiny faces and fake smiles and bags of hard cash. Rashid could pick and choose.

On March 03 2013 09:30 Sermokala wrote:
Well not everyone just all of "us". see for example all of the wars america has fought and won. The education you get in high school and middle school paint a pretty nice picture of everything america has done.

On March 03 2013 12:29 paralleluniverse wrote:

Actually, the 2012 Texas GOP platform rejects the teaching of critical thinking skills:

On March 03 2013 12:23 paralleluniverse wrote:

While there's a separation of church and state, there is no separation between science and state. Governments pay the salaries of science teachers, they fund scientific research, they subsidize new technologies, etc.

Science, by it's nature, is more objective and useful than religion. If you're complaint is that teaching critical thinking is showing preference to science over religion, well, that's the problem with religion. It doesn't promote critical thinking, it doesn't teachs people to question their beliefs, it teaches people to accept "facts" based on dogma, instead of evidence.

Is one more right than the other? Well, yes, science is how we develop computers, building bridges, maximize crop yield, etc. The physical world operates on the basis of science, and teaching critical thinking skills promotes an increased understanding of science and physical world.

Teaching students to be anti-abortion , pro-creationist, pro gun rights, is teaching them "to think the way you want them to think". Teaching critical thinking is merely teaching them how to think. And it a mode of thinking that has been paramount to human progress thousands of years.

On March 03 2013 12:49 Sermokala wrote:
champions the cause of the weak and poor

sharing of the burden onto all