Congrats Texas board of education...

[father of lies]

We're all living in America
America
Ist wunderbar...

[Frickin' Slayer]

this is appalling! thomas jefferson was 1 of the greatest aries to hav ever lived!

[Bored, Esq.]

I was actually kind of stunned by this...

But there's another part of me that supports idiotic stuff like this because it brings the New Dark Age and my cool huge black tower with boiling oil to pour on strangers and split level music room that much closer.

But yeah...way to go, Texas morons...

[F/K/A HAPF]

Education already reached the point where it is for profit. I keep hearing that it goes Department of Defense, Private, Suburban, and Rural/Urban school in order of "best" educations. Too bad I can't find a private school to teach at.

[Chevalier Mal Fet]

putting government in charge of education whatcouldpossiblygowrong

ha, maybe one day you'll be an hero in their textbook. I'd love to hear your take on how education was superior when schools were few and far between, completely exclusionary and 90% of adults were functional illiterates,

It wasn't superior, whenever that was, but maybe it's not lack of state what made it so no one bothered to learn to read.

Early to mid 1900's. You think before that, people did not want their children educated? That's strange since pretty much every person, parents, non-parents and children, in a bad school or no school area, whether it's an American ghetto, or the segregated south, or Afghanistan seem to always place a pretty high priority on education. You think education would have been provided to all, eventually equally, through any other mechanism than government? Through the market? Sheesh....

[Chip Future]

* NOTE: This high school diploma valid in Texas only.

[Hell-haine]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-schn ... 97695.html

An Open Letter to the Texas Board of Education: Stop Rewriting History

Jeff Schneider, Counter-Terrorism and International Security Blogger, Demagogues and Dictators
Posted: March 13, 2010 12:21 AM



Dear Texas Board of Education,

The state of Texas is one of our nation's largest -- and thus, is one of the largest buyers of textbooks. Therefore, the standards set by the Texas Board of Education may very well dictate the content of all textbooks available for the entire US market. This year, this very board held their once-a-decade revision of standards for their textbooks -- and we have many reasons to be worried.

James McKinley Jr. at the NYT has done an excellent job of covering the facts of the proposed changes to the Texas standards, and I invite you to read his piece. However, the facts do not appropriately outline the danger presented by the board's decisions.

The danger is beyond left or right political leaning -- it lies between fact and fiction. As a former high school teacher, I can tell you that biased interpretation masquerading as fact is the most detrimental to a young child's education. While teachers frequently use interpretive analysis as secondary source material, it is to their textbooks that students retreat for their analytical 'north' when beginning their analysis of those more biased essays. Perhaps, after the Texas' board decision, they will not have that opportunity.
"We are adding balance," said Dr. Don McLeroy, the leader of the conservative faction on the board, after the vote. "History has already been skewed. Academia is skewed too far to the left."
Mr. McLeroy's solution? Swing the pendulum back -- past the center -- to the right. The Texas board has decided that the past needs a reinterpretation in its textbooks -- a bit of conservative revisionist history. The outcome?

SPOILERSPOILER_SHOW

1. A questioning of whether the founding fathers sought a separation of Church and State in the US Constitution.

From the NYT:
"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."
Mr. Bradley, with all due respect, the separation of church and state can be found in Article 6, and the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution.
From Article Six:
"no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States"
From the First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Sure Mr. Bradley -- the words "separation of church and state" aren't there -- but lets think, just for a second, about this. If religion cannot be a precursor to public office, or to citizenship -- and Congress cannot pass laws on the establishment of a state religion, or stop people from worshiping freely -- where can religion and state not be separated?
Maybe we should let Mr. Madison -- the original author of the document -- say his piece.
Having always regarded the practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, I could not have otherwise discharged my duty on the occasion which presented itself (Letter to Baptist Churches in North Carolina, June 3, 1811).
Not enough for you sir? Perhaps here:
Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).
You see, Mr. Bradley, I got out of school before you textbooks could hit my desk. You can contact me at demagoguesanddictators@gmail.com, and we can hash out what charity you can make the check out to. Simply title your email "eating crow".

2. The teaching of sexual identity, eating disorders, and rape as a result "choice".
"The topic of sociology tends to blame society for everything," Ms. Cargill [a conservative board member] said.
Dear Ms. Cargill -- I, and I think all of my readers, are very happy that you never made the decision to be raped. We are glad that you never made the choice to be afflicted with mental illness (as far as we can tell). We feel sorry if one of your family or friends lost connection after they "chose" to become homosexual. But mostly, we are sorry that somehow you got to decide what can be defined as "choice". I can say that I will happily contribute to anyone willing to challenge you in your next election.

3. The rejuvination of McCarthyism.
Texas standards now require that Sen. McCarthy's story must now include
"how the later release of the Venona papers confirmed suspicions of communist infiltration in U.S. government."
Don McLeroy, a school board member, recently sent a memo to curriculum writers with the following:
"Read the latest on McCarthy -- He was basically vindicated."
Ah, the Venona Papers are back! The papers detail the findings of the covert operation (code named Venona) to uncover Soviet spies in the United States. While they detail the (gasp) Soviet attempts to penetrate the US government, they fall far short of any McCarthy vindication. I'll let Prof. Harvey Klehr, the author of Venona: Decoding Soviet Espionage in America cover this one for me:
Virtually none of the people that McCarthy claimed or alleged were Soviet agents turn up in Venona. He did identify a few small fry who we now know were spies but only a few. And there is little evidence that those he fingered were among the unidentified spies of Venona. Many of his claims were wildly inaccurate; his charges filled with errors of fact, misjudgments of organizations and innuendos disguised as evidence. He failed to recognize or understand the differences among genuine liberals, fellow-traveling liberals, Communist dupes, Communists and spies -- distinctions that were important to make. The new information from Russian and American archives does not vindicate McCarthy. He remains a demagogue, whose wild charges actually made the fight against Communist subversion more difficult. Like Gresham's Law, McCarthy's allegations marginalized the accurate claims. Because his facts were so often wrong, real spies were able to hide behind the cover of being one of his victims and even persuade well-meaning but naïve people that the who led anti-communist cause was based on inaccuracies and hysteria.

Have you no decency, Mr. McLeroy?

4. The emphasis of how Conservatives were responsible for Civil Rights legislation.
Again, from the NYT:
Dr. McLeroy, a dentist by training, 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 nonviolent approach of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. He also made sure that textbooks would mention the votes in Congress on civil rights legislation, which Republicans supported.
"Republicans need a little credit for that," he said. "I think it's going to surprise some students."

Shockingly, I actually agree with Dr. McLeroy here -- but only to a point. History should be studied in its exactness. Those Republicans who stood for de-segregation deserve our praise, and those few in the Black Panther movement who undertook violent actions deserve our criticism. But, it is also important to point out that the Republican party of Ida Wells is no more. Will the history books also mention that in the 109th Congress has 43 black Democrats -- and not a single black Republican? To make civil rights a partisan fight between democrat and republican is to do history a dishonor -- it was a fight between north and south, and any history book that ignores this does so at its own peril.

I could continue here, speaking about the board's vote against including more Latino figures in its historical texts, or its declaration that curriculum must subvert the Enlightenment as the motivator for the Atlantic Revolutions. I could talk about the dilemma of voting down a plank that would have students study the reasons that
"the founding fathers protected religious freedom in America by barring the government from promoting or disfavoring any particular religion above all others."

but requiring the study of the unintended consequences of Title IX legislation.

The fact is, this is a troubling series of changes to the Texas Curriculum. I say that not as an offended liberal -- but as someone who values learning. Textbooks in this nation must be based on fact -- not opinion. If people feel that textbooks are too "liberal", then let us revise those sections to bring them closer to fact, not include more "conservative" talking points in an attempt to balance one type of falsehood with another. This kind of revisionism is merely slapping red BS onto blue. It serves no purpose other than the confusion or mis-education of our youth. As students seek to master the basic facts of history and sociology, they will now be forced into the very grown up world of propagandistic partisanship, without the information to analyse these opinions for themselves.

I fear times when bias gives way to propaganda -- and when that propaganda is taught as fact. In my textbooks I learned that

"Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way round"
That is from Mein Kampf -- p. 376

[Bored, Esq.]

It's difficult for me (given all my weird biases) to see this as a purely conservative/religious right movement and/or victory. I keep wanting to sniff around and detect Evil Capitalists behind the whole thing but at the same time I have trouble believing that any Evil Capitalist really DOES want to return to the middle ages.

But anyway...yeah, embarrassing for Texas and for our entire country in the eyes of the world. Democracy really sucks sometimes, esp. when all your neighbors are fucking assholes.

[Bored, Esq.]

I suppose so...but keeping people poor and stupid ends in things like the French Revolution. I mean, they might have a few decades of nice Southern Plantations but in the end they're going to end up with their heads cut off.

[Bored, Esq.]

I don't think there's anything new here, man. I mean if it ends up in utter open slavery we'll go through all the same BS and kill them all over again. There's no real reason to be pessimistic.

[Chevalier Mal Fet]

Call me paranoid but this is how I feel about it: The far Right has a contingent of it that placates the poor by demonizing academia and education while simultaneously calling an almost God-like status toward those that work shitty jobs and "keep this country moving". They do it through religion and they do it through claiming anyone who wants to go beyond that blue collar lifestyle thinks they're too good for it. I've always found it ironic that their heroic posturing about the "common worker" is right on the line with the same images used by communists to keep the workers in line. Changing the curriculum as they have suggested re-enforces these ideas.

What they gain through this is an underclass of people who equate education with lies and Ivory Towerism and look at themselves as the "real people" while the top 1% keep their money and the workers under foot.

He, I notice this all the time too, with the difference being the left in the US sold:

"You're an idiot, but you don't have to be an idiot, those in power are forcing you to be an idiot, so through learning, you can empower yourself and you can give the finger to those in power" - When I was at NYU, along with all the spoiled typical college brats you often tell stories about (i'll include myself), you had kids from the poorest places in the US and around the world who took this message to heart and will be able to have successful careers and hopefully lift up those they left behind.

While the right sells:

"You're an idiot, but be proud of being an idiot, adhere to the dogma of idiocy and know that anyone who questions the purity of your vacant stare is an elitist, communist homosexual who hates Christ" - Instead of elevating the discourse we degrade it, affirmative action targeted at the stubbornly stupid, in a sneaky way not only did the right usurp the fetishization of the working class, they also have used the multicultural PC loophole to sneak in/force tolerance of their ideals and lip service to their talking points into the public dialogue.

The power elite want it both ways, they want skilled technical workers, who adhere to pre-scientific social philosophy. They see a division of labor so that the knowledge of the science in whole is solely possessed by the elites, that the working and middle classes are not interested in that, or better hostile too it, but that they know how to be a gear in the hi-tech machine.

[baconrebellion]

It's difficult for me (given all my weird biases) to see this as a purely conservative/religious right movement and/or victory. I keep wanting to sniff around and detect Evil Capitalists behind the whole thing but at the same time I have trouble believing that any Evil Capitalist really DOES want to return to the middle ages.

But anyway...yeah, embarrassing for Texas and for our entire country in the eyes of the world. Democracy really sucks sometimes, esp. when all your neighbors are fucking assholes.

The end game of unfettered, laissez-faire, "libertarian" (note, that this term is in quotes, before any of you self defined "libertarians" get your panties in a bunch) capitalism is corporate feudalism......

[baconrebellion]

the "reality" that Real America believes they are losing and want back:

if this guy:


lived in town this took place in:


that all being sad, it's ironic and just a tad authoritarian and totally fucking retarded, seeing how they hate the media so much.....

this nation is doomed

[F/K/A HAPF]

Call me paranoid but this is how I feel about it: The far Right has a contingent of it that placates the poor by demonizing academia and education while simultaneously calling an almost God-like status toward those that work shitty jobs and "keep this country moving". They do it through religion and they do it through claiming anyone who wants to go beyond that blue collar lifestyle thinks they're too good for it. I've always found it ironic that their heroic posturing about the "common worker" is right on the line with the same images used by communists to keep the workers in line. Changing the curriculum as they have suggested re-enforces these ideas.

What they gain through this is an underclass of people who equate education with lies and Ivory Towerism and look at themselves as the "real people" while the top 1% keep their money and the workers under foot.

He, I notice this all the time too, with the difference being the left in the US sold:

"You're an idiot, but you don't have to be an idiot, those in power are forcing you to be an idiot, so through learning, you can empower yourself and you can give the finger to those in power" - When I was at NYU, along with all the spoiled typical college brats you often tell stories about (i'll include myself), you had kids from the poorest places in the US and around the world who took this message to heart and will be able to have successful careers and hopefully lift up those they left behind.

While the right sells:

"You're an idiot, but be proud of being an idiot, adhere to the dogma of idiocy and know that anyone who questions the purity of your vacant stare is an elitist, communist homosexual who hates Christ" - Instead of elevating the discourse we degrade it, affirmative action targeted at the stubbornly stupid, in a sneaky way not only did the right usurp the fetishization of the working class, they also have used the multicultural PC loophole to sneak in/force tolerance of their ideals and lip service to their talking points into the public dialogue.

The power elite want it both ways, they want skilled technical workers, who adhere to pre-scientific social philosophy. They see a division of labor so that the knowledge of the science in whole is solely possessed by the elites, that the working and middle classes are not interested in that, or better hostile too it, but that they know how to be a gear in the hi-tech machine.

No matter how you look at it, both sides say you're an idiot and to blame other people while taking pride in who you are. Both sides want to instill hope into the future generations but don't want anyone to amount to anything for fear that it will destroy their perfect world in their head.

[neckbeard]

putting government in charge of education whatcouldpossiblygowrong

ha, maybe one day you'll be an hero in their textbook. I'd love to hear your take on how education was superior when schools were few and far between, completely exclusionary and 90% of adults were functional illiterates,

It wasn't superior, whenever that was, but maybe it's not lack of state what made it so no one bothered to learn to read.

Early to mid 1900's. You think before that, people did not want their children educated? That's strange since pretty much every person, parents, non-parents and children, in a bad school or no school area, whether it's an American ghetto, or the segregated south, or Afghanistan seem to always place a pretty high priority on education. You think education would have been provided to all, eventually equally, through any other mechanism than government? Through the market? Sheesh....

I think people did want their children educated but they were too busy working 18 hour days and such. If every person places a pretty high priority on education as you say, wouldn't they go get it from whereever it is available?

You think what we have now is provided to all, equally? From here it looks like complete failure for anyone that can't afford private school or to live in the richest neighborhoods. At least everyone is Texas gets an equally bad education?

I asked what could possibly go wrong. You don't think there's any issue with putting politicians in charge of curriculum?

It says here that in Boston before Horace Mann invented public school there was 96% literacy (in Boston)

edit: I know you'll just make fun of the source, but...
http://mises.org/daily/1425#_edn7

The situation in America roughly parallels that in England. In 1650, male literacy in America was 60%. Between 1800 and 1840, literacy in the Northern States increased from 75% to 90%, and in Southern States from 60% to 81%. These increases transpired before the famous Common School Movement led by Horace Mann caught steam. Massachusetts had reached a level of 98% literacy in 1850. This occurred before the state's compulsory education law of 1852. Senator Edward Kennedy's office released a paper in the 1980s stating that literacy in Massachusetts was only 91%.[vii]

[Chevalier Mal Fet]

I think people did want their children educated but they were too busy working 18 hour days and such. If every person places a pretty high priority on education as you say, wouldn't they go get it from whereever it is available?

But they do.... they teach their children everything they know, their trade, and will put them in any school, even if 'equally' bad, as you say below that is available - see Madrassahs in the Arab world, the bulk of which students go to for lack of any affordable publicly available education.

You think what we have now is provided to all, equally? From here it looks like complete failure for anyone that can't afford private school or to live in the richest neighborhoods. At least everyone is Texas gets an equally bad education?

I asked what could possibly go wrong. You don't think there's any issue with putting politicians in charge of curriculum?

It says here that in Boston before Horace Mann invented public school there was 96% literacy (in Boston)

No, it's not perfect, we should have a lot more national standardization in public schools in terms of general curriculum, including any effort - as the guy Helene quotes above says - to depoliticize the teachings of facts - literacy, math and science can be taught in a completely non-partisan way being wholly fact based. History and Literature are a little trickier but still a good textbook and teacher can center in on the facts and then provide narrative context in an even-handed way in the former case and provide a decent survey of literary movements while being somewhat sensitive to regional values. We should also have a lot more funding to provide the best materials, teachers and buildings to all students.

I do not accept this implied demonization of elected officials, no matter how many, particularly in this story, fit into that stereotype like a glove, it's a cynical ploy to not expect much and not participate, thus letting them off the hook - i.e. they are all crooks, etc... if these public officials treat education and other issues as a political football it's because we let them, we get the leaders we deserve. I think the most ironic thing is how much conservative state leaders rail against federal interference but they constantly defund their schools and never try to improve their systems because they know big brother will bail them out via earmarks, initiatives, etc..

I am not sure where you are citing that literacy factoid from, but that sounds surprising based on the time period.

[neckbeard]

I edited my post with a link to a better article I found; It has references.

[Chevalier Mal Fet]

edit: I know you'll just make fun of the source, but...
http://mises.org/daily/1425#_edn7

The situation in America roughly parallels that in England. In 1650, male literacy in America was 60%. Between 1800 and 1840, literacy in the Northern States increased from 75% to 90%, and in Southern States from 60% to 81%. These increases transpired before the famous Common School Movement led by Horace Mann caught steam. Massachusetts had reached a level of 98% literacy in 1850. This occurred before the state's compulsory education law of 1852. Senator Edward Kennedy's office released a paper in the 1980s stating that literacy in Massachusetts was only 91%.[vii]

Well yeah, because it's one biased libertarian source linking to another with no actual citation of this fact, and how it was arrived at. Literacy can be defined a variety of ways from barely functional to totally functional and who knows what group was surveyed and how to arrive at that number. Also the fact that the survey was done in Boston and is then compared to a study done in Massachusetts is intellectually suspect. I won't make fun of the factoid if you can provide a legit source for it and these bloggers didn't simply cherry pick whichever numbers best suited their argument, but as of now that factoid looks out of whack, and cherry picking seems to be exactly what they did.

[neckbeard]

And I should believe your numbers why?
There's links to 7 or 8 real sources at the bottom. I don't know what you want.

more from the smae article
While some people might wonder exactly what literacy entailed during the early Nineteenth Century, anecdotal evidence points to a highly educated and refined populace. In his book Separating School and State, Sheldon Richman gives a variety of examples of the sophisticated nature of America's readers. Thomas Paine's Common Sense sold 120,000 copies to a population of three million—the equivalent of ten million copies in the 1990s. Noah Webster's Spelling Bee sold five million copies to a population of less than twenty million in 1818. Walter Scott's novels sold the same number between 1813 and 1823—the equivalent of sixty million copies in the 1990s. James Fenimore Cooper's The Last of the Mohicans also sold millions of copies. Scott and Cooper are certainly not written on today's fourth-grade level. Travelers to America during the period such as Alexis de Tocqueville and Pierre du Pont were amazed at the education of Americans.[viii] The reading public of Victorian England is so famous that numerous books and college literature courses are devoted to the subject. In fact, England eventually passed a paper tax to quell a public the leaders felt was too smart.

[Iron Goldie]

We're all living in America
America
Ist wunderbar...

I always laugh when I hear this song. Its so terrible....

[Chevalier Mal Fet]

And I should believe your numbers why?
There's links to 7 or 8 real sources at the bottom. I don't know what you want.

more from the smae article
blahblah.

Those sources don't reference the original fact. They reference that the 'facts' quoted by one libertarian came from another libertarian's paper. Watch I can do it too:

In consistent polling, everyone agrees that George W. Bush was the worst president ever, and smelled bad. (1)



(1) Daily Kos

It's common knowledge that historically the increase in literacy accompanied first the invention of the printing press duh.... and then the formation of public schools and libraries. This guy claims the opposite because his motivation is to prove that government does everything wrong. I can't find anyone else using this factoid on the web which likely means it's false, out of context or has been discredited. When you find someone who does not have a political axe to grind citing where this fact came from, then maybe I'll give it some credence. The CIA world fact-book lists functional literacy in the US at 99%, do you think it was higher in the 1850's in Boston, Massachusetts or anywhere else?

You are doing a great job demonstrating the type of education that will be spewed forth from the Texas Board of Ed for the next however many years til they learn to walk upright and use tools over there. I can cite another source that says the same thing, it's enriched with truthiness!!!!!!!

[Iron Goldie]

hahaha, this is fucking great.

"“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.”"

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

derp

You can send my 1,000 dollar bux to the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, please.

[Chevalier Mal Fet]

Did hs and college graduation rates crash down from their startling libertarian non government peaks in the mid 1800's before the scope of this chart?

[father of lies]

We're all living in America
America
Ist wunderbar...

I always laugh when I hear this song. Its so terrible....

You have a pussy! I have a dickah! So vats de prrroblem?

[neckbeard]

And I should believe your numbers why?
There's links to 7 or 8 real sources at the bottom. I don't know what you want.

more from the smae article
blahblah.

Those sources don't reference the original fact. They reference that the 'facts' quoted by one libertarian came from another libertarian's paper.

You do this to everything you don't agree with. "It came for a source with an agenda opposite of mine, it can't possibly be true."

Did hs and college graduation rates crash down from their startling libertarian non government peaks in the mid 1800's before the scope of this chart?

Yeah, and if the chart when back to caveman times you could really see how important public schools are; Nobody could read back then!

Find me something that says

schools were few and far between, completely exclusionary and 90% of adults were functional illiterates