AP: Must-know figures could change for Texas students (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gPQ3ktQNqImWyQ23yXKoCFXWrN1QD9AOLEI00)

By APRIL CASTRO

AUSTIN, Texas — Does civil rights activist Cesar Chavez belong alongside Benjamin Franklin as an example of a model American citizen? Should Texas schoolchildren be required to identify Rush Limbaugh? How big a place does the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall — most famous for his victory in integrating the nation's schools — deserve in the history books?

The conservative-dominated Texas State Board of Education debates changes beginning Thursday to the social studies curriculum of the state's 4.6 million K-12 students, and both conservatives and liberals say the other is attempting to rewrite history.

The discussions are important because the standards the board sets will be used to develop state tests and by textbook publishers who develop material for the nation based on one of the largest markets, Texas. Past questions the board has wrestled with include the merits of the theory of evolution and whether a woman should be depicted in a textbook holding a briefcase or putting a cake in the oven.

The board has been a battleground for social conservatives and liberal watchdogs since Christian conservatives began building their presence from one seat 15 years ago to seven of the 10 GOP seats now — including the incoming chairwoman.

Some of the proposed changes in the social studies standards, known as the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills, include referring to the United States as a republic instead of a democracy and requiring students to be able to identify prominent conservatives such as former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Eagle Forum president Phyllis Schlafly. Some of those behind the proposed changes cast the debate as a way to nudge conservative figures into what they say are liberal-dominated lessons.

[More... (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gPQ3ktQNqImWyQ23yXKoCFXWrN1QD9AOLEI00)]

include referring to the United States as a republic instead of a democracy
This part, at least, should not be controversial. It is true that "republic" more accurately describes the US political structure than "democracy". In addition I don't see any problem with expecting students to identify Newt Gingrich. But Phyllis Schafly? I'd draw the line there.

Ya, I have no problem with the republic changes as well. Sadly, the equal rights amendment, is essentially held up by the courts. It would not take much to overturn those rulings and put women back in the kitchen so to speak, but, with voting rights. I could care less with Phyllis about her own preference of being a housewife, nor any other woman or even a man for that matter, but, to deny others opportunity based upon their sex....... race..... sexual preference...... religeous preference......

Conservatives are the guardians of the status quo. Given that history is largely recorded by changes to the status quo, it's not too surprising that fewer conservatives are noted by textbooks.

Do these sound like the attributes of someone who is likely to change history in the sort of way that lands them in a textbook (definitions for conservative)?

resistant to change
having social or political views favoring conservatism
cautious: avoiding excess; "a conservative estimate"
a person who is reluctant to accept changes and new ideas
people who generally like to uphold current conditions and oppose changes.
in politics, a loosely defined term indicating adherence to one or more of a family of attitudes, including respect for tradition and authority


These, on the other hand, sound exactly like the sort of attributes that lead someone to promote a noteworthy change to history (definitions for progressive):

liberal: a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties
favoring or promoting progress; "progressive schools"
favoring or promoting reform (often by government action)
progression - a series with a definite pattern of advance


I am not saying that there aren't times when defending the status quo is exactly the right thing to do or that all changes are good changes. I'm simply noting that history tends to be a record of changes and progressives promote change.

It's also noteworthy that scientists tend to identify as progressives (http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1549). In fact, the more education someone has the more likely they are to identify as progressive. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pew_Research_Center_political_typology)

This part, at least, should not be controversial. It is true that "republic" more accurately describes the US political structure than "democracy".

Maybe the word does not mean the same in the US as it does over here, but as far as I am aware democracy is a political system (where citizens, or a sizeable portion of it, are allowed to elect their leaders).
A republic is a state with an elected head of state (as opposed to e.g. a monarchy which has a heriditary head of state).
That makes the USA a democractic republic, and e.g. the UK a democratic monarchy (and for an interesting detail you also have the distinction between ceremonial and executive roles for the head of state. E.g. Germany is a republic with a ceremonial role for the president.)


Eri

Pure democracy involves the people voting directly on issues, which admittedly does happen with ballot initiatives, but most decisions are made by elected representatives. I think that's the distinction to be drawn.

"Representative democracy", "democratic republic", and just "republic" are all closer to the mark.

Past questions the board has wrestled with include the merits of the theory of evolution and whether a woman should be depicted in a textbook holding a briefcase or putting a cake in the oven.


If the woman putting the cake in the oven was an entrepreneur or worker of a bake shop, it might be a good depiction.

If the intent is to show what a typical woman might be doing in her real life. I suspect that there are far few of them who actually bake their own cakes these days. And far far fewer still who own a briefcase, let alone carry one.

Does civil rights activist Cesar Chavez belong alongside Benjamin Franklin as an example of a model American citizen?

We have Cesar Chavez everything now out here in California. Most people don't actually know what he did, or how he did it. And none of the parks or monuments help that.

That said, my experience of the education system, from top to bottom, is that it is almost completely Liberal in views, point of views, topics, and materials. Klath's definitions are as one sided. Who wouldn't want to be a Liberal if those things are as he says they are.

"Smart people are Liberal"(dumb people are conservative, of course).
"Liberals support freedom, and Liberty"(conservatives want the opposite).
"Progress is better than status quo, stagnation, or regression"
"Progressives want progress, duh. They are better by definition than everything else, just because they progress"
"Progressive, is the new black, I mean Liberal"
"All college professors are Liberals, they are smart, be like them, if you are not, you are dumb or close minded"

The US is a Republic, and has been from the beginning. Much more than it has ever been Democratic. The Ballot Initiative process has already been mentioned, which is about as democratic as possible today. Its only flaw is that stupid people are able to vote.

If people, today, think that the ERA was somehow stopped in any court, they deserve to know who Phylis Schlafly was.

There is certainly a balance that should be upheld. They should neither demonize a party, nor encourage a party view. They should encourage children to put thought into the process of the disputes. Often, they would in school encourage the pilgrims as an example, leaving for religeous freedom. Which is true to an extent. They would leave out the why, what had happened in England. They would also leave out after the fifty years of peace between the Natives in that region. They would leave out Squanto and his viewpoints before and afterwards, keeping him as a pure hero to the pilgrims. A host of other things similar to that.

The Equal rights amendment is an interesting piece of legislation. Quite a bit, of precedents from the rescinded ratifications, the 3 more states ratification requirements, time limits for legislation ratifications, and so on. But, the interesting thing, is the courts do prop it up under rulings under the constitutation as the term male is neither gender specific to excluding females, therefore the constitutation does not specifically prohibit it. Or something close to that extent, been awhile since I have read the ruling.

That said, my experience of the education system, from top to bottom, is that it is almost completely Liberal in views, point of views, topics, and materials.When I was in middle/high school during the 80s, we didn't even learn about the concept of evolution, let alone human evolution.

That's a concept that is as scientifically certain as you can get, but it was artificially suppressed by religious zealots, just like the zealots are trying to do in the South today.

I don't recall any of the typical liberal icons (Cesar Chavez, etc.) even being mentioned in my history books. If they were mentioned, it certainly wasn't emphasized.

The Christian bible was practically required reading in advanced literature courses.

Liberal? I think not. Perhaps your experience was different.

When I was in middle/high school during the 80s, we didn't even learn about the concept of evolution, let alone human evolution. Really?

I never had that problem. But most of my scientific reading materials at the time came from outside classrooms. I can recall discussions about Creationism vs Evolution taking place, but I don't remember anything from textbooks or curriculum. I really loved all the hooey REALLY B movies that had dinosaurs and people running around together. Remember 10 Million Years BC, with Rachel Welch? Or Caveman with Barbara Bach(zug zug)?

I was reading Carl Sagan and Stephen J Gould for pleasure at the time. Subscribed to Scientific American, NG, Discover, Science Digest magazines myself. And would read Enc Britannica while on the throne.

By the time I got a copy of Darwin, I could not actually read it. It was like reading a book trying to convince me that the Earth revolved around the Sun, and it was not flat.

That's a concept that is as scientifically certain as you can get, but it was artificially suppressed by religious zealots, just like the zealots are trying to do in the South today.
I don't recall any of the typical liberal icons (Cesar Chavez, etc.) even being mentioned in my history books. If they were mentioned, it certainly wasn't emphasized. Well Chavez was doing stuff in the 70s and still in 80s. It would not have been exactly history. It was on the news, in papers.

Maybe you were just indoctrinated to think that FDR was a great President like I was, instead. Or that profit is bad. I still think that most Americans think that Richard Nixon got us into Viet Nam, and JFK got us out of it.

How about Political Correctness and Cultural Relativism? Did you pick up those ideas from outside of school?

The Christian bible was practically required reading in advanced literature courses. Never had that. We had a Bible as Lit class offered as an elective, though.

And the Book Burners were very active in Lodi and Galt at the time. They attempted to get to books at my HS, but failed. Succeeded in Galt.

Liberal? I think not. Perhaps your experience was different. And imagine that you still became a Commie, when going to all these Religio-Rightist-Conservative schools...


Incidently, it was most probably Chavez who helped convince me that boycotts are very very effective. He put hundreds of farmers in my area out of business with his boycotts. Solidified a strong Libertarian tenet in me.

Don't children tend to rebel against authority? It seems to me any attempted liberal indoctrination would simply bolster conservative numbers. :P

Don't children tend to rebel against authority? It seems to me any attempted liberal indoctrination would simply bolster conservative numbers. :P

Really?

Why send kids to school at all then if they don't learn what they are taught?

Why send kids to school at all then if they don't learn what they are taught?
Free childcare. :)

I never had that problem. But most of my scientific reading materials at the time came from outside classrooms.Well obviously, I knew about it from outside sources. But my point is that the school was too afraid to teach it, and this was not some conservative or religious community, just your typical public school in a typical east coast suburb.

I also remember before high school being required to learn, and recite every day, a pledge of allegiance to a nation "under god".

Today's liberals would faint if children in public schools got the same treatment.

Can't we just vote Texas off the island?

Can't we just vote Texas off the island?
Let them leave the union, destroy their schools, and inject religion into the government. In 20 years, they'll be jumping over the border fences so they can come and clean our houses for a handful of dimes. If there is any justice in the world, we'll deny them health coverage.

Can't we just vote Texas off the island?

Funny you should say that.

California's and Florida's citizens are voting. With their feet.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/25/news/economy/Americans_on_the_move/index.htm

Fun quotes from the linked article.

For years, Americans have been fleeing the Golden State. The population kept growing only because of foreign immigration and births. All through the 2000s there has been a net loss in domestic migration, with 800,000 more Americans leaving than moving in during the three years ended in 2007. As it became more difficult to sell homes, that out-flow eased.
The only thing keeping more from leaving is they can't sell their overpriced houses to anyone interested in paying what the hapless Californians owe on them.

And where are these people going? Texas. (along with Alaska, Wyoming, and DC)

In terms of net migration -- those moving in minus those leaving -- Texas was the star performer in 2008, with the population growing by 140,000.

That meshes with what moving company Allied Van Lines experienced. "We moved more people here than anywhere in the U.S. in the last several years," said David King, general manager of Berger Transfer and Storage in Houston, Texas, and Allied Van Lines' largest booking and hauling agent.

The moving company recorded 5,891 inbound shipments and 3,988 outbound shipments in 2008, a net gain of 1,903. That was just slightly lower than last year's net gain of 2,041.

That influx may be due to the state's employment picture, which has remained rosier than most other places thanks to the energy industry and a welcoming business climate

Hmm. People are moving to Texas because of a "welcoming business climate" and a "energy industry"? Sounds like Californians are abandoning the "leader of the states", which strangles business growth with choking regulations, sometimes related to energy (read: oil/gas), and moving to a state awash in it.

If California keeps "leading the nation" in energy regulations, and regulations to "get those evil corporations", the only thing they'll show the nation on how to keep a government running solely on IOU's.

People have always been moving from rich, established, desirable areas to cheap, undesirable, industry-laden areas throughout the history of the United States. Nothing new here.

And judging from sales in my area, people are still having no trouble at all selling their houses for top dollar. The people who are having trouble selling are the ones that used the above strategy to move into new overpriced suburbs in the middle of nowhere with the expectation of endless growth.

I do like the "only because of foreign immigration and births" bit, though. As if those people somehow don't count, even though they form an important part of our economy.

I'll take the typical hardworking illegal immigrant over the typical white trash welfare case in the South, any day.

Yeah, energy friendly, burning coal like crazy polluting like mad. If Texas left the Union would probably lower the carbon emissions of the US by a lot.

Gunny, doesn't the influx of liberals from CA concern you? You might end up like Virginia, kind of blue-ish.

If Texas left the Union would probably lower the carbon emissions of the US by a lot.
In general, a bluer Union (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/04/hey-rick-can-we-talk.html) would have an easier time pushing a green agenda. :)

Quote"doesn't the influx of liberals from CA concern you"

While that was directed at Gunny, Tenn gets alot from Cali as well. The recording industry in southern cal is being slowly outsourced to Nashville, being cheaper, the same quality of product, and stuff. Similarly, the film industry is being outsourced to Vancouver Canada. While not all Californians migrating to Tenn were formerly working in that industry. The influx of liberals isn't really the issue here. I migrated from Washington(state, you would be surprised how often I have to say that down here like I might be to lazy to tack on the DC). Lots of auto workers moved down from Michigan, demanding Michigan wages, not a healthy amount.

The facts the auto industry, not to be confused with the auto suppliers(who got screwed), has scared off alot of other industry cause they don't want to pay the same wages as general motors/nissan does. The 90's the middle tennessee area started to boom, but, around 2000 when the economic softening hit, much of the industry in the area left, and it is not coming back.

Because of the boom prices in real estate, rentals, sharp upturn in wages, in addition to the adverse effects of the last couple of years, has left the middle tenn area in a pretty bad shape. With the "Saturn" facility shutting down in November, all that is left is companies still working the cheap labor aspect that Tenn was famous for, with higher real estate prices.

Not to mention, TVA in the 80's decided to keep burning coal for power, and started shutting down building cleaner facilities.... of course they had an accident with coal spillage which was a massive environmental issue, consumers had to pay for, not TVA. So, we are stuck with having to pay for the conversion, if/when they fill like converting to cleaner energies.

In general, a bluer Union (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/04/hey-rick-can-we-talk.html) would have an easier time pushing a green agenda. :)
The comments were hilarious!

The comments were hilarious!

reading that, who would have thought?
Texas is the France of the USA.
Universally disliked because of their arrogance ...


Eri

Why send kids to school at all then if they don't learn what they are taught?
Free childcare. :)


And thats the problem with school today (Well one of them).

As a person who lives in Texas thanks to the military and then staying cause of cost-of-living factoring...

Things aren't all that great here. I live 2 hours from San Antonio and people from all across the nation are coming here, not just people from California. The news keeps reporting that their are jobs here so people keep moving here. The problem is they're not telling you what jobs are here... Minimum wage, long hours, and no benefits. On top of that, they fail to report that water is scarce (Texas likes to have drouts), if you wanna see a Doc, most likely your going to see one who lost his liscence in another state but was able to get one here, and the local government is going to decide your wage, not the business (I can attest to this in rural cities, not sure about the big cities like SA, Dallas, Houston, ect...).

When I lived in Oregon the same thing happened, before the "bubble" bursted as some have termed it. Californians drove up the I-5 corridor causing housing prices to shoot through the roof. They bought everything up cause it was cheaper than purchasing a house in California. The companies brought high paying jobs but hired Californian's instead of the local population. It got so bad that when a company moved in they had to sighn a contract that 60% (May have been greater) of the new employee's had to be from Oregon. So companies would hire you for a year, then fire you and bring up their Californian equivelant. Still have alot of animosity towards people of California cause of it. Not to mention all the crappy laws they brought with them. /Steps off soap box

Back to the OP, yeah Texas sucks, but watch a Football game at any level in Texas and you will still see "puplic" prayer being preformed by Public employee's at public functions. Education isn't as important as indocternation of "core" christian values. And who supports those values more than the Republican base.

Ok now, don't blame Texas's issues on CA!

Good to hear a realistic appraisal of TX for a change. I'd be really impressed if you were a native, it seems like TX worship is indoctrinated in their young. I remember getting called a lot of nasty things for posting a picture of some signage in Texas that was basically a liquor/gun store. It might've even been on this message forum, years ago. Ever since then I've enjoyed baiting Texans, since they're so easy to rile up, but I only do it where I know there aren't any combination liquor/gun stores around!

Ok now, don't blame Texas's issues on CA!

Good to hear a realistic appraisal of TX for a change. I'd be really impressed if you were a native, it seems like TX worship is indoctrinated in their young. I remember getting called a lot of nasty things for posting a picture of some signage in Texas that was basically a liquor/gun store. It might've even been on this message forum, years ago. Ever since then I've enjoyed baiting Texans, since they're so easy to rile up, but I only do it where I know there aren't any combination liquor/gun stores around!

Na, I'm from Oregon and the school systems do indoctrinate their students with all things Texas. Its actually comical until you wanna say something but fear losing your teaching job so you don't. I think thats why many Texans who leave the state feel so out of place and return. It's easier to live in a glass bubble if everyone around you does too.

But the liquor/gun store concept is actually funny as there is one on the other edge of town from me. Well its more a Hunting/Restraunt setup but they sell beer and guns as long as you pass the background check. And they actually run a thourough background check. So not everything is bad here, just 95% of it.

Now go play with you :frocket: