- This topic has 6 voices and 23 replies.
-
Posts
-
In my opinion, I don't think the situation is necessarily like that where there's "Liberal Truth" "Conservative Truth" and "Actual Truth" in between. Think of it this way - the Democrat I cited earlier wanted the inclusion of "killing Mexican-Americans without justification". If it's included, is that liberal truth? If it's not added, is that conservative truth? Or what kind of truth is it if there's a section focusing on Newt Gingrich's rise to power in the 1990s?
The problem with your example is one of semantics. Who gets define what a justified killing is. Put it like this, it is possible to write a history such that slavery seems like a perfectly logical and reasonable choice to solve the labor problems inherent with growing such crops as sugar cane or cotton. The widely accepted view today is that slavery was not in fact justifiable but if an unrepentant southern ex-slaveholder were to read current history he would say it is slanted. Sometimes it is semantics, sad tough that is.
The problem with your example is one of semantics. Who gets define what a justified killing is. Put it like this, it is possible to write a history such that slavery seems like a perfectly logical and reasonable choice to solve the labor problems inherent with growing such crops as sugar cane or cotton. The widely accepted view today is that slavery was not in fact justifiable but if an unrepentant southern ex-slaveholder were to read current history he would say it is slanted. Sometimes it is semantics, sad tough that is.
I'm not entirely clear what you mean by my "problem" here. I agree with your question about who gets to define "justified" (those were her original words, not mine). Setting aside that word, the larger point I was trying to make was that the mere inclusion or non-inclusion of events from history is shaped by someone's opinion as to what is or is not important enough to be taught in schools.
Trying again; previous made no sense due to my poor editing. Sorry.
From Phid: Somebody's going to make these decisions about what students learn. If it's not the school board in Texas, it's the school teacher in Nebraska, or the textbook writer for schools in California.
[sounds of bells and whistles] You've said the secret word(s). [duck drops from overhead]
From scout: ...it is possible to write a history such that slavery seems like a perfectly logical and reasonable choice to solve the labor problems inherent with growing such crops as sugar cane or cotton. The widely accepted view today is that slavery was not in fact justifiable but if an unrepentant southern ex-slaveholder were to read current history he would say it is slanted.
Quite right, both need to be taught; teaching both allows for the how to think over the what to think. Students (and adults) need to get beyond judging history by modern standards... we need to understand what the contemporary standard was, however distasteful it seems to us today. By our standards, history will always seem wrong.
From willy: Teach the kids how to think? This could be a very dangerous precedent in High School especially in the Social Sciences. Students might well find themselves in the vestibule of the house of conflicting ideas which could lead to chaos and arguments with parents. High school is not a democracy, but a despotism--theoretically quasi benevolent.
Yup... let the chips fall where they may. We were taught how, not what, to think. Do they deserve less? They may not agree with us but the door will be open for discussion. 'nother reason NCLB blows chunks.
Perhaps problem was the wrong word. I agree with you that inclusion or omission of facts/events can constitute bias.My issue is that even debating whether something is justified almost presupposes the author or speakers viewpoint doesn't it?
The hyperventilation begins. U.S. history textbooks could soon be flavored heavily with Texas conservatism.If anyone wants to see what all the fuss is about, the document with highlighted revisions and changes is available on the Texas Education Department website in its entirety(all 13 pages of it) at: Proposed Revisions to 19 TAC Chapter 113, Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills for Social Studies Subchapter C, High School. I highly reccomend people read it. The press reports make out like they are radical additions or revisions of history instead of the standards of what will be taught.[Sarcasm begins here]Here are a few of the changes I thought were particualrly offensive and pushed a right-wing agenda. These are just some of the changes and boy I can see why the liberals would get so upset. Not only did the evil conservatives add stuff they changed the wording of the standards to eliminate obvious bias in the curriculum.[Sarcasm ends here]: Where they are in the document is in paragraphs1. Students will be required to memorize and recite the first 3 paragraphs of the preamble to the Declaration of Indepence. (page 2 section b, 5, B)2. Explain the significance of several defined eras or historical events such as-"1968-1969 (Martin Luther King Jr. assassination and U.S. lands on the moon) , 1991 (Cold War ends) , 2001 (terrorist attacks on World Trade Center and the Pentagon) , and 2008 (election of first black president)". (page 3 section c, 2, D)3. Students will now be required to study the Holocaust in High school. (page 4 section c, 7, C)4. They have added an entire section on the history of the civil rights movement (page 5 section c, 8)5. Students will have to analyse and explain demographic shifts dur to legal and illegal immigration (page 7 section c, 13, B)6. Students will have to understand the "effects of governmental actions on individuals, industries, and communities, including the impact of Fifth Amendment property rights". (page 7 section c, 14, C)It seems to me that the protests have les to do with the content of the additions than they do with the fact that a lot of provocative language has been deleted. From my reading, politics has not been inserted into the standards but actually taken out.The one objection I have read is that there is so much stuff to cover in the standards. That is true, I think it will be difficult if not impossible to cover everything in one academic year because there is so much to cover. At best, the teachers will not have time to gte in depth on anything because they will have to move along to the next topic. Can I hear an argument for increasing the amount of time for historical instruction students recieve?
....The one objection I have read is that there is so much stuff to cover in the standards. That is true, I think it will be difficult if not impossible to cover everything in one academic year because there is so much to cover. At best, the teachers will not have time to gte in depth on anything because they will have to move along to the next topic. Can I hear an argument for increasing the amount of time for historical instruction students recieve?
First, thank you for the links... it all makes more sense when able to read the actual document. Second, I agree that it seems rather a tempest in a teapot (curious though that the term Reconstruction is replaced by 1877... guess it's less provocative language :-X). Third, and most important, is your point about the time factor; this appears to be the TX version of 11th grade US History we teach in CA. 8th is Beginnings to Reconstruction (origianlly, now to WWI if you can get there. I never could.) 11th picks up where 8th leaves off (hopefully). Lots to cover in one year in either case.Before the questions arise: In CA, 9th was traditionally a year of world geography (sem of physical, sem of cultural) and 10th a year of world history (1492 to present). Today most schools have dropped geography and may teach WH in 9th... the tradeoff is to be able to do things like health and drivers' ed. which are often mandates from the state involved. If there is time (not usually) they try to slip in a social science elective (often an intro to psyc or soc.)... point being, regardless of how good it looks there will be problems.Texas has an advantage though... they require pacing... on a certain date all teachers will be giving the same lesson, statewide (or so we have been told); if true, not the most likely way to promote the success of all students, or teachers.
Texas has an advantage though... they require pacing... on a certain date all teachers will be giving the same lesson, statewide
That is the way they did it in my son's school in central texas.If I remember right, in 9th grade I had a semester of Geography and a semester of Oklahoma history, I think they do something similar in Texas. I would have to ask a friend of ours who has a daughter in 10th grade to be sure though.
That is the way they did it in my son's school in central texas.
I'm not going to comment at length but I think pacing isn't a good idea.
If I remember right, in 9th grade I had a semester of Geography and a semester of Oklahoma history, I think they do something similar in Texas. I would have to ask a friend of ours who has a daughter in 10th grade to be sure though.
Sounds like a good way to do it; I didn't get a CA history class (after 4th grade) until HS; then a sem elective for the terminal students. As a college prep student I had to fight to get into the class, admin wanted all CP kids in psyc, sociology, or international relations. >:( Glad I fought, CA history is very cool... explains sooo much as to why we are the land of fruits and nuts. ;D
