- This topic has 4 voices and 15 replies.
-
Posts
-
Speaking of “consensus”, here's the type that I do not like at all – that which is based on people's opinions about fairness in a setting which is supposed to be about teaching reality.Take this story:Board decides to keep Christmas in textbooksLook at this part:
The board met with consultants and educators appointed to develop new curriculum standards for textbooks covering history, government, sociology, economics and geography for the next decade.The proposed standards suggest sixth-graders be expected to explain the significance of religious observances of major faiths, including Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism.Experts recommended that public schools teach about Diwali, which is celebrated by Hindus and some Buddhists, but drop mention of Christmas. Easter would remain.
I'm not opposed to teaching about these other faiths. But to somehow eliminate Christmas - a highly significant holiday within Western Civilization - as a means of "balancing out" the days of different faiths....that's just ridiculous. It reveals an utter lack of prioritization; that which is more influential and important for students to learn has been rejected out of an attempt to make all things equal, even though they are not equal. In the United States, Christmas and Easter are more important to learn about than most Hindu and Buddhist holidays. That's just the way it is.And if you aren't convinced that politics plays a heavy hand in this educational issue, take a look at this quote:
Some board members argued for more accomplishments of minorities to be included in the final version. An early recommendation to remove the late farm workers leader C?sar Ch?vez and the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall provoked a strong reaction. Both are expected to remain in the textbooks.
Given the politics at play in this school system, I'd like to know what kind of success these students achieve and how much money is spent per pupil. I'm guessing I wouldn't be impressed by the numbers.
Textbooks are the current political football in education; getting what you want into (or excluded from) a textbook is a huge advantage to promoting an agenda. if you have one. For folks that want to see the students exposed to as much information as possible, in the course of learning how to think, this is a concern. Far too often, without apparent bias only one side of an issue is stated. If the teachers doesn't present the other… flys straight with the book… the kids assume thae book is the whole story. That is rarely the whole story.Several years ago we adopted new textbooks for social studies. The 6th grade book didn't arrive on time. The hold up was the state was being sued by a religious group that claimed they were being portrayed in a bad light... they were said to have supported the caste system and that women didn't have as many rights as men in ancient India. This group sued the state to prevent the use of a book that told the truth. The book ultimately came to us and even the kids in my class the were of that group understood the book was talking about historical fact and not slamming folks today.Sadly we are still in a teach to the test mode (NCLB) and the textbooks are all geared to the so-called standards. To me the book was just another tool, used it when it was appropriate and skipped it when it was a drag on the lesson. My students didn't get too many book fines... the books were usually more drag than appropriate.
Arguments and stories like this show that education in today's schools is not as much about what kids learn as it is about pushing an agenda. The post-modernists have to get them young so they can be mind-wiped and TOLD WHAT think. I am convinced tha many in education are not concerned about teaching kids how to think so much as what it is correct to think. They almost seem to want to program the adulkts of the next generation to self-censor themselves, it makes me think of 1984 and wonder when the first overt thought-crime legislation is going to pass. Sometimes I really worry about what the future will bring.
Far too true; knowing facts are the first step in figuring out what history means and while we may offer some possibilities we really can't tell people this is what it is (we weren't there and can't know for sure). The catch is offering (or allowing) as many reasonable possibilities as we can with out an agenda (which in itself is an agenda ;)).Next to NCLB, the best reason to be a former teacher! 8)
And I am a fool that wants to teach. I will never understand why we can?t present facts without pushing an agenda in schools and elsewhere. I don?t want people to think my way; I just want them to think for themselves and not accept the logic and conclusions of others.
Textbooks are the current political football in education; getting what you want into (or excluded from) a textbook is a huge advantage to promoting an agenda. if you have one. For folks that want to see the students exposed to as much information as possible, in the course of learning how to think, this is a concern. Far too often, without apparent bias only one side of an issue is stated.
I think I was a sophomore in high school when a classmate of mine said he disagreed with something the textbook author had said, and that was a revelation to me. I didn't know it was an "option" that we could disagree with the textbook since I took it to be the truth. I was pretty much an A student, and I'm guessing that if I saw it that way then many others saw it like that as well.In cases where there are glaring inaccuracies in texts, teachers can speak up and present another side. However, that does take a teacher who recognizes the inaccuracy and finds it important enough to address. The question then becomes - why not just get the book right the first time so the teacher doesn't have to?
I had this same argument with my son's history teacher several terms. I got variations on that is the official version every time I said something, regardless of the facts and sources I brought to bear. I even went to the school board once, got nowhere then too. I have since contented myself with pointing out innaccuracies in fact to my son when he does his homework.
Just to play devil's advocate here. Couldn't the same thing be said about our school books? When learning about Colonial America for instance were we taught how brutal some of the early colonialists were? All I remember being taught is how the Europeans tamed the Indians and land and then everyone lived happily ever after.I don't ever remember learning about the diseases brought over that nearly descimated the native populations, neither do I remember being taught the brutality of the Spanish conquest.
Phid: The question then becomes – why not just get the book right the first time so the teacher doesn't have to?
1. Textbooks are written by committees and PC at that... need to write what the current educational fuzzy wuzzies are up for. 2. Textbook companies are always looking to sell more books and materials (adoptions run about every 5 years, soooo... having corrections and updates wait. 3. And what you and I think is correct may not be the ACORN or (insert flavor of the month radical org) whoever thinks is correct.
scout:I had this same argument with my son's history teacher several terms. I got variations on that is the official version every time I said something, regardless of the facts and sources I brought to bear. I even went to the school board once, got nowhere then too. I have since contented myself with pointing out innaccuracies in fact to my son when he does his homework.
Sorry to hear that... having had parents that expressed concerns I know that they must, at least, be satisfied that the teacher is listening... sometimes the teacher has to throw the official version under the bus!As for school boards... Twain was correct: God made the Idiot for practice, and then He made the School Board. On the whole you've done as much as you can unless the teacher comes around.
ski:I don't ever remember learning about the diseases brought over that nearly descimated the native populations, neither do I remember being taught the brutality of the Spanish conquest.
Generally speaking the idea is this... teach the kids what they (the average ones) are "ready" (emotionally, academically, socially, etc.) to understand and deal with. First graders don't need to know that many of the sailors on Columbus' crews were criminals that had been released to ease crowding in Spainish prison system... my 10th graders thought it pa pretty cool way to deal with the situation... if they survived they earned their freedom, if not, no great loss.Like sausage, seeing how education is made can distrub folks with a weak stomach.
Just to play devil's advocate here. Couldn't the same thing be said about our school books? When learning about Colonial America for instance were we taught how brutal some of the early colonialists were? All I remember being taught is how the Europeans tamed the Indians and land and then everyone lived happily ever after.I don't ever remember learning about the diseases brought over that nearly descimated the native populations, neither do I remember being taught the brutality of the Spanish conquest.
Yeah, your point is taken that Western Civilization shouldn't be sanitized from anything bad that has been done by its "members". But are omissions done because of political reasons? Are they meant to "hide" something or promote a social view of a particular group? Obviously not every injustice can be included in an overview of history, but instead those which play significant roles in the development of Western culture. I think that what is going on in Texas is an example of putting things into a text, or removing them, because of political reasons.
When learning about Colonial America for instance were we taught how brutal some of the early colonialists were? All I remember being taught is how the Europeans tamed the Indians and land and then everyone lived happily ever after. I don't ever remember learning about the diseases brought over that nearly descimated the native populations, neither do I remember being taught the brutality of the Spanish conquest.
Ski,Do I have to get up on my facts instead of moralizing soap-box again? 😉
I think that what is going on in Texas is an example of putting things into a text, or removing them, because of political reasons.
CA too.
The books used when I was kid were probably written in the 40s or 50s when everything was “Go, America!” I wouldn't say right now it's anti-American/Western Civ, but it's certainly going in that direction. Is it really political or just a sign of the times? Wally, good point about not everything can or should be taught to all ages.
It is a sign of the prevailing support of multiculturalism. The false notion that many cultures can exist as islands within a larger society; a notion that is demonstrably false by the way. the current cult of diversity will eventually lead to the disintegration of western society. Heritage and everyday culture are two entirely different animals. A society has to share the same basic moral framework to function, diversity and multiculturalism destroy that.
Do you think it's also a knocking down of Western achievements? How many times do we hear something like, “well, it's not only the Greek and Romans who were important”?I may be completely wrong, but in my class we are discussing Europe in the 1400s and what motivated exploration. Seems most of them are placing too much emphasis on the Muslims. I pointed out that the internal wars and competitions in Europe were more an issue than Islam. Yes, Muslims blocked and taxed trade routes to the east and that's an important issue, but I think some are placing too much emphasis on that.
