Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
.... Fact is, we did not lose Vietnam, we gave up.
Much as England gave up in the AmRev, according to my sources there.
...what is freedom worth, not personally to you, but freedom in general? A second one is is spreading freedom a worthy goal?
On the whole,for me, yes to both. Hard though to sell the concept to societies that have never had it or understand it in our terms... liberty.
....Can you think of a situation where you would give up your freedom for security--thousands did ...they were called serfs. Most of us are their descendants.
... and have freedom because some were willing to take the risk to try to have both.
I think you have to be might careful about spreading freedom--look what happened to Allende in Chileand Mossadegh in Iran in 1953.
So noted.
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
....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.
My effort was to be a middle school geog. teacher… most schools immediately went with liberal arts majors rather than geog. majors. >:(Thirty years later I was teaching middle school history. 😮How's that work? ???
According to the mythology, when Michael Jordan was asked why he majored in geography… so where ever he went he would always know where he was. All kidding aside, I saw him on 60 Minutes years ago and he came across so well; bright, modest, and head on very straight. A good man.
I have made my defense of anthropology in other threads but yes it was a good way to avoid sociology, psyc, or more poli-sci. ;D Everyone know geography is the only real science.
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.
It always comes down to the money--how sad
[cynical mode]Yes; who has it, how much, and what they are willing to spend to promote their agenda.[end cynical mode]
.... The fact is that if students were taught logic and reason they would be able to tell when they were getting unbalanced information and might even be inspired to research on their own. Neither side, liberal or conservative, really want that, they would rather force feed the youth with their own particular brand of truth than get them to look on their own. They might find uncomfortable facts out there, and not only in history but in other areas as well. This is sad but true.
Far too true.
....As an academic, does this kind of thing frighten you?
Along with willy, I don't really consider myself an academic. That said, I do have serious reservations about this idea; the nature of being an activitist anything is to make something happen... when you are supposed to be an observer of the process active participation (in most cases) is going to alter the outcome of whatever it was that you were supposedly observing. Not good scientific methodology.
....I am sure that we all agree that there ought not to be a Liberal and a Conservative version of History.....
Agreed; so too, there is the consideration that writers are able to publish anything that their publisher thinks the market will bear. The publisher will seek a venue like public education that presents a large (and captive market), supplying them with whatever they will buy thousands of copies of. While this would seem to be a good capitalistic trend... the market is not held captive by the publishers themselves but their state and local school boards and the socio-political movers and shakers. In a previous post, in another thread, I've waxed philosophical on this already and will not labor my view further, except to say that having tried in the past to influence what was included in my state's standards that individual teachers aren't who the state listens to... it the socio-political tail that wags the dog.
.... This alleged Conservative "slant" is not really Conservative, it's just an attempt to bring back teaching history as it was rather than through the eyes of Leftist idealism.
While I would like to agree, I think much of the flap isn't just good old fashioned history by often knee-jerk fundamental philosophy that is just as far gone to the right as the libs want the slant to be to the left. History is supposed to be fact based and not make judgments, IMHO.
