Wonder How We Can Become More Stupid?
Well… we could put Texas Republicans in charge of textbooks.
The first draft for proposed standards in United States History Studies Since Reconstruction says students should be expected “to identify significant conservative advocacy organizations and individuals, such as Newt Gingrich, Phyllis Schlafly and the Moral Majority.” […] Others have proposed adding talk show host Rush Limbaugh and the National Rifle Association.
Hey, maybe they could also add chapters on the fact that Hawaii is a state and Medicare is government health care. But just when you thought it couldn’t get worse…
Earlier this year, a panel of right-wing “experts” produced a report urging the committee to remove biographies of George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Stephen F. Austin, and César Chávez, and instead add history about the “motivational role the Bible and the Christian faith played in the settling of the original colonies.”
Hmmm… drop Washington and Lincoln for Phyllis Schlafly and Newt? Seriously? Republicans really need to get off their “competition in education” soapbox. Children raised on a diet of this stupidity will suffer a severe educational disadvantage – Nationally and Globally. This isn’t history, it’s brainwashing. It’s a cult.
Tags: Education
Well there’s a solution — when you fail to secure a place in history just rewrite it!
The usual revisionist tricks by these people.
Oh my. I’d actually be interested in hearing what Rhymes with Right has to say on this topic. I think I remember him saying he was a teacher in Texas? I don’t think I’m giving out any information there that he hasn’t already given out. And, if I have, I apologize and that can be stricken from the comment. Either way, I’d be interested in hearing from him on this.
What number president was Jeff Davis?
Gotta tell you — this article is really pretty weak, as is most of the coverage of the issue. The problem is that there is a complete revision of the Social Studies curriculum from top to bottom. Certain things are being dropped at certain grade levels , and other things added in their place. Within the various grade levels, there is a certain amount of realignment — and an attempt to look at different periods in from parallel perspectives. Thus you have the civil rights era dealt with in a similar fashion, with major individuals and groups highlighted and studied in the same way the conservative movement of the period from about 1978-2008 is covered in the standard highlighted here. Unfortunately, the alarmists are not telling people that, — and I wonder if they are looking at the entire 11th grade curriculum from which this one sentence is taken, or the social studies curriculum as a whole.
And FYI, I have posted on the subject at my site — at the risk of being accused of link spamming, you can find it here. The post in question includes links to the Houston Chronicle’s article on the revision, the Texas Education Agency’s page on the Social Studies revision, and the specific 11th grade class in which the conservative movement standard appears.
Oh, and the Washington and Lincoln thing is somewhat misleading — the question is one of how and where they are covered, not one of not covering them anywhere. Rest assured that you will still find them in the revised curriculum.
Phyliss Schlafly? Explain that.
Easy — for the better part of a half century, Schlafly has been one of the driving forces of the contemporary conservative movement. Love her or hate her (and I’ve done both at times, though I’ve found her personally quite charming), she is one of the more influential figures of conservatism.
One of my disappointments is that the standard, as currently written, does not include Rush Limbaugh as a defining force in contemporary conservatism. For better or for worse, he certainly is that.
I’m serious — if you look at the standards, you will find that the document is not at all what you are being told in the piece on which this post is based.
And yes, you will find some comments from me in the comment section of the Houston Chronicle article, under my actual name.
Those of us who have helped kids with homework may have some insight into the revisionist crap that goes into ‘social studies’ books that parrot the ‘progressive party line’.
One ‘litmus test’ is the treatment of the Second Amendment. Is it treated as an individual right that predated the Bill of Rights or does ‘People’ really mean ‘state’?
This is just the tip of an iceberg of statist propaganda/
“One ‘litmus test’ is the treatment of the Second Amendment. Is it treated as an individual right that predated the Bill of Rights or does ‘People’ really mean ’state’?”
I’ve done homework with two kids in four different states, including Delaware, over 15 years and I have never seen a social studies text for non-collegiate public schools that ever attempted this level of sophistication in its description of any amendment. The treatment you are seeking is more likely to come from the teacher’s lips than the text. (also, your question implies that before the Bill of Rights all rights came from the state, not the people,which was not true in several of the colonies…but that’s truly a more sophisticated discussion than you find in high school texts.)
Besides, virtually all texts used in U.S. public schools are written either for California or Texas or New York. You take your pick, and you don’t get much variation from text to text. (There is a great deal of variation from grade to grade, however.) The “statist” propoganda you find is exactly that — it comes from a particular state, not the feds, and it is geared to what that state’s political/education leadership wants during that cycle.
This is important because Texas schoolbooks influence the rest of the country (since Texas is one of the biggest markets). Now history teachers will get to experience the joy that science teachers go through almost yearly.
You have to be kidding me – dropping George Washington and Abraham Lincoln in favor of Newt Gingrich and Phyllis Schlafly?
Exactly right, Progressive Mom. I have a 7th grader and a 10th grader and I’ve never seen such detail taught. I also accept that all history books will have a slant – but what’s being proposed here is bigger than a slant. And I’m sticking to the point about Schlafly – she has not earned a place in K-12 history. Neither has Limbaugh.
Besides how do you teach about these people and the Conservative Movement? Will it only be a glowing review? Oh… silly me, of course it will.
As a transplanted Delawarean in Texas, I’m happy with the change. I’d rather conservatives be heros in textbooks than liberal fascists, as has been the case for decades. Of course, given the fact that I’m a libertarian, I’m most prefer libertarian heros like Goldwater, Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand, Sarah Palin, et.al. But Newt Gingrich will do for now.
Anything to stop the State from teaching about Fascists like Obama.
Goooooooo Rick Perry!!
And I’d rather History books taught history, Eric.
LOL, Ayn Rand.
Oh I would LOVE to get in front of a class of 11th or 12th graders and tell them ALL ABOUT Newt Gingrich and Phyllis Schafly and Sarah Palin.
“she has not earned a place in K-12 history. Neither has Limbaugh”
Sorry pandora, I’ll disagree with you on Limbaugh. Like it or not, Rush HAS changed politics and media. On that alone, I’d think he merits a mention at least, when covering recent history.
He’ll also merits mention when it comes to Drug law hypocrisy, but that’s another matter 🙂
Except, UI, Washington and Lincoln are not dropped from the curriculum. Those who make that claim are, to use a technical term, lying.
What are dropped from the standards are requirements that elementary teachers use two particular biographical sketches, one of Washington and one of Lincoln, that were included by name in the standards that were adopted ten years ago. The idea was that not every student in the state should have to read the same short biographies.
Having helped my stepson with his high school homework a few years ago, I saw the ‘collective rights’ myth with my own eyes. More recently, I assisted a co-worker with help he gave to his son and found the same myth perpetrated.
Perhaps Delaware school textbooks are more in keeping with rights included in the State Constitution on this matter. The ones dealing with the Right to Keep and Bear Arms are of rather recent origin.
Rush should have equal space with Father Coughlin.
I’m curious — did any of you take the time to actually look at the proposed standards? Or are you basing your comments on the excerpts of the Houston Chronicle article that appeared in the post at Think Progress and are then repeated here?
Given that the proposed 11th grade standards are only 15 pages long, (and annotated to show all proposed changes to the standards adopted a decade ago and a brief rationale for them) it should be a relatively easy read for you — certainly easier than the health care bill.
And for those who don’t want to click the link to my post on this issue to get them, here is the link to the 11th grade standards; and the link to the entire proposed revision of the social studies curriculum. Seriously — you might want to take a few minutes to look at the proposals. You might be really surprised by what you find there, and how good the proposed standards really are.
Can someone get my comment out of moderation — it includes links to the proposed standards so you can see that one sentence in its full context.
Excellent comparison, anon. And for most of his career, Rush was a big mouthpiece for the VRWC. It has only been very recently that you could consider him a really leader of anything, and the only reason he is a leader of the Republican Party now is because there is no one left to do it and all that is left is Rush’s audience.
The idea was that not every student in the state should have to read the same short biographies.
Why not? what was wrong with those bios?
Nothing is wrong with the bios — but the TEKS (Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills) standards are supposed to be about what general content should be known by students after completing a specific grade level. As a rule, the document should not be prescribing specific resources for use, or methodologies to be used to cover specific content.
OK Rhymey, I followed your links and admittedly am only dipping my toe in rather hastily, so this might be unfair… but what I found right off was disturbing.
Here is one bit of the original United States Government curriculum:
with the following comment markup:
Who is “ER?”
OK, let’s go to the new version in 13:
Some differences:
Liberal democracy – replaced with “socialist”
Absolute monarchy – replaced with “monarchy”
Despotism – gone
Feudalism – gone
Totalitarianism – gone
And you know what else is missing from both versions?
Communism.
Are they going to lump socialism in with Communism? Hopefully they will teach the distinction between Socialism and Communism, and then teach how both differed from the Soviet system.
Maybe it’s in a part of the curriclum I didn’t read?
I suspect not. I suspect the new administration wants to teach that “liberal democracy” is the same as “socialism” which is the same as “communism” which is the same as “Soviet Union” which is the same as the US Democrat Party.
Personally, I think it’s a good idea to include recent history in textbooks and the conservative movement is recent history. I just hope the revision isn’t like anon showed – that they are trying to redefine the word “socialist” again.
If you looked at the first page, “ER” refers to the panel of “expert reviewers”. They suggested moving the standards around.
Also, “such as” means that the list is not inclusive of all possible comparisons. Personally, I like the change from “absolute monarchy” to “monarchy” because it is also inclusive of constitutional monarchy. And given that the US is a liberal republic, it has not really been dropped. I’d include the three dropped by name, though.
As a practical matter, the change you point to is not very substantive — and if it is your biggest criticism of the revision it shows how mainstream the document really is.
By the way — if you are truly interewted in providing comments, I direct you to this information from the link I provided above to the entire revision:
Comments are being accepted through October 9. I’m preparing some for the World Geography standards (that is what I currently teach) and the World History standards (I taught the course for six years) — and may delve into the Government standards as well (I teach the subject on the college level a couple of times a year). I’m very serious in encouraging you folks to submit serious comments — as I’ve said more than once, I like and respect most of you around here.
Feudalism is very important, and in some historical respects is not separable from monarchy. Many current economic relationships have feudalistic aspects and modern citizens need to be able to spot them, and trace it back to the people who benefit.
Agreed — though it is extensively covered in the 10th grade World History curriculum.
I also have a problem with “socialist.” Socialism is an economic system, not a political system. Why would “socialism” be included in a curriculum of political systems? There are socialist dictatorships as well as socialist democracies. The implication is that they wish to teach that all socialist economies are dictatorships.
What’s worse, and as an educator (gasp!) RWR will know this, Texas has a great influence in what goes into textbooks throughout the country just because of the massive amount of books it buys. Plus, many of the textbook co’s are out of Texas, I believe.
The same argument could be said about Cali…..
Let’s look at these expert reviewers:
Jim Kracht is a professor of teaching, learning and culture and a professor of geography at Texas A&M University. He holds a master’s in geography and a doctorate in social studies education. He currently serves as associate dean for academic affairs in the university’s College of Education and is a senior fellow for the Gilbert Grosvenor Center for Geographic Education (Texas State University).
Jesus Francisco de la Teja is a professor and chairman of the history department at Texas State University-San Marcos. De la Teja has a master’s in Latin American history and a doctorate in colonial Latin American history. He served a two-year term as Texas State Historian until May of this year. The distinguished professor has authored three books (including high school and college textbooks), has edited seven books, and has written chapters for nine others. He has also written 11 journal articles, nine articles for encyclopedias and other reference resources, and scores of reviews, scripts and translations in other publications. His list of lectures, awards and professional associations is similarly lengthy.
Lybeth Hodges is a professor of history and government at Texas Woman’s University, where she teaches in an honors scholars program and the College of Professional Education. Hodges has a master’s in history from TWU and a doctorate in history from Texas Tech University.
David Barton founded and heads WallBuilders, a Christian advocacy group based near Fort Worth that calls separation of church and state a myth and argues that the United States is a Christian nation that should be governed on Christian bibilical principles. Barton earned a bachelor’s degree in religious education and has two honorary doctorates from two small Christian colleges. He has authored 14 books, all self-published by his WallBuilder Press, and has written one article each for the Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics and Public Policy and the Regent University Law Review (Pat Robertson’s university).
The Rev. Peter Marshall is a Presbyterian minister who runs Peter Marshall Ministries, which seeks “to restore America to its Bible-based foundations through preaching, teaching, and writing on America’s Christian heritage and on Christian discipleship and revival.” Marshall has a bachelor’s degree in history and a master’s of divinity degree and has co-authored three books ostensibly on American history — all three from Christian book publisher Revell and marketed as part of an “America’s Christian Heritage Package” on his Web site. According to the biographical sketch he provided to the Texas Education Agency, Marshall has “done extensive research on historical periods to inspire interest by youth through fictional depictions utilizing historically accurate elements and issues.” Like Barton, Marshall believes that the U.S. Constitution does not protect separation of church and state, and he seeks to restore “America’s Christian heritage.”
Daniel Dreisbach actually brings some academic credentials to the panel, although his work and interests are very narrowly focused. Dreisbach is a professor in the School of Public Affairs at American University in Washington, D.C., and has earned a law degree and a doctorate of philosophy in politics. He also serves on the faculty of the James Madison Fellowship Foundation in Washington. Dreisbach has authored seven books and written 16 chapters in other books, seven reference articles, and nearly two dozen reviews. His work and interests appear to be almost entirely focused on the role of religion in American history, society and law, and Dreisbach also argues that the Constitution does not protect separation of church and state.
Barton and Marshall have NO business being reviewers of Social Studies. BTW, check out the link above – lots of interesting stuff.
Barton and Marshall have NO business being reviewers of Social Studies. BTW, check out the link above – lots of interesting stuff.
In Jesusland they do. 😉
For all of the wingnut charges about socialism and communism hurled at liberals, it never fails to amuse (and appall) that the people most tied to ensuring that any narrative for widespread distribution have at least one Political Officer (I know these textbook writers are not military) making sure the message gets shaped to ensure that they always appear in the best light. As usual, actual subject matter expertise is much less valued by your movement conservatives than how much of the kool aid they’ve actually imbibed.
Interestingly enough, I’ve only seen one person here actually address the standards. They have either attacked the single line quoted in the article or (now) the review committee. I’m really beginning to think that this is all about scoring political points to most folks commenting, rather than whether or not the actual standards are good ones.
How about I put a simple pair of questions to you:
1) Given that the conservative movement has been the defining political force in the US over the last 30 years, what organizations and individuals should students learn about when it is taught in a high school classroom?
2) In the alternative, do you believe that conservatism should be ignored even though that would create a void in understanding the politics of the period?
By the way, I’ll spoon-feed you the entire standard from which the offending line comes:
In that context, it doesn’t really look like indoctrination, does it?
So where is the Iraq war? Don’t tell me that you guys are going to tell your kids Iraq is part of GWOT…
It does, RwR, because there’s no liberal counter in the standard. If there is, where is it? I feel the standard is too specific. Why not just say something like “identify significant events in conservative and liberal movements?”
Let me offer a parallel standard to give you some more context:
When your goal is to talk about the defining movement of a period, you talk about the individuals and organizations who defined it, not their opposition (hence the standards don’t give equal time to the KKK or the John Birch society for balance). Similarly, if you are trying to show how conservatism was the defining ideology of a period, you focus on it and not its opponents. You see the same thing with the standard that deals with the populist and progressive movements. In an earlier period of US history, you give heavy treatment to the Founding Fathers and significantly less coverage to the Tories during the Revolution and the anti-Federalists who opposed the Constitution. In a world history context, when you talk about the rise of the Nazis in Germany or the rise of the Communists in Russia you don’t give equal time to the opposition to those movements.
Considering that the most prominent development over the past 30 years isn’t movement conservatism but the corporate takeover of both parties, I’d say yes, this smacks of indoctrination. Phyllis Schafly? That’s a joke, right?
Oh, and Mike — there is actually a proposal in the document to add a liberal strand to counter-balance the conservative one. For reasons stated above, I’m not sure that it is necessary.
I remember in the 1970s the newer textbooks had a chapter about Vietnam and Watergate but strangely, the school year always seemed to end and we ran out of time to go over it in class.
Rhubarb — I’m certainly not wedded to the idea of including Schlafly. However, given her role in securing the 1964 nomination for Goldwater, mainstreaming conservatism within the GOP, opposing the ERA, organizing social conservatives, and heading one of the leading conservative organizations, the Eagle Forum, she is not an unreasonable candidate for inclusion.
And if I were to offer a significant criticism of the proposed standards, it would be that they really don’t have much to say after 9/11. On the other hand, the closer one gets to the present, the harder it is to maintain anything approaching objectivity.
The civil rights movement does not counter-balance the conservative movement. It would be like saying let’s discuss the progressive movement, and then we’ll discuss the war on terror as a counter-balance. It appears that the standards are confusing political results with political philosophy.
That said, I don’t think anyone should graduate US high school history/government without being able to articulate the difference between the two political parties in both recent and long term history. Mention Newt? Sure, as long as the student knows that Tom Dewey was the one who took the Republic party from isolationism to the party of a strong international presence. The Moral Majority? Sure, very important; as long as the student knows the role that Jewish and Catholic church leaders played at the turn of the 1900’s in immigrant rights and reform.
In other words, I object to just shoving people in the history books (even if they are female, black, gay and speak Chinese) because they fit a current cause. History is by definition linear and should be taught that way, not in fits and starts and bits.
And I think both Shafly and Limbaugh will go down in history with the secret service agent who saved Jerry Ford from Squeaky Fromm — no one will know their names.
I’m not saying that they counterbalance each other — I’m saying that conservatism is getting treated the same way in its period as the civil rights movement does in an earlier period.
And PM — look at the standards to find out just how balanced they really are. I posted the links earlier, as well as a link to my commentary on this controversy.
Actually, RWR, you did say someone wanted to counterbalance conservatism with liberalism in an earlier post, and you said such a counterbalance wasn’t necessary. That was your word. (I usually don’t word-smith in my responses, but just look a few lines up, and you’ll see you used counterbalance.) My point is that studying the civil rights movement, an historic fact, is not the same as studying conservatism, which is subject to massive interpretation. Treating conservatism the same way as an historic fact is, to my view, breaching the wall between fact and opinion (which the teacher will do on his/her own, anyway!)
Going further, equating a 30-year conservative movement that impacted only a portion of the nation with a 100-year struggle for civil rights that impacted the entire nation and parts of the world for generations to come (both good and bad), is, to me, a flawed comparison.
A counterbalance to conservatism as a current political philosophy in the US is progressivism (or liberalism, if you prefer). But conservatism is not the equivalent of the civil rights movement (or the second world war, or industrialization). One is philosophy in context, the other historic event.
Conservatism should be treated the same way the progressive movement is treated in the text … as a political/philosphical movement. In that context, I agree that Newt has been a changing force. As was Reagan. I think Rush is just a spokesperson. He defines nothing.
As for the standards: let’s face it…Ben Franklin was correct: history is written by the winners. The “standards” would be different with a different mix on the board. The winners get to decide who looks good and pure and who looks like dirt. If history was just a presentation of the facts, we wouldn’t have this thread. History is a distillation of fact and then a re-interpretation of the distillation. The standards are likely to be what the majority of educators and politicians in Texas want.
I’d be much happier with the Texas standards (and those of California and New York) if they didn’t impact the rest of the states, who never really get to set their own standards because they can’t set their own texts. And that’s why people are chiming in on this thread.
But PM — neither the progressive nor populist movements get a counterbalance either. I pointed to the movement closest in time to conservatism, but i could have pointed to either of the other two as well.