AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Curriculum debate marred by ideologues
(Jacquielynn Floyd, Dallas Morning News, July 14, 2009)

A lot of what the expert advisers have to say about the standards for teaching social studies to Texas kids is genuinely depressing stuff.

It's depressing because, as you wade through the half-dozen point-by-point reports that will be used to advise the people deciding what your kids will learn, you might wonder whether the people who oversee our public schools care a lot less about education than they do about ideology.

You might even get the sense they care an awful lot less about helping the next generation of Texans lead meaningful, productive lives than about telling them how to vote.

It's not a big surprise, since some members of the State Board of Education sometimes behave as if schooling children is simply a matter of making them memorize an encyclopedic list of political talking points.

And it's the board that appointed a panel of experts that includes a family-values activist from Aledo and a minister in Massachusetts who specializes in "Christian heritage." It's that awful, embarrassing fight over evolution all over again.

As a result, what is presumably supposed to be a sensible discussion about what children need to learn has been reduced to a self-serving bickering match over who gets to be commandant of the indoctrination camp.

"To have Cesar Chavez listed next to Ben Franklin is ludicrous," snarls one of the panelists; another says kids must be drilled more about Roe vs. Wade, which he says has "arguably more impacted American life than any other Supreme Court decision in the 20th century."

Another expert makes careful tallies over whether curriculum recommendations cite Latinos with the same frequency as black and white historical figures " as if classroom studies can be reduced to a racial quid pro quo of the number of times specific historical figures are mentioned.

It's not all ideological flag-waving, of course " but a lot of it is. There's a silly freedom-fries debate over whether to substitute the term "free enterprise system" for "capitalism," of whether suggested teaching examples should exclude Carl Sagan or Neil Armstrong or the guy who invented canned milk; of whether there are too many women and minorities and not enough founding fathers; of whether religion and the rule of law should be taught with more or less vigor than civil liberties and colonial adventurism.

To actually teach a class observing this delicate balance of political nuance, I'm afraid, would be exhausting to instructors, not to mention puzzling and, in many cases, stupefyingly dull to the students.

Miraculously " or at least astonishingly " in one of the reports, I found that awareness candidly articulated.

Somehow, Dr. Lybeth Hodges, a Texas Woman's University history professor and a last-minute panel appointee, did not see a need to draft a political manifesto. She just made (get this!) sensible, useful curriculum recommendations.

She pointed out items that might actually help kids learn more and be better prepared for tests, such as that specific grade-level curriculum doesn't always match the dreaded TAKS tests.

She noted that there are more than 90 "student expectations" for fifth-graders, an unrealistic pipe dream given that "some sound like test questions I give my college freshmen."

Hodges, unlike some other appointees, took the blessedly pragmatic view that constantly trying to balance dueling ideologies will only result in a bloated, unmanageable list of standards that few kids will find meaningful and retain.

"It should not be a political exercise," she said briskly, when we spoke a few days ago.

"I never thought about the political aspect at all," she said. "I thought we were being asked to do what is reasonable and helpful for teachers. ... They have enough red tape as it is."

As we talked, my head was gradually swaddled in a pleasurable sense of optimism: Here was one person, at least, more interested in getting something useful done than in endlessly re-enacting the same old tired-out culture battle.

Call me a starry-eyed dreamer, but American education isn't supposed to be a tedious exercise in demagoguery.

"To me, teachers aren't there to carry out indoctrination in our schools," Hodges said. "These people are trying to open little minds."

If we're going to open them successfully, we need more big minds at the top.

It illustrates how political ideologies (of every kind) are searching for a voice in public school curriculum.

parados wrote:

Who said she authored 3000 decisions? Not I.

True! I did not say that either.

But I did say Sotomayor did have 7 of the decisions she authored as a member of the Court of Appeals, 2nd district, overruled by the USSC.

Cice, that's FALSE! Republican committee members are looking at Sotomayor's judicial decision record and are determining that much of it has been overruled by the USSC.

The Supreme Court has reversed Judge Sotomayor in seven instances where it granted certiorari to review an opinion she authored.

The liberal teachers unions make it impossible for any other political ideology to replace
the liberal democrat socialists currently controlling the curriculum in government schools.

H2O MAN wrote:

The liberal teachers unions make it impossible for any other political ideology to replace
the liberal democrat socialists currently controlling the curriculum in government schools.

I knew that there was a reason why the USA is the best nation.

Are you projecting, asking a question or being an annoying little prick?

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Obama has violated and is violating the two clauses in the 5th Amendment bold faced below:

Quote:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Few Conservatives have "jumped on the bandwagon" to attempt to impeach Obama, because they fail to appreciate the huge educational value of that effort to the American voters, regardless of whether or not that effort will succeed in getting enough Democrats to vote for Obama's impeachment, too.

I said both of these statements:
(1) Republican committee members are looking at Sotomayor's judicial decision record and are determining that much of it has been overruled by the USSC;

(2) Sotomayor did have 7 of the decisions she authored as a member of the Court of Appeals, 2nd district, overruled by the USSC.

In the case of (1), I should have said: Republican committee members are looking at Sotomayor's judicial decision AUTHORSHIP record and are determining that much of it has been overruled by the USSC;

ican is all bark and no teeth. He'd be laughed out of court or any attorney's office.

... Sotomayor was a member of the Court of Appeals. In other words, she was in concert with her associates on the law - or as people call "mainstream."