Texas Influence On Schoolbooks In The News Again

[BvBPL]

Proposing a unitary system of education isn't a viable solution. In addition to being a constitutional impossibility, I'm not convinced it supports multicultural or educational goal.

The US, like the United Kingdom, Canada, and Spain, is not a unitary nation state. What would work, and what would work well, in a nation state could be a complete disaster in a federated multinational state. We have a diverse set of cultures and voices that deserve to be heard. The Iroquois compact is important to our nation; it informed and helped to establish our democratic principles. The settling if the American southwest is important as is the Chinese experience on the west coast.

But those lessons from history are not equally important to all people. Local history is more important locally. A student in the mid Atlantic should have a basic understanding of the Chinese immigrant experience in the west, but she need not be taught it in the same manner and the same depth as one in San Francisco. A unitary system of education would limit our ability to discuss, and thus disenfranchise, locally important minority voices.

I'm not an educator, but it seems to me that one way to engage students is to make lessons pertinent to them. One way to do so is an emphasis in local history. "Hey, something important happened in our area," is more likely to interest students then talking about something that happened on the otherwise of the country. It would also enable appropriate local emphasis on events. Smith founding the LDS church is an important historical occurrence for all Americans, but the import, and consequently the way it should be taught, is very different for New Yorkers, Ohioans, and Utahans and so are the lessons one would use to engage students in those states.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Formaldehyde]

Yet "a unitary system of education" seems to work in every other single other modern country on the planet. Now doesn't it?

There is apparently nothing in the Constitution that even comes close to saying that doing so would be unconstitutional in the least. Yet some Republicans continue to insist that must be so. Yet the Department of Education still exists under the Commerce Clause despite the efforts of Republicans to defund it whenever possible. The party which you now even claim to not be a member despite incessantly supporting their views in this forum.

Once again, nobody is claiming that students shouldn't learn anything about "local history". Just that the local bigots, racists, and reactionaries should obviously have no say regarding what they do or do not learn in public schools under the nonsensical pretense that the liberals are brainwashing their children.

It speaks volumes that you are even suggesting the opposite. That you are trying to rationalize and defend the clearly indefensible. This is an incredibly easy problem to properly resolve to the betterment of every single child in the country.

 

[BvBPL]

The only voluminous hot air coming out here is your inaccurate, unsupported, and uncivil implication that my opposition to a unitary system of education for America can be read as an endorsement of racism.

Most people are able to distinguish between a multitude of varying opinions, and an opinion contrary to another does not amount to agreeing with all opinions contrary to the latter. It is something we learn in school, in locally organized American schools.

As to compative educational systems, it is my understanding that the United Kingdom itself does not have a centralized system with the Scotch educational system and goals varying from the English system. Education in Canada is also administered at the local level. Maybe some of our Scotch, English, and Canadian friends can elaborate on their systems.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BvBPL]

Double post

 

[jackelgull]

Yet "a unitary system of education" seems to work in every other single other modern country on the planet. Now doesn't it?

There is apparently nothing in the Constitution that even comes close to saying that doing so would be unconstitutional in the least. Yet some Republicans continue to insist that must be so. Yet the Department of Education still exists under the Commerce Clause despite the efforts of Republicans to defund it whenever possible. The party which you now even claim to not be a member despite incessantly supporting their views in this forum.

Once again, nobody is claiming that students shouldn't learn anything about "local history". Just that the local bigots, racists, and reactionaries should obviously have no say regarding what they do or do not learn in public schools under the nonsensical pretense that the liberals are brainwashing their children.

It speaks volumes that you are even suggesting the opposite. That you are trying to rationalize and defend the clearly indefensible. This is an incredibly easy problem to properly resolve to the betterment of every single child in the country.

People can agree with each other on a point for different reasons you know.

Proposing a unitary system of education isn't a viable solution. In addition to being a constitutional impossibility, I'm not convinced it supports multicultural or educational goal.

The US, like the United Kingdom, Canada, and Spain, is not a unitary nation state. What would work, and what would work well, in a nation state could be a complete disaster in a federated multinational state. We have a diverse set of cultures and voices that deserve to be heard. The Iroquois compact is important to our nation; it informed and helped to establish our democratic principles. The settling if the American southwest is important as is the Chinese experience on the west coast.

But those lessons from history are not equally important to all people. Local history is more important locally. A student in the mid Atlantic should have a basic understanding of the Chinese immigrant experience in the west, but she need not be taught it in the same manner and the same depth as one in San Francisco. A unitary system of education would limit our ability to discuss, and thus disenfranchise, locally important minority voices.

I'm not an educator, but it seems to me that one way to engage students is to make lessons pertinent to them. One way to do so is an emphasis in local history. "Hey, something important happened in our area," is more likely to interest students then talking about something that happened on the otherwise of the country. It would also enable appropriate local emphasis on events. Smith founding the LDS church is an important historical occurrence for all Americans, but the import, and consequently the way it should be taught, is very different for New Yorkers, Ohioans, and Utahans and so are the lessons one would use to engage students in those states.

I'm not a hundred percent convinced that a unified national curriculum necessitates not learning about local history. Teachers are given a lot of latitude about what they can cover in the classroom, and as long as this curriculum covers only the absolute essentials, I think it can work.

 

[Light Cleric]

So wait, places like Germany aren't modern countries?

That's literally what was said.

 

[BvBPL]

I wouldn't put too much stock in that,LC. Every thesis in post twenty two is dead wrong and demonstrably so. That whole post is worth less than a flatus in the wind.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Joecoolyo]

I would be nicer about it, but it's so ridiculous and backwards that I just..

Have some nuance friend! As ideal as the situation may be, my anecdotal experience with most kids junior high and high school age is that they don't give two damns about the textbook! Most don't even give two damns about the teacher!

If they were interested, or inclined towards learning anything, what they would study were the basic ideas, the grand schemes, with details to support it, as that was what was tested. To expect them to take literally what the textbook said as if it were the bible is highly presumptuous!

On two related notes, it is also highly dependent on the teacher. Teachers have a wide latitude regarding what goes on in the classroom, and how they teach. Some may teach directly from the book, yes, they aren't very inventive. Some do away with the book entirely, and teach from hand picked readings or no readings at all! Some assign chapters from the book as background, expecting it to have been read, so that they may discuss something more specific or tangentially related to the big themes written in the book.

Secondly, if kids were actually interested in the history, I highly doubt they'd stick to just the textbook! I'm aware of plenty of my peers who read things outside of class, history related or no. It's not their only source!

To presume that just because the textbook is awful that education is awful is a pretty narrow view! Sure, it's not good, but provided a bit of nuance it is very easy to work around that and not assume that every kid growing up will be some conservo-bot denying the history of slavery.

while another class read A Canticle for Leibowitz.

People got to read that in High School? Damn, I didn't get to read that until I got to college! Though not as part of the English curriculum, I just wanted to read it for years and never got the chance

 

[FriendlyFire]

The Atlantic Slave Trade between the 1500s and 1800s brought millions of workers Rapist, Murderers and maybe a few good people from Africa to the southern United States to work on agricultural plantations.

Fixed for Texas and the Tea Party

 

[Valka D'Ur]

On two related notes, it is also highly dependent on the teacher. Teachers have a wide latitude regarding what goes on in the classroom, and how they teach. Some may teach directly from the book, yes, they aren't very inventive. Some do away with the book entirely, and teach from hand picked readings or no readings at all! Some assign chapters from the book as background, expecting it to have been read, so that they may discuss something more specific or tangentially related to the big themes written in the book.

I had an incredible social studies teacher in junior high. Our Grade 7 was mostly Canadian history and current events. The history part was taught in a series of 5 modules, covering everything from the Vikings to modern times.

As for how he got us interested in all of this... he made it into a game. Basically, it was a combination of trivia quiz and a football game played on a gameboard, and every correct answer our team members got would move us closer to scoring a touchdown. I'm happy to say that the worst my team (I was captain) did was a tie; we were a competitive lot, and it wasn't unusual to remind our team mates to study for the next time.

Current events was our introduction to real-world politics. There was a provincial election that year, and we had to follow the news coverage on TV and in the newspapers. We had to keep a scrapbook of articles, write an essay, and watch the election night coverage on TV (one of the few nights I got to stay up past my bedtime "because the teacher said we have to watch the whole thing" ). Then the next day, we had a quiz. This was years before I was old enough to vote - I was all of 11 years old. Most of us in that class maintained an interest in politics, and some of us went on to work for Elections Canada. And now that teacher is retired, but was elected to the public school board. It's been 40 years, but a few of us who stayed in this area still reminisce about "the Lemke School of Politics."

So some teachers can really make an incredible difference in the lives of their students.

I'm aware of plenty of my peers who read things outside of class, history related or no. It's not their only source!

That was me, in Grade 8 science. Once I found the astronomy section in the school library, I spent the next 2 years' worth of noon hours reading Asimov's essays, The Atlas of the Universe, and many others. My classmates couldn't figure out why I'd spend my free reading period on Asimov or books about stellar evolution, but I just found it so fascinating!

People got to read that in High School? Damn, I didn't get to read that until I got to college! Though not as part of the English curriculum, I just wanted to read it for years and never got the chance

My class didn't, but one of the other Grade 12 English teachers assigned it to his class. I have a copy around here somewhere, but haven't read it yet.

 

[BvBPL]

Maybe we should start a book club to discuss it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Formaldehyde]

The only voluminous hot air coming out here is your inaccurate, unsupported, and uncivil implication that my opposition to a unitary system of education for America can be read as an endorsement of racism.

What were you just saying about "strawmen" in another recent thread?

Are you trying to rationalize and defend these clearly nonsensical actions by Texas or not? Didn't you just claim that it should be the responsibility of every other community in the country to try to undo the untold damage they are causing by essentially teaching their own version of far-right Christian-influenced propaganda to children by those who are clearly unqualified to even be part of the discussion of what the school curriculum should be?

As to compative educational systems, it is my understanding that the United Kingdom itself does not have a centralized system with the Scotch educational system and goals varying from the English system. Education in Canada is also administered at the local level. Maybe some of our Scotch, English, and Canadian friends can elaborate on their systems.

Are you actually arguing that Canada is still part of the UK? Seriously?

Do you have a source describing the regional differences between what is taught in Scotland and England? How one completely perverts slavery and is directly responsible for turning the school textbooks into "mush", for instance?

Or is it part of this nonsense about how a centralized educational system can't possibly have any local or regional differences? How this must mean that state history is no longer taught in the US?

People can agree with each other on a point for different reasons you know.

And?

I'm not a hundred percent convinced that a unified national curriculum necessitates not learning about local history.

That is because it obviously has nothing at all to do with it. It is a silly red herring that was even repeated after it was made clear nobody was even suggesting that.

So wait, places like Germany aren't modern countries?

So wait, you are claiming that various parts of Germany are taught propaganda or fact based on the region? That the school system doesn't have a unified approach across the entire country? That those in Dusseldorf learn a distinctly different version of world history and even science than those in Berlin?

Source?

 

[Joecoolyo]

I had an incredible social studies teacher in junior high. Our Grade 7 was mostly Canadian history and current events. The history part was taught in a series of 5 modules, covering everything from the Vikings to modern times.

As for how he got us interested in all of this... he made it into a game. Basically, it was a combination of trivia quiz and a football game played on a gameboard, and every correct answer our team members got would move us closer to scoring a touchdown. I'm happy to say that the worst my team (I was captain) did was a tie; we were a competitive lot, and it wasn't unusual to remind our team mates to study for the next time.

Current events was our introduction to real-world politics. There was a provincial election that year, and we had to follow the news coverage on TV and in the newspapers. We had to keep a scrapbook of articles, write an essay, and watch the election night coverage on TV (one of the few nights I got to stay up past my bedtime "because the teacher said we have to watch the whole thing" ). Then the next day, we had a quiz. This was years before I was old enough to vote - I was all of 11 years old. Most of us in that class maintained an interest in politics, and some of us went on to work for Elections Canada. And now that teacher is retired, but was elected to the public school board. It's been 40 years, but a few of us who stayed in this area still reminisce about "the Lemke School of Politics."

So some teachers can really make an incredible difference in the lives of their students.

Yup! I don't remember much from junior high, but all my high school social studies teachers were fantastic. I have very fond memories of all of them, and the department as a whole. They're really what I remember most from high school, outside of friend related stuff!

That was me, in Grade 8 science. Once I found the astronomy section in the school library, I spent the next 2 years' worth of noon hours reading Asimov's essays, The Atlas of the Universe, and many others. My classmates couldn't figure out why I'd spend my free reading period on Asimov or books about stellar evolution, but I just found it so fascinating!


My class didn't, but one of the other Grade 12 English teachers assigned it to his class. I have a copy around here somewhere, but haven't read it yet.

I was more into video games like civ than I was into reading, but yeah, I read plenty outside of class. Especially moving towards senior year when the work was easy and not much was expected out of you. Always tried to have one book checked out constantly.

Also give it a read! It's a fantastic book! One of the few standouts of the post-apocalyptic genre, where it doesn't devolve into fantasy and keeps humans at the center.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

As to compative educational systems, it is my understanding that the United Kingdom itself does not have a centralized system with the Scotch educational system and goals varying from the English system. Education in Canada is also administered at the local level. Maybe some of our Scotch, English, and Canadian friends can elaborate on their systems.

Education is a provincial responsibility, although some attention is being paid to it in the federal election.

In Alberta we have the public (formerly the Protestant) system and the separate/Catholic system. Right now there is the absurd situation of the Catholic system looking to import 200 teachers from Ontario and other provinces because there aren't enough "suitable" teachers in Alberta. To teach in a Catholic school here, you have to "prove your Catholic faith" - even if what you teach has absolutely nothing to do with religion. In the meantime, there are plenty of qualified non-Catholic teachers who would be glad of a job. Apparently it's more important to believe in Catholicism than to be able to teach algebra.

What were you just saying about "strawmen" in another recent thread?

Are you actually arguing that Canada is still part of the UK? Seriously?

That is because it obviously has nothing at all to do with it. It is a silly red herring.

He might have meant the Commonwealth, which we are part of.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Education is a provincial responsibility, although some attention is being paid to it in the federal election.

Who sets the curriculum for the schools? Professional educators or locals elected by the population based on how much popular support and financing they can get from a handful of individuals?

Does each province have textbooks which have been written based on the desires of a handful of parents? Are the same textbooks used in all the provinces? Does each province have its own version of Canadian and world history, as well as science?

In Alberta we have the public (formerly the Protestant) system and the separate/Catholic system.

That is pretty weird on its own basis. I was quite surprised to just find out that Catholics actually outnumber Protestants in Canada. But Alberta has percentages which are fairly similar to the US in terms of Protestants and Catholics.

In the US, there are some Catholic schools in some areas. But a lot of Catholics still attend the public school system because that is what their parents want.

 

[Joecoolyo]

That is pretty weird on its own basis. I was quite surprised to just find out that Catholics actually outnumber Protestants in Canada. But Alberta has percentages which are fairly similar to the US in terms of Protestants and Catholics.

It makes some sense if you consider the French heritage of the Canadian colonies. Even though the French never really heavily populated their colonies, I'm not sure there was all that heavy a movement of immigration from Britain to Canada either (someone please correct me if there was!).

Outside of course of the black and white loyalist refugees who settled Nova Scotia.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Who sets the curriculum for the schools? Professional educators or locals elected by the population based on how much popular support and financing they can get from a handful of individuals?

Does each province have textbooks which have been written based on the desires of a handful of parents? Are the same textbooks used in all the provinces? Does each province have its own version of Canadian and world history, as well as science?

That is pretty weird on its own basis. I was quite surprised to just find out that Catholics actually outnumber Protestants in Canada. But Alberta has percentages which are fairly similar to the US in terms of Protestants and Catholics.

In the US, there are some Catholic schools in some areas. But a lot of Catholics still attend the public school system because that is what their parents want.

I'm going to have to do some reading to answer some of your questions, because it's been 35 years since I graduated high school.

As for the public/Catholic system, there are people who want to abolish that and have just one system. There's a crazy amount of redundancy, with vast amounts of money and resources wasted because some things have to be done twice.

 

[Ice_Tyrant]

I'm sure you can provide ample evidence of this.

Textbooks were the start of my history obsession. I'd read them in 5th grade while ignoring the class. Only years later did I realize just how biased those books were in favor of America.

I'll give America props for making me learn it sucked once I started growing up. As bad as Texas is I'm sure the propaganda in may countries just goes the full course.

 

[BvBPL]

Education is a provincial responsibility, although some attention is being paid to it in the federal election.

Thank you for the information, Valka.

As for the comparison between the United Kingdom and Canada, that was more because both, like the US, are multinational states rather than for any past or current relationship between the two. Canada was a convenient additional example of a decentralized school system in a multinational state that I am at least passingly familiar with.


One could contrast the UK/Canada/USA decentralization with Belgium's system which is, I guess, more centralized despite having very strong national identities within the multinational state.

India would be another example of a multinational state with a decentralized school system. That's not as great example as others given that India is a developing nation.

I'm not sure about Australia. I would hazard that Australia has a decentralized system emphasizing provincial control, but I don't know. Input from those with more knowledge on the subject is welcomed.

For that matter, I'm not sure if Australia is a multinational state, a nation state, or something else. Any thoughts?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jackelgull]

Please don't use India as an example of a developing nation where a provincial system of schools work. For an example of craziness in India, states have the power to decide what private schools get the stamp of approval and the right to continue.Guess what the requirements are in a lot of states- size of the school in sq meters. Not test results like a reasonable person would assume. This basically prices out the private schools that are trying to offer a decent quality of education to the poor.

The public schools of India... well they're getting better. Atleast there's that.