Filo
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,928
|
Post by Filo on Jul 13, 2009 21:05:42 GMT -5
Apparently, history is no longer what has happened in the past. Can't believe some of the stuff being proposed here. Ugh. I find it dismaying (on both sides, really, but some of the stuff from the conservative group is downright intellectually dishonest). The Culture Wars' New Front: U.S. History Classes in Texas |
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Jul 13, 2009 21:35:15 GMT -5
Huh. Is it cynicism, realism, geopolitical bias, a deep yearning for common sense in education, or a penchant for historical accuracy that makes me feel weird about where this could go? Like a bunch of different agendas might be placated, but at the expense of a coherent story?
And which version are they going with? And which principles for that matter? And to what extent do you think they'll actually acknowledge the contributions of Adam Smith, Aristotle, Hobbs, Rousseau, Mills, Aquinas, Newton, etc. to the story of our nation's founding principles? Or is that already done in Texas public schools? (AustinHoya? DFW?)
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,869
|
Post by thebin on Jul 13, 2009 22:30:14 GMT -5
Disgusting on both sides. One the one hand we hardly need more ink on Cesar Chavez than George Washington. Have we not moved past the notion of schools as places for identity politics therapy? Until we do, our children will continue to have too much self esteem and too little education. One the other hand, there were just some flat out lies being pushed about our fictitious christian/biblical national founding. For shame.
|
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Jul 13, 2009 23:10:06 GMT -5
Okay, long story short: The State Board of Education used to be a down ballot race that nobody cared about. It was populated mainly by retired teachers who chose to go into public service. After Texas transitioned to a one-party state in the 1990s, with Rove types running the GOP party apparatus, the SBOE became a cause celebre of social conservatives. Candidates started even to include people who homeschooled their children and wrote books advocating the dismantling of the public school system. After these people started getting support/financing, they started winning primaries and bouncing the moderates on the board. Because the state Democratic Party was/is a complete shambles, the primary was the only race these people needed to win. The board is now virtually comprised entirely of the kind of Republican I don't like -- the kind who think they were elected to push a social conservative agenda at all costs. (ON EDIT: Okay, "virtually comprised entirely" is actually not accurate, it just seems that way because the social conservatives vote as a bloc.) Here are some more fun facts: www.texasmonthly.com/2008-10-01/feature5.phpThings are changing -- the Democratic party is creeping back into Texas politics, and cooler heads in the Texas Lege voiced their displeasure by refusing to reconfirm the SBOE chairman this spring. I expect some spirited SBOE races in 2010. |
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jul 13, 2009 23:14:33 GMT -5
For all the hubbub over some of these suggestions, you can count me in the camp of those who think the following recommendation needs to be implemented in every school across the country:
(I don't agree entirely with their reasoning behind this suggestion -- poetry, folktales and art are all relatively important aspects of studying history -- but it is my firm belief that schools and teachers rely way too much on secondary sources...and that isn't just K-12, that goes up through the undergraduate and postgraduate levels as well)
* Emphasize study of original documents
The three reviewers appointed by social conservatives on the board all say students should study more original documents, rather than relying on a textbook author to interpret them. The current standards rely too much on supplementary material such as poetry, folktales and art, they say, and too little on original documents and historical narratives."
|
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Jul 13, 2009 23:40:22 GMT -5
One the one hand we hardly need more ink on julio chavez than george washington. I agree. Children can learn about the sport of boxing and its place in American history on their own time. |
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Jul 14, 2009 0:36:53 GMT -5
Disgusting on both sides. One the one hand we hardly need more ink on julio chavez than george washington. Have we not moved past the notion of schools as places for identity politics therapy? Until we do, our children will continue to have too much self esteem and too little education. One the other hand, there were just some flat out lies being pushed about our fictitious christian/biblical national founding. For shame. I think the christian side is engaging identity politics as well, just for a different identity. In either case, yes, very bad. Are there any actual historians giving their recommendations to the board? |
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Jul 14, 2009 7:10:58 GMT -5
The conservative reviewers say they believe that children must learn that America's founding principles are biblical. For instance, they say the separation of powers set forth in the Constitution stems from a scriptural understanding of man's fall and inherent sinfulness, or "radical depravity," which means he can be governed only by an intricate system of checks and balances.
From which "original document" did they pull this gem?
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,912
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Jul 14, 2009 7:40:35 GMT -5
For all the hubbub over some of these suggestions, you can count me in the camp of those who think the following recommendation needs to be implemented in every school across the country: (I don't agree entirely with their reasoning behind this suggestion -- poetry, folktales and art are all relatively important aspects of studying history -- but it is my firm belief that schools and teachers rely way too much on secondary sources...and that isn't just K-12, that goes up through the undergraduate and postgraduate levels as well)
* Emphasize study of original documents
The three reviewers appointed by social conservatives on the board all say students should study more original documents, rather than relying on a textbook author to interpret them. The current standards rely too much on supplementary material such as poetry, folktales and art, they say, and too little on original documents and historical narratives."I think this point is so obvious it hardly merits mentioning, but I'll go ahead and state it anyway: poetry, folktales (depending on origin) and art ARE original sources oftentimes, and valuable ones at that. What better way to convey French Revolutionary spirit (granted, it's a later revolution, but still) than "La Liberté guidant le peuple"? The idea of placing greater emphasis on primary sources has been around for a long time - this is why Document Based Questions were included in the AP History exams, for instance. The usual cost-benefit tradeoffs have precluded it from advancing too far: it's much more difficult and time-consuming to go through the Magna Carta piece by piece than it is to simply give the three-sentence (or less) explanation of why it was important. |
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,869
|
Post by thebin on Jul 14, 2009 7:44:34 GMT -5
One the one hand we hardly need more ink on julio chavez than george washington. I agree. Children can learn about the sport of boxing and its place in American history on their own time. Fixed. |
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jul 14, 2009 8:41:37 GMT -5
I think this point is so obvious it hardly merits mentioning, but I'll go ahead and state it anyway: poetry, folktales (depending on origin) and art ARE original sources oftentimes, and valuable ones at that. What better way to convey French Revolutionary spirit (granted, it's a later revolution, but still) than "La Liberté guidant le peuple"? The idea of placing greater emphasis on primary sources has been around for a long time - this is why Document Based Questions were included in the AP History exams, for instance. The usual cost-benefit tradeoffs have precluded it from advancing too far: it's much more difficult and time-consuming to go through the Magna Carta piece by piece than it is to simply give the three-sentence (or less) explanation of why it was important. As I said, their reasoning may be flawed (the poetry and folktales concept), but their conclusion and recommendation is correct, IMO. And look, I know you were just picking an example out of the air, but honestly? Students in History class shouldn't be required to read the Magna Carta? I don't think you were, but please tell me you are not defending that idea. You might as well just say, "Hey, don't worry about reading the U.S. Constitution. Here's the gist of it...." Sorry, any school that doesn't think that document -- among many, many others -- is required reading for any History class (OK, maybe not until middle school or so) is a school that is in dire need of new teachers and administration. And yes, the Delacroix painting is definitely worthy of study, of course, but if you ask me to rank it as more important than students studying The Declaration of the Rights of Man and The Citizen, I disagree with that completely. EDIT: And of course, I just illustrated how long it's been since I studied history by screwing up two different eras. I was going to edit this out above, but I can cop to my own stupidity once in a while. I still think my overall point is valid. |
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Jul 14, 2009 9:10:51 GMT -5
I think the original documents question depends on what age the students are. If a 4th Grader read the Magna Carta, would they get much out of it? Probably not. They'd understand it a lot better if they read about it in the textbook.
Once that kid gets to 8th Grade, they can read the most important parts of the Magna Carta, supplemented with analysis from a book and/or the teacher. In the 11th Grade AP class they can read the whole thing and write a paper on what it means.
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,912
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Jul 14, 2009 9:52:53 GMT -5
And look, I know you were just picking an example out of the air, but honestly? Students in History class shouldn't be required to read the Magna Carta? I don't think you were, but please tell me you are not defending that idea. You might as well just say, "Hey, don't worry about reading the U.S. Constitution. Here's the gist of it...." Sorry, any school that doesn't think that document -- among many, many others -- is required reading for any History class (OK, maybe not until middle school or so) is a school that is in dire need of new teachers and administration. No no, I'm definitely in favor of emphasizing primary source material (although primary documents also need to be contextualized, e.g. lest anyone think that when the Founders wrote "all men are created equal," they actually believed that, because they obviously didn't). I was just explaining why such a seemingly obvious idea hasn't been adopted more thoroughly. |
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jul 14, 2009 9:53:14 GMT -5
No, that's absolutely right, Stig. Sorry, I thought I included that in one of my previous responses. I have no problem with schools determining what is age-appropriate (within reason). That makes perfect sense. Sorry for not making that clear.
I think I disagree with you only somewhat about at what age students should be able to read and study full documents, but I am certainly not making the case that first (or even fourth, fifth or sixth) graders should be expected to read all of the Magna Carta and completely comprehend it (on the other hand, I think reading the full document should not be reserved only for high school juniors in AP classes).
EDIT: And to Russky as well, sorry for going off. I do think we agree for the most part. Maybe we differ somewhat on the details, but that's about it. I should add, while I think there are many essential things to study in French history, the Delacroix is, in fact, a very important primary source, as you stated, and a good quality education will of course include that, and the influence it had in the world.
Maybe what I'm really saying is, let's not underestimate the ability of American students to study more than what they seem to be doing today. We can have the art, and the poetry and the folktales without sacrificing original historical documents or commentary. If we have to do away with anything, make it the modern commentary on historical events, not anything that's actually from the era in question.
|
|
jgalt
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,380
|
Post by jgalt on Jul 14, 2009 14:41:03 GMT -5
Just as an anal clarification, Boz, reading the entire text of the magna carta would be rather pointless in that it deals primarily with the relationship between barons and the king. I understand that you mean reading it to understand how it developed a system where the king (or president) is not above the law, and that is obviously extremely important. But in the case of this document only certain parts remain relevant today; I believe there are actually only a few small pieces that are in the British law today. Here is a link to the full text: www.bl.uk/treasures/magnacarta/translation/mc_trans.htmla good clause is 10: "If anyone who has borrowed a sum of money from Jews dies before the debt has been repaid, his heir shall pay no interest on the debt for so long as he remains under age, irrespective of whom he holds his lands. If such a debt falls into the hands of the Crown, it will take nothing except the principal sum specified in the bond."Im not trying to be a jerk, just clarifying and i dont mean to tread on your main point that Primary documents are critical to understanding history and the future; i completely agree with that. Its only that the Magna Carta is a poor choice as an example. I think a really good one would be the Federalist Papers which are rarely read in full until AP history in High School or College, but they are fairly easy to read and accurately portray what the logic behind the constitution is (something these people in Texas may want to read!) EDIT: I am fully aware of how much of a jerk this post makes me ;D |
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jul 14, 2009 15:02:58 GMT -5
Fair enough......jerk.
;D
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,988
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jul 14, 2009 15:23:15 GMT -5
Context is vitally important. Source documents without context -- in a well meaning attempt to get rid of some of this supposed bias -- are awful, as jgalt has shown.
That strummer quote is RIDICULOUS. It's fairly obvious to me that people involved here have no interest in actual history.
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506 
|
Post by theexorcist on Jul 14, 2009 15:29:41 GMT -5
On part of this issue, I recommend "Dave Barry Slept Here", which, in addition to copious references to the Hawley-Smoot tariff, talks about the contributions made by women and minority groups "despite having the legal rights of gravel".
I'm not so sold on original documents at the middle or high school level, save a few basic, short ones (Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence, speeches by famous leaders) - the time for that study is late in high school and college, when you begin to really learn to think critically. It's unreasonable to expect these for tests.
Some points on each side are good - I like the focus on Texas history (a more local focus engages students), and Thurgood Marshall isn't a particularly sexy choice.
The really interesting proposal that has no shot? Religion. The US is, like it or not, consistently more religous than almost anywhere else in the developed world. If you're going to understand how the United States developed and evolved, you've GOT to discuss religion and its role.
I don't really get the Cold War opposition - fifty years of US history was based on it, and you can't really ignore it.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,988
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jul 14, 2009 15:36:09 GMT -5
By all means, discuss religion. It was a prime driver of immigration to this country and has influenced its choices.
Church and State, however, was not established because humans were inherently sinful.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jul 14, 2009 15:46:09 GMT -5
Everyone on this board is radically depraved.
|
|
