Showing posts with label standards. Show all posts
Showing posts with label standards. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 26, 2010

A New Standard in Bias

I came across the headline of the pending changes to the Texas educational standards and ended up frustrated, mad and confused. All this had to be an exaggeration, conjecture, or something I just misunderstood. The simple fact is, the absurdity is understated. A quick reading of the actual draft left me perplexed and concerned. A more careful read made me angry. The neat thing about a draft is the changes and evolution of the document just pop out leaving little to imagination about the intent of the author.

Read the draft HERE.


So these non-educated, non-historians, nonsensical board members have done their work. It's quite interesting to see how their thoughts come together. What they decide to leave in, what they decide to leave out speaks volumes. Their choice of words speak much as well as the context which they are used. Words such as imperialism, expansionism, and aggression are used with deliberation.


What is driving all this? Members of board would suggest their objective was to move things to the center from the left. The center? What about historical facts? Apparently the impact of the telegraph or vaccines is considered left wing. One could ask if Bill Clinton's sex scandal truly warrants to be considered an incident or scandal, as the draft revision puts it, but there is no mention of Oliver North and Ronald Reagan's involvement with the Iran-Contra affair. The former being incorrectly characterized as an impeachment, when it was technically did not ever make to a senate vote and the latter being technically high treason. If you read the draft you may consider the implications on how New Deal creations like the FDIC and the SEC affect your daily life, but the Patriot Act simply has a role in your life. It does not get the same suggested concern and is made to sound more benign than the SEC or the FDIC? The board believes George Wallace worthy of discussion but Thomas Jefferson is removed as not being relevant to enlightenment? We cannot reasonably expect that any person has zero bias, but what is so extraordinary here is that the bias is so blatant.



Below is my imagined meeting notes:





  • Refer to it as Bill Clinton's impeachment as if it were fact. But as far as any other incidents similar to this - make that scandals - leave it to just Watergate and Teapot Dome. Let's leave the names out. For crying out loud, do not refer to the Iran-Contra affair, ever!
  • McCarthy was vindicated by history. We have some letters to prove it, even though we still cannot find the names he was naming as those papers were blank sheets. So what if the reality of his committee was a witch hunt. The ends do justify the means and there were at least a couple of spies. Understood?
  • Some unnamed groups in the 1960s simply wanted to keep the "status quo" on civil rights. That's all. Nothing wrong with the status quo. No need for specifics on events, who these groups are, or even what that really means. It is not racism. It's the status quo and emphasise that change is scary.
  • Geography and geographic factors are to INCLUDE Panama Canal and the failed levies in New Orleans. Really. these are geographical. The dust bowl and great plains are geographical as well. Even though it was likely I was taught only the great plains were 'geographical'. The canal and levies were 'made' constructs, but so what. The Dust Bowl was just an era of bad climate and bad policy of ripping of topsoil and god knows we cannot bring up bad farm policies or admit the effects of climate change.
  • When it comes to society and resources, let's remove the notion of conservation. Instead, let's ONLY talk about the Fed taking your property. Really! Teddy Roosevelt was wrong to do this stuff.
  • Rock and Roll is the term used in describing mainstream pop culture along with some other forms of music such as country and western. I know its not 1955 people, but quite frankly I don't care. Let's not bring up jazz or any great American composers though as their influence must be minimal. But at the same time, let's study 'some literature' but let's remove anything specific on Grapes of Wrath and such. Maybe Grapes is covered in geography when discussing the Dust Bowl?
  • Upton Sinclair's The Jungle need not be considered any more. It might make people question their food supply once again. Just do not talk about it and no one will even consider how the food gets there. Whatever you do, no references to George Orwell's Animal Farm and 1984.
  • America's expansion no longer refers to America actually increasing its size or expanding through immigration and acquisition of territory. It refers to external threats such as Hawaii, Guam, and Cuba.
  • Social Darwinism? Is that what we renamed Evolutionary Psychology? Well, let's talk about this in the context of Prohibition, Red Scare, race relations, and the changing roles of females. I do not exactly understand what it is meant by Social Darwinism in the context with the others subjects, but I'll make something up as it sounds really good.
  • Please refer to the Battle of Midway as an 'issue' in WWII. Consider contextual discussion as Holocaust and Japanese Internment 'issues'. We'll discuss 'military events' such as the Bataan Death March, the invasion of Normandy, and 'military advancement' in another section. Make sure there is nothing too provocative that may suggest or interferes with us be portrayed as the protagonist.
  • Use the term home front when referring to the US in WWII. I had no idea the Germans and Japanese had standing armies here. Must have been how New Braunfel's was founded. Really, though - it sounds a lot better than suggesting we exclusively went off to war some 'place' no one today can even find on a map. The last thing we need is the kids thinking globally.
  • Was it American Indian Code Talkers? I am not sure on this. I will leave it there and we'll fix it later when we get our story straight on how we want this topic discussed, if at all.

  • The US expanded after WWII. The USSR was the aggressor. They did not expand. Get it? By the way, make sure you talk about JFK's role in the Cuban Missile thing. He is to be referenced by name. Other events post WWII? We'll just talk about some of the events, no need to get into names here. I am sure there were reasons, but let's keep it consistent with our narrative? OK?

  • There is the USA and there are other Foreign countries. Not other countries. Other sovereign nations can only be sovereign if we set up the regime so they fall in line and will NEVER give us issues. Let's be honest here, why would we would ever get involved if they were sovereign to begin with? Maybe if they had oil, gold, or diamonds, but I would have some doubts. Let's take the time to make this clear, righteous sounding, and simple. Never mind if sounds a little ominous, these kids won't appreciate the nuance and might help with recruitment.

  • Don't forget the Social Gospel. We'll discuss this one in detail later at our meeting on wedge issues to fight those sciency people by teaching the controversy. Maybe we can mix in to discussion on urbanisation or some social discussion on intelligent design?


Also, a hat tip the folks who managed to get military oriented short films in the elementary schools as well as visits to the elementary school by currently surviving service personnel on leave. Without any expectation of our wars ending or a clear purpose there is little point in wasting a decade or so before we hit the high school students with marketing 'service' as their best option. It is not like the standards we are setting will prepare anyone for college or the job market. A decade ago I would not have imagined we'd have such material as this available to our youngest students. Well done!


All the above notes could be true!

Friday, January 23, 2009

Texas BoE Vote Update- Or Hijackers of the GoP Update

Apparently Dallas, Texas - what one would expect to be the den of the conservative block of Texas - is not so narrow minded after all. Consider the Board of Education vote according to the Dallas Morning News: All three Dallas-area board members – Republicans Geraldine Miller of Dallas and Pat Hardy of Weatherford, and Democrat Mavis Knight of Dallas – opposed the rule that would allow the curriculum a creationism foothold by purporting flaws in evolutionary theory. They cited the recommendations of a science review committee of teachers and academics, who contended that talking about "weaknesses" would undermine the proper teaching of Charles Darwin’s theory of how humans evolved from lower life forms. On the other hand, the central area (Lampasas to Ft Worth area) Texas Board of Education members and The Woodlands (Houston) area, which one would naturally expect to be more, let us say enlightened, seemed to have difficulty distinguishing fact from fantasy. It highly probably these people do not have a grasp of the issues. Perhaps they lack even a basic high school level education level biology accreditation, nor could give you a definition of simple terms like theory, hypothesis, observation, validation, corroboration, geology, or evidence. At least for now – enough outraged people called and said enough is enough. The vote was narrow.

The final vote is in MARCH!!! SO DO NOT GIVE UP!

Do we need to reinforce that our expectation for all subjects be relevant?

1) Math? We teach math? Not 2+2=5? What if there is a miracle? You aint got no time machine to prove otherwise? Maybe 6000 years ago when the Earth was made, the 2+2 did make 5?
2) English? What if my bible says I decide I do not prononce nor spel the sam az yu.
3) Home Schoolin? My youngins got their learnins from their bible. It all good and they aint need no social skills as they get thit from church. I dont want them confused with devil words and trickery.
4) Chemistry? Why not Alchemy? Lead into Gold? It is great in a recession!
5) All theories are incomplete!!! Therefore, all are worthless! Therefore, no Gravity!
6) What is the point of having a standard, a discipline, if it actually means - nothing? It is no longer a science at that point. It is would be like confusing Astrology with Astronomy. Which probably is actually a tad confusing to certain BoE seat warmers!

Maybe we need a new board? At least, we need to thank the ones in Dallas who cared enough to consider the definition of 'science'! For the others? Consider there are places in the world where your 'ah' perspective would be 'tolerated'. Of course, you will be living in the 5th century - but that is what you are after - right? Just do not make me do it. If you want that for your children, send them such a place and pay for it yourself. Let them reap the consequences of non reality.