Fair enough, but since textbooks aren't formed on the back of a napkin or matchcover during cocktail hour, and there's this great "new" research tool called the internet (where you can find knowledge and accredited takes on said knowledge), it's kind of moot.It is moot that children have to wade through utter nonsense in school because they can look on the internet for the information, got it. Wouldn't it be better if we actually attempted to teach our children pertinent information to help them become productive members of society without all the bias unnecessary nonsense? Wasting their time in the classroom only to advocate them learning on their free time does not sound like a constructive learning experience to me.

Exactly why forcing kids to waste time on Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth was such a collossal waste of time. Besides, teachers already waste kids' time with trite bromides like "capitalism sucks". Anyway, I wasn't referring to kids in the classroom but the people who decide what goes in a textbook, which was pretty clear from the context of the discussion at hand.

This is not a new tactic in Texas; these people are trying to introduce their bias agenda through the classroom. Before you say they are already that they are only doing the same thing as the liberals go back to my first point. This is Texas, even when the Democrats were in charge they were conservative Democrats not liberal Democrats and it has been a long time since even they have been in charged. The difference now is people that only qualification is they are on the religious right are the only ones that are being elected to the board of education because their intention is to indoctrinate our children to further their political agenda.

You can bring up red herrings like Al Gore all you want, but go back to we are talking about Texas not California or New York, Al Gore has nothing to do with Texas’ education system. The topic is what Texas is putting into textbooks to teach their children. If it was not being mandatorily taught to children I would not care what was being put into the book. I have no problem with Savage, Rush, O’Reilly or any liberal hack writing a book. The problem, I see, is when they force teachers to teach propaganda over facts and science in the classroom.

The only reason I even bothered referencing Gore in the first place was b/c of your contention that the teachers shouldn't be wasting kids time with questionable learning material that you felt had no bearing. Now, maybe TX was different and its public school system didn't inflict Gore on its children, but that wasn't the thrust of my point, merely an aside to point out that education already does it anyway. Having read the article, I mentioned only that at least SOME of the things they were pushing for were NOT w/o merit. If one of your hangups is that they are looking to teach "creation science" in the science classroom.....well, I've already said elsewhere that it doesn't really belong there. As to talking about the role God or religion had on the founding of the country, it's simply a lie to imply that the Founders put God in a box and decided to ignore Him completely when crafting the country.

The Revolution didn't occur in a philosophical bubble. I think it's stupid to suggest that their religious beliefs didn't impact their actions. Frankly, it was a combination of secular and religious influences that drove the Founders. It was neither completely secular nor completly religious.......Some of the suggestions listed as changes were NOT unreasonable. Keynsian economics is a bust, so if it's going to be taught, there's no reason the kids shouldn't be taught about Freidman as well and the "free-enterprise" system. If McCarthyism is going to be taught, then the Verona papers should be mentioned as well. Proves McCarthy was right about the threat, but was likely his own worst enemy in presentation. And both faces of the "civil rights" proponents should be examined. I'll reiterate here what I said above, the revolution wasn't some strictly secular movement vs the Brits. The "founding fathers" were comprised of more than just a few cherry picked figures, prominently figuring amongst them Jefferson. I don't advocate leaving him out, either, though.

So, maybe I missed something from your pov, but what exactly are they advocating as a change that you find objectionable? Or is the process used to arrive at the content the problem?

I’m against forcing anything useless down the throats of our students in the name of a political agenda. Making teachers waste their and their students’ time on meaningless drivel to push forth any political agenda is ludicrous. Not eliminating people based on the fact that they may actually be knowledgeable in a field of study and know what the student needs to learn in order to advance to the next level of study may also be a little helpful. That is, if the goal of our education system is to actually advance learning and not merely be socialized daycare centers.

I totally advocate the learning of God and Christian values for those that want such things, just they should be taught at home and in church, not in public schools.

The only reason I even bothered referencing Gore in the first place was b/c of your contention that the teachers shouldn't be wasting kids time with questionable learning material that you felt had no bearing. Now, maybe TX was different and its public school system didn't inflict Gore on its children, but that wasn't the thrust of my point, merely an aside to point out that education already does it anyway.

You know, I'm kinda curious who exactly is forcing children to watch Al Gore's movie. Even if it was wrong on several points, and Al Gore can be a hypocrite, it was kinda a big deal at the time. I wasn't even in high-school then, and the movie is still fairly recent, so I'm just wondering who, in the last 4 years, has updated their curriculum to have kids watch this movie?

My schools Env. Science class had to watch it but it wasn't the same as like watching a documentary on cell organelles where pretty much everything is set in stone truth, they had to write a paper on if they agreed with it or not or something like that, I never took the class because I had better things to do with my time.

You know, I'm kinda curious who exactly is forcing children to watch Al Gore's movie. Even if it was wrong on several points, and Al Gore can be a hypocrite, it was kinda a big deal at the time. I wasn't even in high-school then, and the movie is still fairly recent, so I'm just wondering who, in the last 4 years, has updated their curriculum to have kids watch this movie?

Kinda curious how you decided I said/implied it was actually a codified part of the curriculum when I made clear that the Gore piece was an example of people in education wasting kids time (in response to mimartin's stated concern that kids have their heads filled with mush during the schoolday) w/at best, questionable material presented as fact in school systems throughout the US and apparently even in Britain, where there was a consequent legal ruling on it's suitability. What kids see in school isn't merely what's in a textbook, but also whatever materials a teacher wishes (or is permitted) to add to supplement it with during the class lesson.

I totally advocate the learning of God and Christian values for those that want such things, just they should be taught at home and in church, not in public schools.

Frankly, I agree that the public school shouldn't be indoctrinating kids with any one religion's theologies. However, there is a great degree of overlap between many religious and secular values (if you use the 10 Commandments as an example, pretty much everything from #s 4-10 are secular in nature anyway). Fankly, there is no reason that religion should be dropped as subject material from a public school b/c the idea is to educate kids about the world around them. Mind you, I'm not talking about preaching, but rather exposing kids to the roles religion has played throughout history, esp American history (as we're talking about the US here). The world is not a secular vacuum where religion exists only in the homes of individuals, but is a major motivational (for good and bad) force in human events. Also, it's impossible for people to understand the antipathies at play, for example, in the ME w/knowing anything about religion. So, like with any subject, it's not so much the material.....but also the spin put on it that causes most of the problems.



That is, if the goal of our education system is to actually advance learning and not merely be socialized daycare centers.

Sadly, they seem to have become that anyway.

You know, I'm kinda curious who exactly is forcing children to watch Al Gore's movie. Even if it was wrong on several points, and Al Gore can be a hypocrite, it was kinda a big deal at the time. I wasn't even in high-school then, and the movie is still fairly recent, so I'm just wondering who, in the last 4 years, has updated their curriculum to have kids watch this movie?

Northern CA most likely. Though it's nearing 10 years even since I graduated, myself. The ones that did have environmental science mixed into their curriculum often had teachers of that particular subject who were almost fanatic about Al Gore and them. So I imagine this type of teacher who has been around between the turn of the century and now have glommed onto it.

While complaints forced the schools to stop requiring viewing of such material in order to get a passing grades, often times the department would find ways around it. I.E. reward you for watching it and not reward you for not watching it. While this doesn't sound so bad at first, the curriculum was largely on a curve whose content hinged around such documentaries. Tricky questions on the final. While you'd still pass if you didn't answer them correctly, you might only get a B or C, instead of A's and B's.

Though there are other, more agreeable relevant ways to make up for it through extra credit. However it would take longer and more involvement than if you just bit the bullet and put up with the BS.

Kinda curious how you decided I said/implied it was actually a codified part of the curriculum when I made clear that the Gore piece was an example of people in education wasting kids time (in response to mimartin's stated concern that kids have their heads filled with mush during the schoolday) w/at best, questionable material presented as fact in school systems throughout the US and apparently even in Britain, where there was a consequent legal ruling on it's suitability. What kids see in school isn't merely what's in a textbook, but also whatever materials a teacher wishes (or is permitted) to add to supplement it with during the class lesson.

NO, I'm sorry, you do NOT get to repeat the "but they're making kids watch Al Gore!!" Throughout over half a dozen posts and then turn around and say "well I didn't mean that." You claimed it, now back it up.

NO, I'm sorry, you do NOT get to repeat the "but they're making kids watch Al Gore!!" Throughout over half a dozen posts and then turn around and say "well I didn't mean that." You claimed it, now back it up.

You are sorry and YOU don't get to twist words and make irrational demands either. Also, hyperbole doesn't help on your part. ;)

And it's a LOT easier when that philosophy inherently disagrees with the founding concepts of your nation.
I would venture to say that anything that undermines a person's free will disagrees with the founding concepts of my nation, no matter what agenda it's pushing.

Web Rider, Totenkopf, tone it down. The topic is Texas curricula, not Al Gore. Web Rider, if you don't like the answer (or perceived or actual lack thereof), you are not required to answer. No one is required to answer some or even any of someone's questions.


And a note to everyone, once you report a post, if you go back and respond to the person you've just reported, it makes more work for us. If we end up deleting part or all of the reported post, we have to go back and delete the relevant portions in YOUR post as well. This does not make us inclined to look favorably upon your post/report/commentary/etc. You are free to continue making obscene and/or socially unacceptable gestures at your monitor, however.

OK. Back on subject: messed up as it is, you have this instance of curriculum revision in this direction, and so many others 'revise' in the opposite direction. So IMO it sort of has a net balancing effect.

Texas affecting textbooks for the rest of the country? Maybe nearby states to TX or something like that. It would seem to act in a reverse or opposite direction in CA. :indif: Wasn't the case with Nebraska schools when I was there either. Or Ohio. Or Colorado.

So mimartin...I'm not sure what you're saying here, because none of the places I went to seemed really affected by Texas. Could you please be more specific?

OK. Back on subject: messed up as it is, you have this instance of curriculum revision in this direction, and so many others 'revise' in the opposite direction. So IMO it sort of has a net balancing effect.

Texas affecting textbooks for the rest of the country? Maybe nearby states to TX or something like that. It would seem to act in a reverse or opposite direction in CA. :indif: Wasn't the case with Nebraska schools when I was there either. Or Ohio. Or Colorado.

So mimartin...I'm not sure what you're saying here, because none of the places I went to seemed really affected by Texas. Could you please be more specific?
Most states buy textbooks from Texas. So what changes they make and what rewrites they make can, and will bleed in other states books. If they turn out too mangled (as it appears they will be) districts may just stop buying from them and find a new supplier which is, most likely, what is going to happen.

The main issue being that they've removed a few important historical figures from the books, and are messing with the Constitutional law sections and doing so without the guidance or even input from anyone from the respective fields. They also appear to be messing with sociology textbooks, and I can tell just by reading their comments on it that they really have no idea how Sociology works. While I appreciate some of their upgrades in some areas, I fear for the wording of such upgrades since they've already stated their goal is to fight the "liberal bias" and make the Republicans look better in students eyes.

For laughs:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-march-17-2010/don-t-mess-with-textbooks)

Texas affecting textbooks for the rest of the country? Texas like larger states California, New York, Florida... These larger markets can force book manufactures to include stupid material like this into their books. Then smaller markets with less influence get stuck with the consequences. Either that or text book manufactures can print multiple additions of the same book, however this option only increases their cost which they pass on to the consumer. You know us tax payers.

So far the text book manufactures have sold the Texas influence books nationwide, hopefully this latest attempt at stupid wasteful requirements will make them reconsider.

I would agree with the assessment that "none of you probably knew who he was before..." was a lame reason for exclusion. Has anyone seen a complete list of all the proposed changes and their rationale yet?

I would like to see which changes actually went through, versus what was proposed.

I would like to see which changes actually went through, versus what was proposed.Then you will have to wait until May when their decision is due. I’m not optimistic as these are the same people that put non-science into science textbooks.

I'm for freedom of religion
No, you're not.
This just makes me believe more and more that religion should be banned.
At all.
I'm fine with giving up some forms of freedom of speech
So, your nation's constitution and its amendments don't mean jack to you? Scary.