http://www.tfn.org/site/PageServer?pagename=issues_public_schools_textbook_censorship
Geez , Texas needs to rewrite the way they run their school board elections . :eek: Get these :rolleyes: conservative Christians :rolleyes: the hell away from anything concerning the education of school children .
More sane Texans need to get out & vote for their State Board Of Education rep. The office comes near the end of a very long ballot; many people don’t bother to go that far. Or just don’t bother to get out & vote.
The public-school-hating, Bible-thumping, Battle-Flag-waving, science-denying candidates tend to be Republican. (Big surprise.)
As usual, the Texas Freedom Network has gone into the subject. In detail.
Good point. By the nit-picker’s own admission, the textbook mentions “slave” at least once. What does she expect for that minor incident in U.S. history? A whole paragraph?? :eek:
Confirmed. Every cycle we get inundated with free sample texts from publishers eager to make a sale to our district. Last cycle I had, let’s see…9 different books to choose from for AP Euro. At least that many for American Government. The books all have to be aligned with the State Curriculum Standards, but that’s it.
If you go to the Nation’s Report card site and look at the scores for the states form 2009. You will find that Texas’s relatively poor showing is because of Simpson’s paradox. Texas students for all races do better than the national average for those races. Once you adjust for race and income status Texas has one of the best school systems in the country.
The biggest problem with the graphic in the OP is not the “workers” thing, since any worker brought by the slave trade would obviously be a slave, but that it is an order of magnitude off. Only about 388,000 thousands slaves were shipped from Africa to North America, not millions.
Thank you! Regardless the size of the state your issue is “misrepresentation”.
Are you saying these text books are providing flaw details concerning historical events, people, and places or are you saying these books contain completely fabricated tales of things they never happened. Sometimes mistakes can relay minute details. A writers notes can be misread and wrong information given; sometimes the writer’s memory is relied on and slightly altered information is recorded; or even another writer’s mistake can contribute to printed errors. I have had to correct a few publishers on misrepresentations. Also, different writers provide different perceptions on events (for example I have three U.S. history books. The first two are very similar. They are the view point of american politicians and white American breed, ivy league doctors in historical studies. However, the last one is a shorter World History book (focusing on United States war and foreign relationships beginning with two known accounts of the great flood and ending with September 11, 200).
School boards do not write nor publish the books distributed in the classroom. Up through high school state committees vote on acceptable literatures and provide choice to individual school districts for what they feel is sufficient. They know as well as others that some things in history are wishy washy because documentation gets lost and records are ruined stolen or fabricated. Here you have to compare sources and deduct yourself whats right and whats wrong, but this is according to you.
In Texas, the SBOE sets “guidelines” for curricula & textbooks and then reviews the results; the School Board is the “committee” you mention. The Republicans have a slight majority; David Barton was among the "experts"consulted when setting history standards. Here are the Texas Freedom Network’s problems with those standards.
[ul]
[li]A revised standard that downplays the central role that the issue of slavery played in causing the Civil War[/li][li]A new requirement that students contrast the ideas in Confederate President Jefferson Davis’s inaugural address (which didn’t even mention slavery) with speeches by U.S. President Abraham Lincoln[/li][li]Downplaying the significance of Enlightenment ideas on political revolutions from the 1750s to the present[/li][li]Revised standards that exaggerate religious influences on the Founders and the founding documents[/li][li]A new standard requiring that students learn about the political positions of conservative leaders and icons, such as Phyllis Schlafly and Moral Majority[/li][li]A revised standard suggesting that witch hunts by Sen. Joseph McCarthy and the House Un-American Activities Committee in the1950s were justified[/li][li]Removing the concept of “responsibility for the common good,” which one board member criticized as too communistic[/li][/ul]
If you’re interested, read the “conservative” Thomas B Fordham Institute’s view of the standards. (Here’s the pdf.) A small excerpt:
Hmmm–“the relativist and diversity-obsessed educational left”–sounds conservative to me. But they aren’t nuts; they gave Texas a D.
The textbooks resulting from these guidelines weren’t as bad as they could have been. (Again, there is much more information at TFN; they’ve been watcing these guys for years.) But problems remain. And, since Texas buys so many textbooks, other states will have to deal with them.
I’m not sure of your point. I believe the textbook in question has several chapters on slavery. The brouhaha is over the fact that a caption on one of the charts says that the Atlantic slave trade brought Africans over as agricultural workers.
So the book mentioned in that caption that they were slaves at least as often as it mentioned that they were workers. Elsewhere in the book, AFAIK the topic of slavery was covered in greater detail.
I wonder if conversations about ancestral history are a little uncomfortable in that Texas mom’s family -
African-American Child: “Grampa, how did our family come to America?”
African-American Grampa: “The slave traders brought us over here to work the fields.”
African-American Child: “Grampa, you’re a racist!”
Regards,
Shodan
I think the Texas Freedom Network needs to change its name. The far-right tea-party-ish conservative wing has largely co-opted the otherwise-admirable word “Freedom” for just about everything in their ideology – everything from Religious Freedom Restoration Acts to Freedom Fries, etc.
When I see an organization with “Freedom” in its name, my knee-jerk reaction is to think it some far-right-wing group.
Why is no one mad at the publisher???
They are. They are also mad at Texas for [del]accepting[/del] requiring such a textbook. But publishers go where the money is, and Texas has a big wallet.
Well, they don’t seem to be mad at the publisher. Did I miss something on this thread???
I think it’s that generally people don’t expect any better of any business than to try to make money and not break the law, sad as that is. There are higher expectations of those choosing the textbooks for the children of their state.
Anyone who spends a minute at the TFN site realizes they are not Rightwingers. There’s nothing wrong with the word “Freedom.”
Kneejerk reactions are, by definition, useless.
You could have stated that the textbook had those chapters; that would have been more relevant to your point than the little snark about whether someone knows what “slave” means. That you didn’t, and still couldn’t guess my point, baffles me.
I’ll take your side in this sub-debate if you have a cite for your claim about “several chapters on slavery.” Without evidence, I’m sure you’ll understand why I’ll treat that claim skeptically.
The big factor is that most states allow each school district to choose its own textbooks. In Texas, school districts have to buy textbooks from a list that’s issued by the State Board of Education in order to receive state funds.
He can’t state that because he doesn’t know. He “believes” that a geography textbook has several chapters on slavery? Or maybe he more likely believes liberals are probably whining over nothing yet again.
Yeah, the complaints about Texas are correct. I was saying California is not like that.
I don’t have a link to the textbook itself, which is why I didn’t say I knew it, but the publisher says -
Cite. I believe it - it is the sort of thing that would be easily disproven, and there is enough RO that I expect someone would check.
But you are correct that liberals are whining over nothing.
The chapters were irrelevant to my point, which was that the caption mentions that they were slaves just as much as it mentions that they were workers.
I didn’t get your point because you seemed to be asserting that the caption was the only mention of slavery in the textbook. Since it isn’t, I didn’t understand why you would be arguing based on such a point. My apologies - I assumed you knew the relevant facts on a topic on which you were expressing an opinion.
Regards,
Shodan
“Addresses slavery in several lessons” does not equal several chapters on slavery. In fact, the section under discussion is part of a chapter on immigration that addresses slavery in one bubble caption.
Eta: The Houston paper today contradicts what some are saying here. It says school districts are not required to use material aproved by the State board but rather many do rather than go through an approval process themselves.