Re-writing history schoolbooks

[BobG]

"is a way of "adding balance" in the classroom, since "academia is skewed too far to the left."

A funny idea. If you can't get enough political support, enforce it into the minds of children.
The Conservative Religious Right never ceases to amuse me. I wonder when they'll move to drop Darwin and evolution from scholar programs.

The big-government "liberal" Left never cease to amaze me either with their efforts to brainwash children within the educational system. What you speak of goes both ways.

DanP, what you fail to recognize that whether you like it or not half the country is Christian, so it has been the liberals who don't have the 'political support' you speak of, and have been enforcing it on the minds of children through a government monopoly for decades.

Actually, much more than 50% of the country is Christian. However, that fact is irrelevant. The most heated debate is between a small number of atheists and an equally small number of fundamentalist Christians.

Perhaps the most annoying thing both sides do is to try to pretend that Christian fundamentalism and atheism are the only two choices that could ever possibly exist.

 

[calculusrocks]

Actually, much more than 50% of the country is Christian. However, that fact is irrelevant. The most heated debate is between a small number of atheists and an equally small number of fundamentalist Christians.

Perhaps the most annoying thing both sides do is to try to pretend that Christian fundamentalism and atheism are the only two choices that could ever possibly exist.

Well, I agree with that, and it's not a Christian/atheist issue. I do hope you were joking on the bribes stuff. An elite manipulating the situation would do absolutely nothing to solve the debate.

 

[DanP]

Perhaps the most annoying thing both sides do is to try to pretend that Christian fundamentalism and atheism are the only two choices that could ever possibly exist.

What would be a sensible choice in your opinion ?

 

[BobG]

I thought adding choice was a good solution. That way liberal parents can educate their children in liberalism, and Christians, Buddhists, etc. can choose to educate their children how they best feel fit. The problem, and this relates directly, is the uniformity in the textbook system, which seems somehow to be OK when the uniformity echos your own views, but not OK when it doesn't. DanP was attempting to trying to shift the debate into abortion, Darwinism, and Christianity.

Not that public schools do a great job of fulfilling their mission, but providing educational choice should not be the goal of a government funded program. The goal should be to teach the skills necessary to provide a better qualified labor force than the countries we compete against.

Teaching creationism would probably be bad, since you're intentionally creating less qualified students. But, as far as the other debates about teaching cultural and sexual diversity, cap it and spend less time on those subjects, in general. Schools should improve literacy, math, science knowledge, vocational skills (metal shop, wood shop, auto shop, electronics, etc). You want insight on how to improve education, go to employers for feedback, not educators, students, or parents.

If the country isn't obtaining some economic benefit from education, then it should drop it completely (or at least that portion), not turn it into a social welfare program designed to provide everyone the opportunity to brainwash their progeny.

 

[Char. Limit]

I also support the idea of tax credits in schools.

I do believe that, at least in history, the textbooks have been a bit left, especially in areas concerning politics, but I've just learned to read past the politics and find what facts there are in the text.

I feel that this debate could be solved with true choice in schools and textbooks, allowing parents to pick whichever school supports their beliefs, whichever they may be. A tax credit supports this, as many parents put their children in public schools because the private ones are too expensive.

My $0.02.

 

[DanP]

I The problem, and this relates directly, is the uniformity in the textbook system, which seems somehow to be OK when the uniformity echos your own views, but not OK when it doesn't. DanP was attempting to trying to shift the debate into abortion, Darwinism, and Christianity.

Actually, I couldn't care less if schools educate ppl in liberal values or not, or in conservative values or not. I don't give a dime.

What I care is keeping religion out of the schools, and lame excuses such as "academics is skewed on the left". In a word keep the poo of both religion and politics out of the schools.

 

[calculusrocks]

Actually, I couldn't care less if schools educate ppl in liberal values or not, or in conservative values or not. I don't give a dime.

What I care is keeping religion out of the schools, and lame excuses such as "academics is skewed on the left". In a word keep the poo of both religion and politics out of the schools.

Well, I certainly see your point. Religion should not be taught in public schools. But, what people do on their own dime is no business of mine so long as the math scores become competitive with the rest of the globe.

ADD: The real intention of 'choice' in regard to schools is to improve the institution of education. I believe most rational parents will not care so much about the religion and the politics, and will intelligently look at these school's academic records and pick the schools that do the best jobs educating the children.

 

[DanP]

Well, I certainly see your point. Religion should not be taught in public schools. But, what people do on their own dime is no business of mine so long as the math scores become competitive with the rest of the globe.

Sure. the family has an important role in educating the children. It is their prerogative to educate the children in the values they feel important.

ADD: The real intention of 'choice' in regard to schools is to improve the instatution of education. I believe most rational parents will not care so much about the religion and the politics, and will intelligently look at these school's academic records and pick the schools that do the best jobs educating the children.

The problem of choosing an adequate institution for education is many time limited by social options. Unfortunately, many will not have the luxury of wide choices. this is OK, it is only natural that some have less choices than others. The important point is to recognize this, and try to build a competitive public education system.

 

[Evo]

Well, I certainly see your point. Religion should not be taught in public schools. But, what people do on their own dime is no business of mine so long as the math scores become competitive with the rest of the globe.

ADD: The real intention of 'choice' in regard to schools is to improve the institution of education. I believe most rational parents will not care so much about the religion and the politics, and will intelligently look at these school's academic records and pick the schools that do the best jobs educating the children.

Where you live determines which school you attend, unless you go to a private school or get permission and pay for your child to attend an out of district school.

 

[Nebula815]

Not that public schools do a great job of fulfilling their mission, but providing educational choice should not be the goal of a government funded program. The goal should be to teach the skills necessary to provide a better qualified labor force than the countries we compete against.

Well that's actually what the public education system was designed for when one looks at its history and designers, problem is, teaching skills necessary to form a better qualified labor force isn't necessarily the same thing as educating people. The original goal of the educational system was to teach people to obey and follow orders. It was based off of the Prussian system, which was designed to produce soldiers and employees (with the idea that a classical education only be given to an elite few). It was not designed to enhance critical thinking skills and in certain ways was designed to retard them.

An example is how in public schools, children change classrooms for each class. This was done to socially condition people. If you read in T. Boone Pickens recent book, he even talks about how, back in the 1950s when he went to work for a big oil corporation, he said the work environment was almost identical to public school. You'd go in, have some free time, a bell would ring, you had five minutes to be at your work station, then later a lunch bell, eat lunch, bell again, back to work, etc...in private schools, children remain in the same classroom all day.

The Prussian type of school system is beloved by Big Government and Big Business because it creates a docile, sheeple labor force, a population easy to market all sorts of consumer goodies too, and an electorate easy to manipulate and control.

Today's public education system is the leftover remnants of such a system. There wasn't any central scheme or conspiracy to create such a school system, but if one studies the history and the people influential in the design of the public school system, that was much their mindset. For example Woodrow Wilson, a leading Progressive, who was President of Princeton University (and later POTUS), believed a classical education should only be given to an elite few, not to the masses.

Today, while we want a qualified labor force, we also want an educated people, who can think critically, and know civics and history and so forth (technically there is no need for any history or basic science even to be a good employee; what does an engineer, scientist, accountant, lawyer, etc...need to know history or elementary or high school science for? (the scientist can learn all that in college if that's the field they want to pursue)).

I think one way to create competition among the public schools is via vouchers. Also charter schools. Otherwise, as Evo says, one must attend the school within their district.

 

[turbo]

I think one way to create competition among the public schools is via vouchers. Also charter schools. Otherwise, as Evo says, one must attend the school within their district.

A favorite refrain of the neo-cons, because they can count on getting votes from the segment of the religious right that is intent on continuing segregation. I don't want my tax money flowing to all-white "Christian academies" in the deep south while their public school systems languish and fail to educate students.

 

[BobG]

ADD: The real intention of 'choice' in regard to schools is to improve the institution of education. I believe most rational parents will not care so much about the religion and the politics, and will intelligently look at these school's academic records and pick the schools that do the best jobs educating the children.

I'm cynical enough to believe most parents will pick their children's schools the same way they pick their eating establishments. They'll pick cheap, fast, and convenient - at least until a particular school proves that it can't provide cheapness, speed, convenience, and quality all at the same time, in which case that school goes out of business and parents look for a different cheap, fast, and convenient school.

The chances of a new school succeeding will probably be about the same as the chances of a new restaraunt succeeding - except you lose significant chunks of time every time you send your kid to a poor quality school.

On the other hand, the schools that do establish themselves as a quality establishment have an even greater opportunity for profits than your most elegant restaraunts. With the chunks of time you're talking about and the impact it can have on your kids, schools that establish themselves can charge exhorbitant tuitions far above whatever money parents are receiving from the government in vouchers.

Those suckers relying solely on vouchers for educating their kids can go suck eggs.

 

[CRGreathouse]

What I care is keeping religion out of the schools, and lame excuses such as "academics is skewed on the left". In a word keep the poo of both religion and politics out of the schools.

Interestingly, I feel just the opposite. I think that a course on religion would be good for high schools. I see too many people who misunderstand Islam, or don't know what agnostics are, or say false things about atheists, or set up strawman Christian beliefs, etc. A semesterlong course that discusses those and Hinduism, Buddhism, Shinto, Judaism, Sikhism, and various philosophies like Confucianism would be a good idea in my view. Real-world examples (motives of Sept. 11th terrorists, destruction of Buddha statues by the Taliban, Sharia law, etc.) would also be nice, if there was time in the curriculum.

 

[leroyjenkens]

Interestingly, I feel just the opposite. I think that a course on religion would be good for high schools. I see too many people who misunderstand Islam, or don't know what agnostics are, or say false things about atheists, or set up strawman Christian beliefs, etc. A semesterlong course that discusses those and Hinduism, Buddhism, Shinto, Judaism, Sikhism, and various philosophies like Confucianism would be a good idea in my view. Real-world examples (motives of Sept. 11th terrorists, destruction of Buddha statues by the Taliban, Sharia law, etc.) would also be nice, if there was time in the curriculum.

We don't need an entire course on it, it should just be taught along with history, since religion is a huge part of history.

 

[BobG]

Interestingly, I feel just the opposite. I think that a course on religion would be good for high schools. I see too many people who misunderstand Islam, or don't know what agnostics are, or say false things about atheists, or set up strawman Christian beliefs, etc. A semesterlong course that discusses those and Hinduism, Buddhism, Shinto, Judaism, Sikhism, and various philosophies like Confucianism would be a good idea in my view. Real-world examples (motives of Sept. 11th terrorists, destruction of Buddha statues by the Taliban, Sharia law, etc.) would also be nice, if there was time in the curriculum.

You understand proper display of the United States flag, don't you? (There's good chance of that answer being no, considering the diversity here). It has to be raised first, it has to be displayed on the right, it has to be displayed highest, etc.

That works in a country with one flag. You start teaching about various religions and most of the religions will be offended that they were given exactly equal treatment with every other religion. Most consider themselves more valid than other religions and deserving of more respect than other religions.

You'll only be able to include religions foreign enough to the United States that we won't care about the few people who do protest being grouped with the heretic religions (i.e - all the other religions besides theirs).

 

[DanP]

Interestingly, I feel just the opposite. I think that a course on religion would be good for high schools. I see too many people who misunderstand Islam, or don't know what agnostics are, or say false things about atheists, or set up strawman Christian beliefs, etc. A semesterlong course that discusses those and Hinduism, Buddhism, Shinto, Judaism, Sikhism, and various philosophies like Confucianism would be a good idea in my view. Real-world examples (motives of Sept. 11th terrorists, destruction of Buddha statues by the Taliban, Sharia law, etc.) would also be nice, if there was time in the curriculum.

I love reading about origins of religions and history of religion. I would not object such a measure as long as all religions get equal "screen time", and the approach is scientifically sound, much like history of religion is studied in a humanity faculty, but at a lower level. But at the same time , HS students have enough to learn, and overloading them with not very useful materials would not be wise. Because I don't think that the study of religions would do anything to change the mind of extremists of any side. By the time in HS, their families already brainwashed them.

I would stay away from real life discussions of events like 9/11 from a religious perspective. It is impossible to keep a discussion without interfering it heavily with politics. It would result in hate rather than understanding.

Creationism and any religious activities which are linked to ethics and morale on the other hand should be strictly forbidden in schools. Besides being a non-scientific approach to life,they are dangerous in another way.

It may be the building the biggest voter base yet for fundamentalists. Imagine a curriculum at national level where ppl are pushed toward religious morale, it's social values, creationism, and brainwashed into fundamentalism. Free votes from zombies.

 

[Char. Limit]

turbo... Why must someone always connect every political issue to race? Why?

It's impossible to have a completely unbiased school system. If the textbooks don't influence you, the teachers will, unconsciously or no.

 

[turbo]

turbo... Why must someone always connect every political issue to race? Why?

It's impossible to have a completely unbiased school system. If the textbooks don't influence you, the teachers will, unconsciously or no.

I have spent a great deal of time in the deep south doing consulting work. When "W" kept suggesting vouchers for every child to be used in any public or private school, he know exactly what he was doing and which audience he was playing to. He kept mentioning how vouchers would help the poor inner-city kids without addressing the fact that many inner-city schools are already badly over-crowded, and wouldn't have the flexibility to accept an influx of new students, PLUS there was no provision to pay for kids from school A to be transported to school B if their parents wanted the change. The voucher suggestion was highly cynical.

Don't think race plays a role in which schools get funding and which don't? Spend some time in Camden or Thomasville AL. Neo-cons harp on vouchers because it buys them votes.

 

[DanP]

turbo... Why must someone always connect every political issue to race? Why?

Because today's society is still deeply prejudiced. We cannot pretend that we don't see it. Some will *choose* to close their eyes and sleep pacefully, others will do everything they can to maintain the status quo, while others will fight against a prejudiced society.

Race, gender & ethnicity are still some of the biggest issues our society has to face. The situation improves slowly, but we must not become oblivious to their existence.

It's impossible to have a completely unbiased school system. If the textbooks don't influence you, the teachers will, unconsciously or no.

This doesn't mean that you have to give up. There is always place for improvements.

 

[BobG]

The difference is that Texas (but not California) approves and buys books for all the school districts in the state. Publishers often edit and revise textbooks in order to meet specific demands of the members of the Texas board.

NCSE: Consequences of the flawed standards in Texas? (concerning creationism, but I think it is equally valid for this topic)

What you say is true for high school textbooks. California selects textbooks on a statewide basis for K-8, but each district selects their own high school textbooks.

This long article (or short book) describes some of the problems with having textbook content dominated by two or three state boards in large states - http://www.edexcellence.net/detail/news.cfm?news_id=335&pubsubid=1013#1013

I'm not sure they really sell the connection between state adoption, lousy textbooks, and its connection to student performance. Arguing by rankings sounds convincing, but the actual differences in average test scores are rather small. But designing textbooks by checklist does encourage a lack of depth (in fact, the art of "mentioning" to spoof automated "key phrase" checkers is one of the problems mentioned).

There's a tendency to merge the California/Texas criteria into checklists and ensuring the textbooks at least mention the things desired by those two large states (or Texas, alone, for high school textbooks). There's no way members of the reviewing board can actually read all of those textbooks in the allotted time, so the key phrases become very important.

 

[Nebula815]

A favorite refrain of the neo-cons, because they can count on getting votes from the segment of the religious right that is intent on continuing segregation. I don't want my tax money flowing to all-white "Christian academies" in the deep south while their public school systems languish and fail to educate students.

I think you have a gross misunderstanding of what neoconservatives are.

As far as neoconservatives are concerned, vouchers have little to do with race or religion and neoconservatives are not the ultra-right racists you speak of. The racists you speak of, who hate the Federal Reserve and believe it is a Jewish banking cartel that secretly controls the world, who hate the federal government, who are pro-Confederate, etc...are wholly different from the neoconservatives. Most of these types hated George W. Bush, the quintessential neoconservative, who was a very strong supporter of Israel and who tried to grant all the illegals amnesty. Not exactly a Tom Tancredo type. Also Bush was a big-government, compassionate conservative, much to the opposite of the ultra-right, who want pretty much no federal government (or they want the states more powerful than the federal government).

Vouchers are to create competition between the schools. One huge proponent of the idea was the late great free-market economist Milton Friedman, who was not a neoconservative, he was a libertarian, but not a libertarian of the pro-Confederate, hate-the-Federal Reserve, Ludwig von Mises Institute, John Birch Society types, but a libertarian in the sense of being a proponent for universal human freedom.

I am not saying that the voucher idea is flawless, or even that it won't do as you say (segregation), but that is not the idea behind it as far as neoconservatives are concerned and that is not what it resulted in when put into practice in Washington D.C. for awhile from what I understood (they just killed the voucher program there).

You are way over-generalizing to suggest all who support vouchers only want it for racism reasons.

It's like welfare. Plenty of Leftists want welfare because they believe it truly helps people. There are others, however, who know exactly what it does (creates dependency) and want it to keep minorities down so they can buy their votes ("Don't vote for that evil Republican, he'll take away your entitlement, vote for me and I'll increase it"). Many of these are very elitist ultra-leftist whites who only like black people and minorities "in their place" so-to-speak.

But it would be wrong to generalize all people who are proponents for increased welfare because of a few.

I have spent a great deal of time in the deep south doing consulting work. When "W" kept suggesting vouchers for every child to be used in any public or private school, he know exactly what he was doing and which audience he was playing to. He kept mentioning how vouchers would help the poor inner-city kids without addressing the fact that many inner-city schools are already badly over-crowded, and wouldn't have the flexibility to accept an influx of new students, PLUS there was no provision to pay for kids from school A to be transported to school B if their parents wanted the change. The voucher suggestion was highly cynical.

Or, he assumed vouchers were a way to add a free-market component to the schools. Also, slightly off-topic, but what you're saying, essentially, is you are okay with Barack Obama's having attended a church with a pastor who was a raving racist for twenty years whom he was very close to, that is fine, but when George W. Bush suggests adding a free-market component to improve schools, he is a closet racist

Here is how you (and some other Obama voters I have seen) are coming off as:

George W. Bush: "Let's create a school voucher program to help inner-city kids."

turbo-1: "Baloney, this is about racism and creating segregation, he knows exactly what he is doing."

Barack Obama: "I had no idea that the Reverand Wright happened to be a raving racist those twenty years I was in his church."

turbo-1: "Okay fine."

Don't think race plays a role in which schools get funding and which don't? Spend some time in Camden or Thomasville AL. Neo-cons harp on vouchers because it buys them votes.

The South isn't neoconservative territory. Also, that kind of racism stuff goes both ways in society. For example, remember the Black Panther Party scaring away people outside a polling station in Philadelphia? You think if it was a few white Klaners at a polling station doing that, that it would fly? There would be a national outrage. Eric Holder would never let that one slip by.

Do not make the mistake of assuming racism is only in one direction (white-to-black), it goes both ways, or of assuming it's in one party, and do not make the mistake of generalizing a whole party because of a few morons that give the rest a bad name.

 

[CRGreathouse]

You start teaching about various religions and most of the religions will be offended that they were given exactly equal treatment with every other religion.

This doesn't bother me. Clearly, most ____s think that their ____ should be given more coverage, whether we're talking about religions, states, ethnic groups, etc.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I love reading about origins of religions and history of religion. I would not object such a measure as long as all religions get equal "screen time", and the approach is scientifically sound, much like history of religion is studied in a humanity faculty, but at a lower level.

We basically see eye to eye on this one, then. Although I hope you don't mean equal time too literally -- I wouldn't want to spend as long on Zoroastrianism as on Islam or atheism. (Actually, *I* might like to personally -- along with the religion of Mithras and Dionysus and other Roman mystery religions -- but this wouldn't be well-suited to the class I had in mind.)

 

[turbo]

Nebula, your straw-man arguments, mis-direction, and putting words in my mouth make it impossible to make a reasonable response. Do you know anything about the history of the Civil Rights movement? When integration was on a roll, Southern bigots hid behind their churches. They created "Christian academies" that could only be attended by the children of church members. Church members = all-white = Christian academies = all white. When I took consulting contracts in the deep south over 2 decades later, I naively thought that such segregation would have softened. I was very wrong.

The "Southern strategy" of the GOP played on bigotry, and captured the South from the Democrats. Southerners had been strongly pro-Democratic since Reconstruction, but revolted at the Democratic support for Civil Rights. Neo-cons have since taken over the GOP and have purged most true conservatives from their ranks, and they continue to go to the "voucher" well over and over, knowing that it plays well to parents of kids in segregation academies.

The GOP neo-cons shed crocodile tears for the fate of poor inner-city children and claim that their insistence on vouchers is for the sake of such poor minority children. They lie. They know that there is insufficient capacity and flexibility in inner-city schools to allow wholesale movements of students from failing schools to better schools, and NO mandate to pay for the transfers and transportation of such students.

These are cold, hard truths, and unpopular. That doesn't make them less true. Never attribute altruism and purity of intent to ANY political party. You will lose every time.

Note: I know that this is pulling the thread off-topic, and I apologize; but it is important to understand how racism and religion can derail the education of our kids. It is incumbent upon us to understand how extremists can leverage their influence in school curricula to promote their own agendas, regardless of the harm to students.

 

[DanP]

We basically see eye to eye on this one, then. Although I hope you don't mean equal time too literally -- I wouldn't want to spend as long on Zoroastrianism as on Islam or atheism. (Actually, *I* might like to personally -- along with the religion of Mithras and Dionysus and other Roman mystery religions -- but this wouldn't be well-suited to the class I had in mind.)

Sure, I didn't meant it literally. If you want to give equal time to all faiths and religions beleifs you have enough material to take you out of grad school. Some made from this the work of their life time, for example prof. Mircea Eliade. He is Romanian, but I believe he spent his last 20 years or so in USA at University of Chicago.

 

[BobG]

The "Southern strategy" of the GOP played on bigotry, and captured the South from the Democrats. Southerners had been strongly pro-Democratic since Reconstruction, but revolted at the Democratic support for Civil Rights. Neo-cons have since taken over the GOP and have purged most true conservatives from their ranks, and they continue to go to the "voucher" well over and over, knowing that it plays well to parents of kids in segregation academies.

Technically, the neo-conservaive movement is completely unrelated to racial issues. It was originally comprised of Democrats with strong national defense concerns (i.e. - the "New Conservatives").

It did tend to consist mainly of Southern Democrats that also disagreed with the rest of the Democratic Party on racial issues, so I guess I could understand a belief that the national defense issues were really just a smoke screen to avoid being called racists.

I think it is a misuse of the term, though (either by the original neo-cons or by you - it's a toss up).

 

[Nebula815]

Nebula, your straw-man arguments, mis-direction, and putting words in my mouth make it impossible to make a reasonable response.

You claimed in a previous post that vouchers are nothing but an excuse for "neocons" to create segregation, and you are accusing me of a strawman?

Do you know anything about the history of the Civil Rights movement? When integration was on a roll, Southern bigots hid behind their churches. They created "Christian academies" that could only be attended by the children of church members. Church members = all-white = Christian academies = all white. When I took consulting contracts in the deep south over 2 decades later, I naively thought that such segregation would have softened. I was very wrong.

The "Southern strategy" of the GOP played on bigotry, and captured the South from the Democrats.

A lot of the pro-Confederate, racist Southern Democrats transferred over to the Republican party during the 1960s and 1970s when the Democrat party began becoming much more socially-liberal. Like I said, you cannot generalize a party.

Southerners had been strongly pro-Democratic since Reconstruction, but revolted at the Democratic support for Civil Rights.

Yes.

Neo-cons have since taken over the GOP and have purged most true conservatives from their ranks, and they continue to go to the "voucher" well over and over, knowing that it plays well to parents of kids in segregation academies.

What is a "true conservative?"

Once again, the neoconservatives are completely different from the racist ultra-right that one can find in the South.

Your neoconservatives are much more your professional, East Coast, country-club, big business types. These are a whole different breed of conservative from the ones you tend to find in the South.

Not all the Southern conservatives, BTW, are the racist variety. But one complaint of conservatives in the South is how the establishment neoconservatives are embarassed to be in the same party as them.

You have standard Reagan conservatives, which you can find in the South and everywhere else, who are pro-free market, strong on national defense, limited government, socially conservative, etc...

You have the ultra-right, who are a combination of libertarian and conservative. They have racists in their ranks, hate the Fed, are pro-Confederate leaning, etc...

You have neoconservatives, whose only real uniting aspect is being very strong on national security. Otherwise, there are neoconservatives who are pro-life, some who are pro-choice. Some are for limited government, some are for big government. George W. Bush was a big government neoconservative.

Neoconservatism arose partially as a reaction to Nazi Germany in World War II and then the rise of the Soviet Union.

The GOP neo-cons shed crocodile tears for the fate of poor inner-city children and claim that their insistence on vouchers is for the sake of such poor minority children. They lie.

Says who? And how is this not a strawman argument?

They know that there is insufficient capacity and flexibility in inner-city schools to allow wholesale movements of students from failing schools to better schools, and NO mandate to pay for the transfers and transportation of such students.

No they don't. It is issues such as these which is why it is good to debate something like vouchers.

These are cold, hard truths, and unpopular. That doesn't make them less true. Never attribute altruism and purity of intent to ANY political party. You will lose every time.

This is another strawman. They are cold, hard truths only for a select group of people within the parties perhaps. It is a cold, hard truth that certain Democrats only favor big government to gain control and buy votes. But many favor it because they believe wholeheartedly in it as well.

 

[turbo]

I think it is a misuse of the term, though (either by the original neo-cons or by you - it's a toss up).

Well, I was a pretty reliable member of the GOP until the neo-cons hijacked the party during the Reagan years and afterward. Now I'm a committed Independent. Make of it what you will. I think Ivan and I are probably closer in temperament than most members of this forum.

 

[Nebula815]

Well, I was a pretty reliable member of the GOP until the neo-cons hijacked the party during the Reagan years and afterward. Now I'm a committed Independent. Make of it what you will. I think Ivan and I are probably closer in temperament than most members of this forum.

Reagan went wholly against the neoconservatives in quite a few ways (most up to them were for big government) and was despised by much of the Republican establishment for his deregulation policies which destroyed the establishment Republican domination of Wall Street.

 

[Char. Limit]

turbo, I understand the point you're trying to make, but did you have to do it by indirectly naming me a racist?

I said that I support the idea of a tax credit system. You called people who support such a thing racists. What should I believe?

Also, a strategy specifically aimed at the south hasn't been tried since 1964, and not even then.

Here's a quote from Barry Goldwater on the "Southern Strategy":

"The first writer to use the term "southern strategy" was Joe Alsop, after his visit to my office back in the 1950s. At that time I was chairman of the Senate Campaign Committee and had conducted a very in-depth survey of voting trends in the U.S. for President Eisenhower. This survey showed that the only areas in the whole United States where the Republican Party had been making gains were in the Southwest. For that reason we decided to put more emphasis on that part of the nation, where rRepublicans historically had not done well.

This is the so-called "southern Strategy". It has nothing to do with busing, integration, or any other of the so-called closely held concepts of the Southerner. The South began to move into Republican ranks because of the influx of new and younger businessmen from the North who were basically Republican. And they were aided by young southern Democrats who were sick and tired of the CDemocratic stranglehold on the South and switched over to the Republican Party. Nowhere in any platform adopted by the Republican Party since can I remember there be found any thing aimed directly at the South which could be indicative of some strategy employed by the Republican Party that the Republican Party does not employ elsewhere.""

 

[turbo]

turbo, I understand the point you're trying to make, but did you have to do it by indirectly naming me a racist?

That was not my intent. If you support vouchers, but ONLY for schools that accept students of all races and faiths, I have no quarrel with that. That is NOT the GOP way, though.

 

[turbo]

I have absolutely nothing against charter schools, magnet schools, and other progressive ideas for attracting bright students and keeping them engaged and challenged. Handing out blanket vouchers or tax credits to parents that can be used at ANY school is not the way to improve our educational system. It will not improve outcomes for poor kids in underserviced districts. If W wanted to leave no child behind, he could have come up with a viable plan to improve failing schools. Most children have very little choice in which school they will be educated, so the false promise of "choice" is a sham.

 

[mheslep]

This is rather disturbing, to say the least.

U.S. history textbooks could soon be flavored heavily with Texas conservatism

continued...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1253

Why is this disturbing to you? You just stated that it is, but not why. I read the article, and have some objection to the change in Jefferson emphasis, but otherwise I don't see anything contrary to historical or scientific fact. The state of the textbooks and their bias now is what disturbs me.

 

[Evo]

Why is this disturbing to you? You just stated that it is, but not why. I read the article, and have some objection to the change in Jefferson emphasis, but otherwise I don't see anything contrary to historical or scientific fact. The state of the textbooks and their bias now is what disturbs me.

I object to basically every proposed change. Doesn't mean that I know or approve of the content of all current social study, history and econmic books, I can only state my opposition to these changes.

- A greater emphasis on “the conservative resurgence of the 1980s and 1990s.” This means not only increased favorable mentions of Schlafly, the founder of the antifeminist Eagle Forum, but also more discussion of the Moral Majority, the Heritage Foundation, the National Rifle Association and Newt Gingrich's Contract With America.

By "a greater emphasis" I am assuming that opposing views are downplayed or not there. I would have to see what the final text is.

Thomas Jefferson no longer included among writers influencing the nation’s intellectual origins. Jefferson, a deist who helped pioneer the legal theory of the separation of church and state, is not a model founder in the board’s judgment. Among the intellectual forerunners to be highlighted in Jefferson’s place: medieval Catholic philosopher St. Thomas Aquinas, Puritan theologian John Calvin and conservative British law scholar William Blackstone. Heavy emphasis is also to be placed on the founding fathers having been guided by strict Christian beliefs.

This is outrageous.

This is how it starts, a change here, a change there, and before long the truth is obliterated.

 

[turbo]

This is how it starts, a change here, a change there, and before long the truth is obliterated.

It doesn't take much. When people vetting textbooks decide that Andrew Jackson's ethnic cleansing of American Indian tribes isn't worth mentioning, and decide that Colonel Custer was a hero, genocide against native Americans disappears in our curricula.

Forget Jefferson's contributions as a writer, thinker, inventor because his deist philosophy doesn't jibe well with "America was founded by Christians" and never mention the children he sired with his slave...well, Jefferson has been reduced to a cardboard cut-out. No dimensionality, no context, and none of the complexities that are needed to describe us real people. Just propaganda and agenda.

It is sad that history and social studies can be so perverted, though it is not surprising. All through my childhood, I heard about the bloodthirsty, savage nature of my native American ancestors, and never about the complex politics that shaped the various alliances and disputes that framed the conflicts of the French and Indian Wars in the northeast. It wasn't until I was in college that I had access to enough objective, accurate, history books, to be able to wrap my head around the history of my own ancestors and my own region.

Edit: None of that was taught in my HS, despite the preponderance (if not an outright majority) of kids who were descended from French-Canadian and Indian ancestors.