Texas Republican Party 2012 Education platform

[KiwiKid]

Not much of a challenge.

Challenge (verb) does not equal all of the definitions of challenge (noun).

 

[chemisttree]

Is that so?

Yes.

 

[daveb]

Taking evolution as an example, if someone has the belief that the bible is god's literal word, and therefore evolution is false. If the premise is true, then it is absolute that evolution is false. The equivalent logical statement is that if evolution is not false, then the bible is not god's literal word. Since very few agree that we should not teach evolution, by default it challenges the belief that the bible is god's literal word. However, by saying you cannot challenge this belief, the equivalent statement is saying you cannot teach evolution as fact.

 

[mheslep]

Why are evolution and creationism relevant in this case? I think they are not. The Tx platform does not say it would prohibit all challenges to fixed beliefs, "period, end of story", but would end the HOTS and OBE programs which according them at least "focus on behavior modification" off all things in primary education.

 

[chemisttree]

Challenge (verb) does not equal all of the definitions of challenge (noun).

But what the Texas Republican Party meant by the statement, "We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.", is relative to OBE, Mastery Learning and Values Clarification and those teaching methods DO present alternatives.

Why do you think that "challenging the student's fixed beliefs" is done without presenting opposing beliefs from the standpoint of OBE, Mastery Learning and Values Clarification?

Values Clarification
Rationale
The object of the values clarification strategy is not to teach specific values, but to
make students aware of their own personally held values and of the way in which
their values compare to those of friends, adults, different groups in society, and
even other societies in other times. It is hoped that, as this awareness increases,
students will reconsider and perhaps modify poorly founded values while, at the
same time, hold more confidently values which stand the test of review and comparison.

http://www.education.ucsb.edu/webdata/instruction/hss/Values_Clarification/ValuClarif_Method_Outline.pdf
1. Do you watch much TV? How much?
2. What is your opinion of the War with Iraq?
3. Do you believe in God?
4. How do you feel about grades in school?
5. What did you do last night?
6. What do you think you do about your parents when they get told (old?)?
7. What books have you read that you liked?
8. Would you bring up your children differently from the way you have been brought up?
9. Did you ever steal anything? When? How come?

These questions are asked of the student in front of his/her peers while the teacher evaluates responses to the seven Raths value criteria.

Value Criteria
(1) choosing freely;
(2) choosing from alternatives;
(3) choosing after thoughtful consideration of the consequences of each alternative;
(4) prizing and cherishing;
(5) publicly affirming;
(6) acting upon choices; and
(7) acting upon choices repeatedly.

Now THAT sounds like quite a challenge.

 

[daveb]

Why are evolution and creationism relevant in this case? I think they are not. The Tx platform does not say it would prohibit all challenges to fixed beliefs, "period, end of story", but would end the HOTS and OBE programs which according them at least "focus on behavior modification" off all things in primary education.

"We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority..."

The entire quote specifically adresses fixed beliefs as being unchallengeable. Creationism is a belief (which should be challenged) and evolution is fact.

 

[mheslep]

The entire quote specifically adresses fixed beliefs as being unchallengeable. ...

If this was actually the case, then I think they might have actually said, "Fixed beliefs are unchallengeable, period" and left off the modifiers that ..., which ...

 

[BobG]

Why are evolution and creationism relevant in this case? I think they are not. The Tx platform does not say it would prohibit all challenges to fixed beliefs, "period, end of story", but would end the HOTS and OBE programs which according them at least "focus on behavior modification" off all things in primary education.

To be honest, I'm not positive that evolution and creationism are the specific target of that paragraph of their platform. Taken in context with the rest of their platform, especially given the paragraph devoted to evolution...

Controversial Theories – We support objective teaching and equal treatment of all sides of scientific theories. We believe theories such as life origins and environmental change should be taught as challengeable scientific theories subject to change as new data is produced. Teachers and students should be able to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these theories openly and without fear of retribution or discrimination of any kind.

Texas believes all scientific theories and facts should be challenged, but without challenging fixed beliefs and parental authority. (Given the likelihood that there's a large diversity of beliefs among the parents of students, I haven't a clue how they intend to meet that goal.)

But it overlooks the problem that there aren't any alternative scientific theories about life origins and evolution. The only alternatives are religious based 'theories' ('theories' that have been banned from being taught in schools by the SCOTUS as a violation of First Amendment religious establishment clause).

It's not that far fetched to suspect the goal of the critical thinking paragraph is to put evolution and creationism on equal footing, whether that means teaching both in schools or teaching neither in schools. But it's more likely the paragraph is generic, being against any controversial topic being taught in schools.

Granted, the two paragraphs kind of conflict with each other, but it's a political platform, which has to do with political science; not rocket science.

 

[mheslep]

...Texas believes all scientific theories and facts should be challenged, but without challenging fixed beliefs and parental authority...

I read the platform to say, I think accurately, that they don't want a particular program, "Outcome-Based Education which focuses on behavior modification", to challenge fixed beliefs and undermine parental authority.

It seems obvious to me, and I think others have admitted as well, that we can imagine some things that should not be challenged in primary schools. Similarly for the remainder that we might agree should be open to challenge, some methods should not be used to challenge them. Yet I keep seeing ardent attempts at restatement of what the Tx platform states into absolutist terms.

 

[BobG]

I read the platform to say, I think accurately, that they don't want a particular program, "Outcome-Based Education which focuses on behavior modification", to challenge fixed beliefs and undermine parental authority.

It seems obvious to me, and I think others have admitted as well, that we can imagine some things that should not be challenged in primary schools. Similarly for the remainder that we might agree should be open to challenge, some methods should not be used to challenge them. Yet I keep seeing ardent attempts at restatement of what the Tx platform states into absolutist terms.

These questions are asked of the student in front of his/her peers while the teacher evaluates responses to the seven Raths value criteria.

Value Criteria
(1) choosing freely;
(2) choosing from alternatives;
(3) choosing after thoughtful consideration of the consequences of each alternative;
(4) prizing and cherishing;
(5) publicly affirming;
(6) acting upon choices; and
(7) acting upon choices repeatedly.

Now THAT sounds like quite a challenge.

I agree the main point is that Texas Republicans feel some subjects are just better off not addressed in school. But the method is beside the point and just confuses the issue.

Anyone that's gone through workcenter ethics training, equal opportunity training, sexual harrassment training, etc, might be at least somewhat familiar with chemistree was talking about (depends on how enthusiastic the company is - some just e-mail you power point presentations so they can say they did). Regardless of how the method should work, the goal is for the student to freely choose the attitude desired by the employer.

This is what biases the legislators against the method - the fact that there's usually a favored outcome. (On the other hand, a school would usually implement this method better than an employer - at least if the topic were one no one had any real stake in, in which the case the topic wouldn't be worth discussing at all.)

And there had better be a favored outcome! Parents are going to be mighty upset if the method results in students freely choosing cannibalism! But parents would be just as upset if the school just told the students that cannibalism was the best way to handle our nutritional needs. Nobody cares about the method - they only get upset when the results aren't what they hoped for.

If the method is the thing Texas Republicans are concerned about, what method do they recommend schools use?

(And even if marriage were the desired attitude, even the pro-marriage people might have a problem encouraging students to act upon their choices repeatedly.)

 

[chemisttree]

I agree the main point is that Texas Republicans feel some subjects are just better off not addressed in school. But the method is beside the point and just confuses the issue.

Anyone that's gone through workcenter ethics training, equal opportunity training, sexual harrassment training, etc, might be at least somewhat familiar with chemistree was talking about (depends on how enthusiastic the company is - some just e-mail you power point presentations so they can say they did). Regardless of how the method should work, the goal is for the student to freely choose the attitude desired by the employer.

Yes, this is about the method. The Republican Party favors direct instruction rather than learning through higher order thinking skills.

This is what biases the legislators against the method - the fact that there's usually a favored outcome. (On the other hand, a school would usually implement this method better than an employer - at least if the topic were one no one had any real stake in, in which the case the topic wouldn't be worth discussing at all.)

And there had better be a favored outcome! Parents are going to be mighty upset if the method results in students freely choosing cannibalism! But parents would be just as upset if the school just told the students that cannibalism was the best way to handle our nutritional needs. Nobody cares about the method - they only get upset when the results aren't what they hoped for.

If the method is the thing Texas Republicans are concerned about, what method do they recommend schools use?

They favor direct instruction. They won't get it. These are statements pandering to a very conservative base after all.

 

[mege]

Yes, this is about the method. The Republican Party favors direct instruction rather than learning through higher order thinking skills.

Remember - it's Higher Order Thinking Skills - proper noun. This is a very specific program, not some generic statement.

They favor direct instruction. They won't get it. These are statements pandering to a very conservative base after all.

They were for it before they were against it. Apparently it's not working like they want, so the stance has changed.


What do you think the 'conservative base' wants from education policy?

 

[chemisttree]

What do you think the 'conservative base' wants from education policy?

I think the conservative base wants to stop leftist 'indoctrination' in public schools especially where it deals with God. This isn't really new news.

 

[ThinkToday]

What do you think the 'conservative base' wants from education policy?

To get the bang for the buck we haven't gotten in generations. IMO, left wingers equate education with money spent. Whenever I hear about education standards, it seems it's followed with how much money is spent in school district A vs. B. At least that’s my perception.

As I've said before, I was educated in a very rural setting before personal computers, internet, and hand held calculators. The teachers did a pretty good job. The school didn't keep bad teachers, and I truly can't think of one bad teacher. There is a lack of accountability in education. In the 10 years since passage of NCLB, more than half the states have waivers. IMO, that is inexcusable in every sense and in every case. In the 10 years, they should have been able to remediate or replace any marginal teachers. In 10 years, they should have been able to identify a nondiscriminatory method for identifying students performing below grade and develop programs to keep them at grade for course they are capable and remediation for courses they are below grade in performance. Additionally, it’s not always the schools, teachers, or kids. Sometimes there are truly worthless parents that need a whip, but that’s not legal; however, I think IRS child tax credits and deductions could be tied to child education. I would also tie federal benefits to childhood education. IMO, it’s one thing to have a child that performs below grade level because of a mental or physical handicap, but, IMO, that’s not always the case. Some may think hold a parent’s feet to the fire is too harsh, but they assumed the responsibility when they became a parent, so they should be bound to the standard.

BTW, I really don't see why people want to keep dragging religion into this.

Found the following and thought it interesting: Source http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj7n2/cj7n2-14.pdf
"The1860 U.S. Census shows that in states ofthe original 13 colonies, the white literacy rate in those states with public schooling was 99 percent compared with 93 percent in those states without it. This difference of only 6 percentage points may, however, be partly explained by the more rural nature of the states without public schools (Montgomery 1878, p. 6)."