Texas Republican Party 2012 Education platform

[KiwiKid]

Then read the Texas Republican Party 2012 Platform report.

A few examples:
"We recommend that local school boards and classroom teachers be given moreauthority to deal with disciplinary problems. Corporal punishment is effective and legal in Texas."
and
"We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (valuesclarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-BasedEducation (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challengingthe student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority."

Yes, this is for real.

It's just... Well, I'm not an American, so maybe it doesn't surprise or disgust Americans as much. But, yeah, disgusted, that's really the only thing I can say about it.

 

[Evo]

Please keep posts about the content of the article and refrain from derogatory remarks about the people in the state/country/party.

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

It's just... Well, I'm not an American, so maybe it doesn't surprise or disgust Americans as much. But, yeah, disgusted, that's really the only thing I can say about it.

I came to the realization long ago that, if things get too out of hand, I can always move to Europe.

"Undermining parental authority," is the phrase that I don't appreciate the most. I've lately come under the impression that parents need to let their children think for themselves, experience the world for themselves, come to their own conclusions and understandings by themselves, and not have any particular beliefs or ideals unjustly imposed upon them.

Anectodal evidence: In this last year, I went from calling myself a Christian (both skeptically and without heart behind it, but it was nonetheless the title that I adopted), to calling myself a deist, to calling myself an agnostic, and I now ultimately would consider myself an atheist.

Both of my parents are religious, and I had never truly been exposed to non-belief. Sure, I had doubts all the time, both as a child, and all throughout my life, but I was consequentially told that those thoughts were "bad." Fastforward to my AP European History class, when I read about prominent deists like Voltiare, and I start to think to myself that that idea is far more appealing to follow than any particular religion. Slowly, I became more open to other theistic, deistic, or atheistic ideals, and thus followed the path down to my current stand on the issue.

Why is this relevant? I was exposed to these other beliefs in school. I grew up (well, am growing up) in a household where my parents and siblings are religious, so I never had the chance to discover any opposing beliefs. School is about educating students. It's about exposing them to the truth, and the curriculum shouldn't appeal to anyone belief system above another, except for the correct one. How are the schools in Texas supposed to know the general consensus of each parent, so as to know that they are not offending or going against any of the students' parents' beliefs, and in the process, might offend some overly zealous parents?

I would go so far as to say that the majority of Texans, particularly Republicans (not bashing parties or states, etc.) are Christian, seeing as how Christianity is the most prominent religion in the United States. That means that, in order to be unobtrusive of most parents' beliefs, then the curriculum would have to be appealing to a Christian, and thus cause a potential for lacking science and history courses (due to their nature of typically presenting the truth, and not religious versions of our universe and history).

I'm in no way attempting to bash religion, but merely examining what I believe that previously quoted phrase is implying. What other authoritative belief that parents' impose upon their children is widespread enough in the United States that someone would take a stand to try and protect it?

 

[ThinkToday]

The platform on education also reads :
“Basic Standards – We favor improving the quality of education for all students, including those with special needs. We support a return to the traditional basics of reading, writing, arithmetic, and citizenship with sufficient discipline to ensure learning and quality educational assessment. “

Rather than getting balled up in the best approach to teaching, we should concentrate on teaching with the method best suited for the student population in hand.


I don’t support the return to corporal punishment, nor do I have a strong opinion on HOTS http://hots.org/ . In the former case, it never worked for me, and there were more than ample attempts. In the latter, it appears the push is to keep education on track with the historical past, rather than to try something new. Right, wrong, who knows?

As the spouse of a Texas Pre-K (pre-school, for the less well informed) teacher certified in early childhood through 4th grade, the solutions aren’t as simple as some think. For example, some parents are very abusive to the teacher that calls to tell them when their child needs some help. In short, some parents just don’t give a damn. Just like we as a population have “hired” the video game console or computer to babysit our children, some have left all the educational responsibility to the school. Some parents are truly scary in their lack on concern for their child’s education. My wife chose to teach in a school that is 85% disadvantaged students (poor, drugs, crime, single parents, abuse, etc. families). In Pre-K, kids are taught letters, number, “pre-reading” skills, printing, etc., so by the time they get to Kindergarten they are ready to learn to read, and some will start reading while in Pre-K. She had zero technology in her class. It took a caring teacher that had an interest in each student's progress. BTW, these are truly wonderful kids with a thirst to learn.

Texas has a very extensive Pre-K and Head Start program, and much more extensive than the state we now live in. Towards the end of our time in Texas, the Regional paid her to continually travel as much as 2 hrs each way to schools to mentor Head Start teachers. In Texas, Pre-K/Head Start teacher pay is at least as much as the K-12 teachers. In NE, where we live now, from what my wife has seen, Head Start teacher pay is a fraction of the K-12 pay, and about what a teacher aid earned in Texas. From what she is seeing, the early childhood education isn’t to Texas standards and appears to look more like day care.


Lastly, if you go to the link provided by the OP, you will find many things (not just the two posted) in the Education platform that we could agree on (for and against) and some we wouldn’t.

IMO, this is a much more striking problem http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/06/e...led-down-under-obama.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all . Have we just thrown away another generations education? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Child_Left_Behind_Act This Act was signed in 2002! Ten years have gone by and about ½ the States have gotten waivers! It's hard for me to imagine it would be a problem going back to the educational system that worked so well for my generation and those before. Waivers! How many students out there could get a 10 year waiver from their teacher for an assignment?

To refresh, the Act provides: (source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Child_Left_Behind_Act )
“No Child Left Behind requires all government-run schools receiving federal funding to administer a state-wide standardized test annually to all students. This means that all students take the same test under the same conditions. Schools which receive Title I funding through the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 must make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in test scores (e.g. each year, its fifth graders must do better on standardized tests than the previous year's fifth graders).”

Also, I don't read either of the OP quotes as being religion based.

 

[mege]

Then read the Texas Republican Party 2012 Platform report.

A few examples:
"We recommend that local school boards and classroom teachers be given moreauthority to deal with disciplinary problems. Corporal punishment is effective and legal in Texas."
and
"We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (valuesclarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-BasedEducation (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challengingthe student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority."

Yes, this is for real.

It's just... Well, I'm not an American, so maybe it doesn't surprise or disgust Americans as much. But, yeah, disgusted, that's really the only thing I can say about it.

What disgusts you? HOTS and OBE (from my understanding) are really geared towards LD students - they're specific programs, but instead, from reading the HuffPo article, many think that the Republicans are against "higher order thinking" (note the lower case - just like the article used...).

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

... Also, I don't read either of the OP quotes as being religion based.

I can't think of any other feasible authoritative idea that parents generally pass down to their children that is readily opposed by school teachings.

 

[ThinkToday]

I can't think of any other feasible authoritative idea that parents generally pass down to their children that is readily opposed by school teachings.

Short list. Values such as personal responsibility vs. collective responsibility, sex education, abstinence, hunting, right to keep arms, death penalty, politics in general that push any viewpoint over another, anything that belittles another’s opinion when the teacher disagrees, etc.

My kids have been in public and private schools, and I've seen all those things and more.

 

[BobG]

What disgusts you? HOTS and OBE (from my understanding) are really geared towards LD students - they're specific programs, but instead, from reading the HuffPo article, many think that the Republicans are against "higher order thinking" (note the lower case - just like the article used...).

Obviously, there can be some confusion about what HOTS means - are you talking about a specific computer software package used by educators that happened to choose HOTS as its name or are you talking about HOTS, the teaching method.

HOTS is why elementary school kids not only have to solve simple arithmetic problems, but also get story problems where they have to figure out how to set up their simple arithmetic problems (that's just the easiest example to use).

Likewise, OBE is about setting standards students have to meet in order to progress and eventually graduate. Historically, students spend 12 years in school, passing on to the next grade if their teachers will give them at least a 'D' in enough subjects and there's no guarantee these 'D' students have actually learned anything (examples of graduates that are illiterate, for example). OBE requires standardized tests to prove the student has actually learned something before allowing them to graduate.

There's nothing wrong with either concept in theory, but, in practice, there can be lots of problems.

1) In softer subjects, the 'correct' thought process and answer may be politically charged. That really has nothing to do with the concept, itself. The opposition is the choice of standards, etc.

2) If there's standards that every student has to meet and everyone knows what they are, then teachers will teach the students information that helps them pass the standards instead of other stuff that some people might see as more valuable. (In other words, teachers will teach the test instead of teaching students a more diverse knowledge field.)

3) The teaching method doesn't overcome the environment/skills some students have to live with. If you set standards that have to be met in order to pass/graduate, you may be shocked to find out a large percentage of students will never meet those standards no matter how much money you inject into the education system. Obviously, some parents of the failing students will be very upset.

4) Having standards isn't a guarantee that people chose the standards wisely. They could be too easy (especially when large percentages fail the first batch of standards) or they could be too difficult. Or, in the softer subjects, the standards could require students to state opinions that their parents would find offensive.

That's a poorly written platform that states an objection to HOTS (and OBE) unless the Texas Republican Party really wishes a return to the days when students spent 12 years in school and then moved on out into the world with whatever skills they happened to pick up, regardless of whether they picked up a lot of skills or almost no skills - unless they feel the important thing was that the opportunity to learn was presented and it was entirely up to the student to take advantage of that or not to take advantage of that.

And that could be their viewpoint - a viewpoint that the students (and their parents) should take more responsibility for whether they actually get anything out of school.

But even in the latter case, I'm not sure why the Republican Party is stating they oppose a teaching method which could be compatible with any outcome an education may desire. I think what they really oppose is the particular standards selected and are struggling for a way to say that coherently without getting completely lost in the details.

 

[KiwiKid]

I don't really know anything about those specific teaching methods (HOTS and OBE), but I also don't really care. The reason they oppose these methods becomes clear from the second part of that sentence "[These programs] have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority."

Challenging fixed beliefs *should* be a good thing. (Before someone feels the need to pull a strawman on this: challenging != defenestrating.)

 

[BobG]

Challenging fixed beliefs *should* be a good thing. (Before someone feels the need to pull a strawman on this: challenging != defenestrating.)

Such as an English teacher requiring their students to take the opposite side they actually believe in when writing pro/con papers? Obviously, that would be an impossible requirement in the real world since the student could just lie about which side they believe in and go ahead and take whichever side they want. But I did have an English teacher that tried to sell the idea that taking the opposite side on pro/con papers would raise your score by at least one letter grade. I bought it and believe in it for reasons other than just the grade, but have to admit that it would be impossible to know if it really raised my score by one letter grade since I never wrote two different papers and compared the scores.

But, regardless of whether I buy into that idea or not, one could raise the question: Why should challenging fixed beliefs be a good idea? Especially if those fixed beliefs are 'better' than opposing beliefs? Shouldn't we be teaching the best beliefs?

In other words, your statement sounds like a fixed belief that you've provided no support for.

 

[KiwiKid]

But, regardless of whether I buy into that idea or not, one could raise the question: Why should challenging fixed beliefs be a good idea? Especially if those fixed beliefs are 'better' than opposing beliefs? Shouldn't we be teaching the best beliefs?

Because we cannot determine which beliefs are best without challenging them all.

 

[Oltz]

I don't really know anything about those specific teaching methods (HOTS and OBE), but I also don't really care. The reason they oppose these methods becomes clear from the second part of that sentence "[These programs] have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority."

Challenging fixed beliefs *should* be a good thing. (Before someone feels the need to pull a strawman on this: challenging != defenestrating.)

Education should not be about challenging belief it should be about imparting knowledge who decides which beliefs get challenged? Each teacher? each district? state?

Belief has no place in school I do not care what a teachers position is on the right to bare arms or on gay marriage or whatever.

As the poster above said he went out and researched on his own and developed his own beliefs regarding religion that is how it should be not trading what your parents raise you to be familiar with for what your teacher thinks you should "believe"

Each individual needs to make a choice to either expand and refine their views or not and what views they consider or research on their own it is not a place for government mandated "challenging".

And yes that is my belief feel free to challenge it I am willing to evaluate it but it is my choice not some administrator.

 

[daveb]

Education should not be about challenging belief it should be about imparting knowledge who decides which beliefs get challenged? Each teacher? each district? state?

What do you mean by knowledge in this regard, and what do you mean by belief? Where is evolution placed?

 

[Oltz]

What do you mean by knowledge in this regard, and what do you mean by belief? Where is evolution placed?

Evolution and genetics belong in high school biology classes not in elementary Earth science classes. That being the case by the time you are in high school you can choose to take biology or not. At that point it is knowledge based on our understanding of biology and genetics that evolution has and is the natural course of things.

An elementary school teacher has no reason to even bring evolution into a discussion with 6-12 year old children and that is normally the situation that is criticized by most parents.

Just like capital punishment and other issues do not belong in education until the students have learned the needed pre requisite skills to truly evaluate the topic without needing to simply "sponge" up every word a teacher says.

You do not jump into calc based physics just for fun in 3rd grade math just because the teacher wants to why should you jump to advanced civics/biology/social issues simply because the teacher would like to influence the world view of the students.

I think its equivalent to a parent pushing racist views on a child who is to young to understand race. Or that Homosexuality is the norm.

This cuts both sides of the spectrum but one side wants to use the system to spread its views and suppress the other painting them as biggots and "deniers". I do not want either side foisting its beliefs on anyone.

These views that need challenged are part of every culture that does not make them right or wrong but they are part of how children are raised and it is not the place of anyone to forcibly try to take those choices from a parent.

Young adults if you have not noticed will inherently question what they have been taught in the home and that is each individuals journey to walk to self discovery.

Does that clarify anything daveb?

 

[BobG]

But, regardless of whether I buy into that idea or not, one could raise the question: Why should challenging fixed beliefs be a good idea? Especially if those fixed beliefs are 'better' than opposing beliefs? Shouldn't we be teaching the best beliefs?

In other words, your statement sounds like a fixed belief that you've provided no support for.

Because we cannot determine which beliefs are best without challenging them all.

How about this one?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their (censored) with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Isn't saying they're self-evident just a cop out for something they can't prove? I'm pretty sure one could get into trouble for applying a contrary view (or a racist view) in just about any school system. Yes, I'm picking an extreme example, but there's always some 'beliefs' are going to be treated as self-evident and challenging them will be heavily discouraged.

And, to be clear, the quote is historical, from the Declaration of Independence, may or may not represent my own personal views, but is not an attempt by me to claim anything or anyone does or does not exist.

 

[KiwiKid]

How about this one?

Isn't saying they're self-evident just a cop out for something they can't prove? I'm pretty sure one could get into trouble for applying a contrary view (or a racist view) in just about any school system. Yes, I'm picking an extreme example, but there's always some 'beliefs' are going to be treated as self-evident and challenging them will be heavily discouraged.

And, to be clear, the quote is historical, from the Declaration of Independence, may or may not represent my own personal views, but is not an attempt by me to claim anything or anyone does or does not exist.

I see no problem with challenging that belief at all. (This doesn't mean that I think that belief is stupid, or any such thing.) And yes, one could get in trouble for challenging such a belief - but that doesn't mean challenging the belief is bad.

 

[BobG]

Actually, I tend to agree with Oltz on this.

School should be a safe place for students to explore their opinions and where those opinions can lead, it shouldn't be a place where teachers feed the "approved" beliefs to students. In other words, I think the school curriculum could be a problem to be addressed.

I wouldn't extend this to the individual teachers, though, unless they were being very aggressive in trying to sell some particular point of view. At least in high school, there were quite a few teachers that had an obvious slant to the way they discussed things, but there was no common point of view among the teachers any more than there was a common point of view among the people in the city. Being exposed to teachers with different points of view about the same subject only teaches that there's more than one point of view about the subject - it doesn't brainwash the students into believing some particular point of view.

There's always exceptions. In the case of evolution in particular, I think the relatively small groups that find it offensive are just going to have to suck it up (or decide they just won't learn the subjects that include evolution). You can respect other people's beliefs, but asking that the majority of the people keep quiet about a scientific fact to avoid offending a small group of people is going a bit far.

 

[Oltz]

I agree Bob High school in the appropriate subject area is a fine place for there to be some slant in individual classrooms.

Leave your politics and personal beliefs out of the class room if your students are under 16 years old.

 

[mheslep]

I don't really know anything about those specific teaching methods (HOTS and OBE), but I also don't really care. The reason they oppose these methods becomes clear from the second part of that sentence "[These programs] have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority."

Challenging fixed beliefs *should* be a good thing. (Before someone feels the need to pull a strawman on this: challenging != defenestrating.)

Surely you can imagine some fixed beliefs that should not be open to re-determination by third parties? E.g.: 'Murder is wrong'. 'Child molestation is wrong'. 'Stealing Johnny's lunch money is wrong'. This is, I believe, about primary education, not the university seminar.

 

[KiwiKid]

Surely you can imagine some fixed beliefs that should not be open to re-determination by third parties? E.g.: 'Murder is wrong'. 'Child molestation is wrong'. 'Stealing Johnny's lunch money is wrong'. This is, I believe, about primary education, not the university seminar.

No, I don't see a problem with challenging those beliefs. Why? Because if they are correct (which I of course believe they are), then that's we'll conclude. Note that 'challenging beliefs' does not mean you can just ignore what is generally taken for granted - there are often good reasons for this.

Of course, most people instinctively know this and don't feel a need to re-determine them, so the point is pretty much moot.

 

[mheslep]

No, I don't see a problem with challenging those beliefs. Why?

As an example the teaching of the hatred ethnic groups to children in Nazi Germany and today in some Mideast states comes to mind for starters.

...Because if they are correct (which I of course believe they are), then that's we'll conclude. Note that 'challenging beliefs' does not mean you can just ignore what is generally taken for granted - there are often good reasons for this...

If they are correct then that's what we'll conclude? Even in the adult world open discussion does not arrive automatically at the truth instead of often descending into error and fallacy, pursuing group conceits, etc, and in this case we are dealing with children presided over by a primary ed teacher, an employee of the state, not Socrates.

 

[Oltz]

No, I don't see a problem with challenging those beliefs. Why? Because if they are correct (which I of course believe they are), then that's we'll conclude. Note that 'challenging beliefs' does not mean you can just ignore what is generally taken for granted - there are often good reasons for this.

Of course, most people instinctively know this and don't feel a need to re-determine them, so the point is pretty much moot.

You think 6-14 year old kids are going to "conclude" anything?

They will believe what ever the teacher tells them is the truth unless they have been taught differently by their parents and ask them why teacher says they are wrong.

This is not about college and is not about high school civics class debating policy issues this is about children who are still learning how the world works.

I think we are talking from 2 different places.

 

[daveb]

Challenging a belief does not necessarily mean presenting an opposing belief - that's a typical tactic people use, I admit, but it isn't always required.

 

[chemisttree]

Challenging a belief does not necessarily mean presenting an opposing belief - that's a typical tactic people use, I admit, but it isn't always required.

What? Please explain, if you can.

 

[KiwiKid]

What? Please explain, if you can.

I think daveb means that if someone tells you 'X is true', you can challenge it by saying 'is that so?' without necessarily having to have an opposing belief.

 

[AlephZero]

Surely you can imagine some fixed beliefs that should not be open to re-determination by third parties? E.g.: 'Murder is wrong'. 'Child molestation is wrong'. 'Stealing Johnny's lunch money is wrong'. This is, I believe, about primary education, not the university seminar.

http://search.dilbert.com/search?w=teach+kids+right+wrong&view=list&filter=type:comic&x=32&y=16

 

[KiwiKid]

http://search.dilbert.com/search?w=teach+kids+right+wrong&view=list&filter=type:comic&x=32&y=16

Precisely.

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

Opposing beliefs that are, and have been proven to be entirely useless, serve no purpose in our educational system. There's no sense in teaching Creationism in Biology class, when there is no evidence for it, merely because it is an opposing belief. There's no sense in teaching to an Astronomy class the foundations and implementations of Astrology, when that has been proven to be utter nonsense. You're diverting time away from learning legitimate material, and instead focusing on obselete falsehoods.

There's a difference, as Daveb and KiwiKid have pointed out, between teaching opposing beliefs, and challenging beliefs. There's nothing wrong with challenging a belief if the skepticism is justifiable, but adding opposing viewpoints as a part of the curriculum is an utter waste of time and resources.

 

[chemisttree]

I think daveb means that if someone tells you 'X is true', you can challenge it by saying 'is that so?' without necessarily having to have an opposing belief.

Not much of a challenge.

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

Not much of a challenge.

Is that so?

 

[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)."