TexasCHLforum.com

G26ster wrote:

n5wd wrote:Possibly, but this is a supplemental text, not the textbook, and it's intended as a study guide for the AP tests that are the same all across the 50 US of A. Don't pick on Guyer HS - I'd imagine that supplemental text is probably being used by many of the high schools in the state (I'm not sure if our is one of them - I'll try and find out). But, to make the change that everyone is getting so uppity about, you'd have to pick on the publisher for they are the ones that approved the book as written by the authors.

How long would a "supplemental text" or study guide that said 2+2=5 last in a classroom? Not one minute I suspect.

It would last quite awhile if the answer to questions on the AP test were 2+2=5. It's not about learning it's about getting money when it comes to the AP so they'll hold their noses and do whatever it takes.

EEllis wrote:

G26ster wrote:

n5wd wrote:Possibly, but this is a supplemental text, not the textbook, and it's intended as a study guide for the AP tests that are the same all across the 50 US of A. Don't pick on Guyer HS - I'd imagine that supplemental text is probably being used by many of the high schools in the state (I'm not sure if our is one of them - I'll try and find out). But, to make the change that everyone is getting so uppity about, you'd have to pick on the publisher for they are the ones that approved the book as written by the authors.

How long would a "supplemental text" or study guide that said 2+2=5 last in a classroom? Not one minute I suspect.

It would last quite awhile if the answer to questions on the AP test were 2+2=5. It's not about learning it's about getting money when it comes to the AP so they'll hold their noses and do whatever it takes.

Don't disagree, except for the nose holding. I think the incorrect paraphrase pleases most in academia quite well.

chasfm11 wrote:

n5wd wrote:

Wes wrote:

n5wd wrote:Possibly, but this is a supplemental text, not the textbook, and it's intended as a study guide for the AP tests that are the same all across the 50 US of A. Don't pick on Guyer HS - I'd imagine that supplemental text is probably being used by many of the high schools in the state (I'm not sure if our is one of them - I'll try and find out). But, to make the change that everyone is getting so uppity about, you'd have to pick on the publisher for they are the ones that approved the book as written by the authors.

So school districts don't approve text book used in our schools? The guy who posted the pic didn't buy the book for his kid, it was given to him in class. Supplemental or not, the school still distributed it to the students for use to review the class material.

As I understand it (I'm not involved in textbook purchasing, but did get involved in making recommendations to the state regarding textbooks in my field a few years ago) TEA publishes lists of supplemental books that are OK'ed for purchase using state funds, and a different list of supplemental texts that are eligible for partial reimbursement. Anything else has to be purchased by school district funds. Then, if the school still wants something different, they can use un-allocated school funds to purchase the books. Where that particular book is on the lists, I have no idea. So yes, the school could have decided not to distribute it, but as a study guide, I'd say the wording in the paraphrased description of the 2nd amendment to the Constitution would not be a reason for discrediting the entire book, when something said by the instructor could have corrected that, if the instructor was aware of the controversy. Just MHO

Agreed. But doesn't it seem a little odd and very consistent that EVERY ERROR undermines the conservative point of view? After a while, those little mistakes really aren't mistakes at all.

Besides, with that supplement, you are now at the mercy of the teacher's willingness to set the record straight... or not. They could do that but will they?

You'd probably be surprised to find out that teachers, just like most other professions, are filled with people that support every political group out there, everything from far right to the far left and everything in between. On my particular wing of the school, with 11teachers, four have CHLs and three are avid deer/turkey hunters with only two of them in both groups. That's better than the population averages, but then most of are in the career & technology fields.

All I can tell you is that if it were me teaching the class, they'd have already read the Constitution, and would have their own little copy. And, I have no reason to believe that other social studies teachers would not do the same. Nuff said.

MotherBear wrote:

chasfm11 wrote:Agreed. But doesn't it seem a little odd and very consistent that EVERY ERROR undermines the conservative point of view? After a while, those little mistakes really aren't mistakes at all.

Besides, with that supplement, you are now at the mercy of the teacher's willingness to set the record straight... or not. They could do that but will they?

At some point, that's what you get when you hand over education to the government. Ideally, by the time these kids are in high school they should know the Bill of Rights and realize it's wrong without needing the teacher's correction. But then, why would we expect the government (any government) to be conscientious about handing its citizens the tools they need to resist tyranny -- like an accurate knowledge of their rights? I had the Bill of Rights memorized, word for word, by the time I was in high school. My kids will too. Even assuming a government isn't already corrupt, the only way to keep it that way is constant vigilance.

This one makes me think of George Orwell's "Animal Farm," the way the rules kept gradually changing and the other animals never quite caught it until too late.

+1,000

n5wd wrote: . . . I'd say the wording in the paraphrased description of the 2nd amendment to the Constitution would not be a reason for discrediting the entire book, when something said by the instructor could have corrected that, if the instructor was aware of the controversy. Just MHO

And I would disagree. First, that they take such liberties with the wording indicates to me that they can and will take similar liberties in interpretation with anything else presented. The Bill of Rights should be presented plain, with no interpretation, and then interpretation should follow, including recent SCOTUS holdings that disagree with their biased point of view.

And having been an instructor and course developer I understand, almost too well how badly a dichotomy between a text (and this is a text despite its being "supplemental") and what the instructor says. When the audio/visual learner goes back and reviews their notes and sees the highlight that they made over the 2nd, they may not recall the exact reason for the highlight (that the teacher said that was wrong) but they will ingrain what the text says as reinforcement. When the visual/kinesthetic learner reviews the text, they will not even recall what the teacher said, but there will be the words. The audio/kinesthetic learner will not be reviewing the text anyway, so what the teacher said might sink in. Of the eight possible combinations of the three basic learning styles ("none" is not valid) Those who paid attention to the teacher and ignored the text will be in the minority.

Of course there are always those like me, who knew the text was wrong to start with, and got a failing grade for daring to argue with it.

n5wd wrote:

chasfm11 wrote:

n5wd wrote:

Wes wrote:

n5wd wrote:Possibly, but this is a supplemental text, not the textbook, and it's intended as a study guide for the AP tests that are the same all across the 50 US of A. Don't pick on Guyer HS - I'd imagine that supplemental text is probably being used by many of the high schools in the state (I'm not sure if our is one of them - I'll try and find out). But, to make the change that everyone is getting so uppity about, you'd have to pick on the publisher for they are the ones that approved the book as written by the authors.

So school districts don't approve text book used in our schools? The guy who posted the pic didn't buy the book for his kid, it was given to him in class. Supplemental or not, the school still distributed it to the students for use to review the class material.

As I understand it (I'm not involved in textbook purchasing, but did get involved in making recommendations to the state regarding textbooks in my field a few years ago) TEA publishes lists of supplemental books that are OK'ed for purchase using state funds, and a different list of supplemental texts that are eligible for partial reimbursement. Anything else has to be purchased by school district funds. Then, if the school still wants something different, they can use un-allocated school funds to purchase the books. Where that particular book is on the lists, I have no idea. So yes, the school could have decided not to distribute it, but as a study guide, I'd say the wording in the paraphrased description of the 2nd amendment to the Constitution would not be a reason for discrediting the entire book, when something said by the instructor could have corrected that, if the instructor was aware of the controversy. Just MHO

Agreed. But doesn't it seem a little odd and very consistent that EVERY ERROR undermines the conservative point of view? After a while, those little mistakes really aren't mistakes at all.

Besides, with that supplement, you are now at the mercy of the teacher's willingness to set the record straight... or not. They could do that but will they?

You'd probably be surprised to find out that teachers, just like most other professions, are filled with people that support every political group out there, everything from far right to the far left and everything in between. On my particular wing of the school, with 11teachers, four have CHLs and three are avid deer/turkey hunters with only two of them in both groups. That's better than the population averages, but then most of are in the career & technology fields.

All I can tell you is that if it were me teaching the class, they'd have already read the Constitution, and would have their own little copy. And, I have no reason to believe that other social studies teachers would not do the same. Nuff said.

Perhaps you are correct - in Ft. Worth. I suspect that none of that would take place in the Dallas, San Antonio and Austin districts. Probably not Houston either.

All teachers, like any other person in our society, are entitled to their own opinionw. I don't even mind if they share those opinions with their classes as long as they are clearly represented as their opinions and not the factual material that they are supposed to be teaching. I think it is good that students are introduced to controversial subjects and that the various points of view on them are fairly represented.

I think that the Texas schools, in general, are doing a poor job of teaching the Constitution, based on the ability of the general student population to articulate the key points about it. I understand and agree that there are some districts that are doing a very good job but the majority do not appear to be meeting that standard. And I believe that Texas schools are much better at it than most of the schools on either coast. Some would say that nit picking the wording in this supplement is just that. But the battle for changing Constitutional education has to start somewhere and this is as good of a place as any.

jimlongley wrote:

n5wd wrote: . . . I'd say the wording in the paraphrased description of the 2nd amendment to the Constitution would not be a reason for discrediting the entire book, when something said by the instructor could have corrected that, if the instructor was aware of the controversy. Just MHO

And I would disagree. First, that they take such liberties with the wording indicates to me that they can and will take similar liberties in interpretation with anything else presented. The Bill of Rights should be presented plain, with no interpretation, and then interpretation should follow, including recent SCOTUS holdings that disagree with their biased point of view.

And having been an instructor and course developer I understand, almost too well how badly a dichotomy between a text (and this is a text despite its being "supplemental") and what the instructor says. When the audio/visual learner goes back and reviews their notes and sees the highlight that they made over the 2nd, they may not recall the exact reason for the highlight (that the teacher said that was wrong) but they will ingrain what the text says as reinforcement. When the visual/kinesthetic learner reviews the text, they will not even recall what the teacher said, but there will be the words. The audio/kinesthetic learner will not be reviewing the text anyway, so what the teacher said might sink in. Of the eight possible combinations of the three basic learning styles ("none" is not valid) Those who paid attention to the teacher and ignored the text will be in the minority.

Of course there are always those like me, who knew the text was wrong to start with, and got a failing grade for daring to argue with it.

The whole Bill of Rights verbatim isn't but two pages long. There isn't ever any real need to paraphrase it anyway.

Thats a AP exam and its paraphrased.

If you peruse the document, they don't teach the Constitution. They are teaching history and referring to the Constitution and paraphrasing it for there convenience.

These are not "mistakes." This is how the collectivists triumph, by the lie. They spent decades getting control of the school curriculum and schools in order to indoctrinate our children. Sending a child to public school these days should be considered child abuse.

chasfm11 wrote:
Agreed. But doesn't it seem a little odd and very consistent that EVERY ERROR undermines the conservative point of view? After a while, those little mistakes really aren't mistakes at all.

Besides, with that supplement, you are now at the mercy of the teacher's willingness to set the record straight... or not. They could do that but will they?

Being diplomatic? It's hard for me to believe that you don't know these are not errors, but deliberate collectivist indoctrination.

VMI77 wrote:

chasfm11 wrote:
Agreed. But doesn't it seem a little odd and very consistent that EVERY ERROR undermines the conservative point of view? After a while, those little mistakes really aren't mistakes at all.

Besides, with that supplement, you are now at the mercy of the teacher's willingness to set the record straight... or not. They could do that but will they?

Being diplomatic? It's hard for me to believe that you don't know these are not errors, but deliberate collectivist indoctrination.

Yes. I know exactly what they are and why they are made. I was simply trying to point out to some who seem not to understand the landslide of things that are being done in our educational environment to completely undermine those of us who expect a fair, unbiased and accurate education of our kids and grandkids. The charge is that we see conspiracy behind every tree. Yep, sure do. I'll I'll keep seeing it until I see progress slowing toward the Progressive indoctrination. I have no illusions about actually stopping it.

I got a chance to listen to a presentation by the man who has been at the forefront of fighting that avalanche of Progressive changes in Texas text books. He showed specific example after specific example. After 10 minutes, the intent was clear. It would have been better if those responsible for trying to force those changes had simply said "Ok, you caught us." Nope, they fought every correction to the bitter end, repleat with name calling for all those involved who pointed out those blatant errors.

bdickens wrote:

jimlongley wrote:Of course there are always those like me, who knew the text was wrong to start with, and got a failing grade for daring to argue with it.

The whole Bill of Rights verbatim isn't but two pages long. There isn't ever any real need to paraphrase it anyway.

Make them read original sources? *gasp* We couldn't do that!

Seriously, when I was in high school (10 years ago), there were kids in 12th grade AP English who couldn't understand basic Shakespearean vocabulary. And the teacher got mad at me when I suggested to her that students who can't read Shakespeare maybe don't belong in an AP class, and if they fixed that maybe the rest of us could actually learn something. Unfortunately, "the rest of us" would have meant about 5 students. I know the Bill of Rights is easier reading than Hamlet, but it's the same problem. Again, this is why I will not entrust my children's education to the state.

MotherBear wrote:

bdickens wrote:

jimlongley wrote:Of course there are always those like me, who knew the text was wrong to start with, and got a failing grade for daring to argue with it.

The whole Bill of Rights verbatim isn't but two pages long. There isn't ever any real need to paraphrase it anyway.

Make them read original sources? *gasp* We couldn't do that!

Seriously, when I was in high school (10 years ago), there were kids in 12th grade AP English who couldn't understand basic Shakespearean vocabulary. And the teacher got mad at me when I suggested to her that students who can't read Shakespeare maybe don't belong in an AP class, and if they fixed that maybe the rest of us could actually learn something. Unfortunately, "the rest of us" would have meant about 5 students. I know the Bill of Rights is easier reading than Hamlet, but it's the same problem. Again, this is why I will not entrust my children's education to the state.

There's the textbook version of literature and history, then there's actual history and literature. The two are vastly different. All textbooks facilitate the agenda of those who write them. The collectivists who design the public school curriculum don't want children reading original sources because it would put the lie to nearly everything they include in their indoctrination program.