TexasCHLforum.com

I was really taken back by this when I read it, couldn't really believe it was in an AP History book here in my own state. Heck, in my own town, this is just down the road from me! I saw this link first and tried to do some more searching to see if it was legitimate but then noticed I completely skipped who took the photo. A coworkers brother! Needless to say, I feel very confident it is legitimate and completely blown away that this is what kids these days are being taught. I took AP History, and it wasn't a class for watered down lessons, what is becoming of Texas education these days?!


http://www.dailypaul.com/299365/high-sc ... -amendment" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yikes!

This is making the gun blog rounds and on the Facebook. FWIW, when Gun Nuts Media contacted the school, the spokeswoman was adamant that they knew about the misleading summary and that it was being taught correctly in the classroom.

The school also said the book is supplemental and not the actual text book that is used for lessons in the classroom. The actual text book quotes the bill of rights word for word.

81 reviews of 1 star

http://www.amazon.com/United-States-His ... Descending

Read closely, the entire Bill Of Rights is paraphrased.

suthdj wrote:81 reviews of 1 star

http://www.amazon.com/United-States-His ... Descending

And almost all of those 1 star reviews since this started making the rounds yesterday.

MeMelYup wrote:Read closely, the entire Bill Of Rights is paraphrased.

Maybe they were afraid of copyright infringement?

I think the issue is HOW they paraphrased the 2nd Amendment. If they had just left off "in a state militia", there wouldn't have been any uproar.

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.

Yeah. "The people have the right to own guns and carry them around" would have been an adequate paraphrase.

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.

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.

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.

That's a good point. Although I could see them just issuing an addendum rather than replacing the entire book.

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

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?

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.

And how many students are going to believe their teacher over a state-approved textbook?