Because Texas is a large state, we buy a lot of books. That means what Texas teaches will cause publishers of textbooks to make large press runs. That means other states will find it economical to buy mass produced books and hence will be adopting the Texas emphasis for their own children.
Maybe that's good or maybe that's bad. If the goal were really to provide the best, balanced, most objective and effective education it would be good. If the goal were to fulfill a political agenda whether for radical egalitarianism or fundamentalist evangelical Christianity, then it would be bad.
See what you think:
His Name Sounds Humiliating!
Milhaus and Herbert Walker and Fitzgerald were fine middle names, but Hussein not so much. Does it humiliate because it is applied to our first African-American President? Are we digging a bit too deep to find offense?
And, who is Ruby Bridges?
Do you find a problem with
strengthening the study of the Founding Fathers, free enterprise, eugenics, the extent of Soviet spies during the cold war that helped explain the 'Red Scare' and motivate Sen. Joseph McCarthy.
... study of the Black Panthers during discussion of the Civil Rights Era, the internment of Germans and Italians, as well as the Japanese during WWII, and the economics standards now require teachers to consider the "solvency" of entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare.
It all sounds wonderful until I put it in the context of my own experience in a community college classroom. There is the final end-product of this debate arrayed before me in all their glory.
They couldn't define eugenics or identify Joe McCarthy. They would not be able to tell me how Germans, Italians and Japanese are related to WW II. They don't have a clue about "solvency" of entitlement programs. This is all angels dancing on heads of pins stuff, well beyond them. They are the graduates.
They don't even know the basics. They can't tell me how many US representatives there are, how many Supreme Court justices, how large the Texas state legislature is, what a bi-cameral legislature means, what a deficit is, where federal spending money comes from, or how laissez-faire policy might differ from Keynesian.
Too tough? They can't distinguish between whether and weather. They don't understand a difference between to, two and too. Paragraphing is way complex and verb/noun agreement is magic and mystery. Spelling doesn't even benefit from the little squiggly red lines under a word in their word processor as a clue.
I suppose the debate in Austin is among people who mean well, but the outcome is a long way from what they apparently think it is.
No comments:
Post a Comment