Texas board tries to imbue school textbooks for the U.S. with God/Christianity

[merithyn]

Note that my basic position is not really that religion should not be discussed - rather, I am perfectly content to let the experts in the field decide what is the appropriate amount based on their evaluation of its impact and importance - relative to other topics.

If those experts ahve decided that the amount of content is X, then I am skeptical of someone coming along and saying "Hey, I am a religious fanatic, and I think the amount of content should be X+y, but don't worry, it isn't because I am a religious fanatic, it is because I just think X is not an adequate amount! Oh, and I would like to have veto power over the content that you add in order to make up the difference....I will drop you a line with some suggestions for those who would like to sell us textbooks once we all agree that there needs to be more religious content...".

I'm fairly sure we all agree with you on this, Berkut. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't at least entertain the idea that maybe X should be re-evaluated, and since it was brought forward now, it seems the right time to do so. That doesn't mean that I would ever allow the Texas Board as it stands to be the ones to determine how to do so, but it does mean that it can be discussed and determined by academics. The concern I have is closing off the discussion completely simply because of who brought it to the table.

[Berkut]

I don't think an eigth grade class on US history needs to go into more than a cursory amount of detail about the importance of religion to the the forming of the US Constitution, and certainly not with the slant that a board full of religious zealots are going to put on it.

Again, what do you think we should ditch in favor of more religious indoctrination? remember - the choice here is not between a reasoned and rational discussion of the impact of religion and something else - it is between whatever concept of religious discussion a board of Chrstian fundies want to have in the textbooks and something else.

I await your answer on what we should ditch in their favor.

Obviously, you're not listening to what I'm saying if this is what you believe I would like to see happen. And since I'm not interested in getting into a discussion that has two faces, I'll end it now. When you want to discuss what I'm actually trying to say rather than your distorted version of things, I'll be happy to respond.

And in answer to your question, there is no need to get rid of anything. Rather, take a moment to discuss the Awakening (as Jimmy suggested) as a portion of what's already there.

So you still won't answer the question, and instead you think that an appropriate "amount" is a "moment" as opposed to zero moments that are currently devoted to it - and we know this based on the expert testimony of your son who doesn't remember any such "moments".

So you think that no mention is not enough, but a single "moment" is adequate? If that is the case, then aren't you making a big deal over nothing? I mean, if it is just a "moment", it won't even appear on a test, or in a paper. Heck, the students won't even know what "the Awakening" is referring to. I agree that is the only way to do it without removing some other content though - but I am unsure what the utility of this "moment" would be, compared to just ignoring it (assuming of course, that it is in fact actually ignored, which we don't really know).

[Fate]

The Awakening is definitely mentioned in Texas' AP US history classes.

[Berkut]

Note that my basic position is not really that religion should not be discussed - rather, I am perfectly content to let the experts in the field decide what is the appropriate amount based on their evaluation of its impact and importance - relative to other topics.

If those experts ahve decided that the amount of content is X, then I am skeptical of someone coming along and saying "Hey, I am a religious fanatic, and I think the amount of content should be X+y, but don't worry, it isn't because I am a religious fanatic, it is because I just think X is not an adequate amount! Oh, and I would like to have veto power over the content that you add in order to make up the difference....I will drop you a line with some suggestions for those who would like to sell us textbooks once we all agree that there needs to be more religious content...".

I'm fairly sure we all agree with you on this, Berkut. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't at least entertain the idea that maybe X should be re-evaluated, and since it was brought forward now, it seems the right time to do so. That doesn't mean that I would ever allow the Texas Board as it stands to be the ones to determine how to do so, but it does mean that it can be discussed and determined by academics. The concern I have is closing off the discussion completely simply because of who brought it to the table.

I don't agree that because a group of religious nuts brings something up, that is a valid reason to start questioning the experts on any particular topic.

If the issue has any validity, it has it *without* it being raised by people with an agenda. the problem with your position is that it plays directly into their hands. They bring it up, a bunch of people agree that yes, there needs to be more discussion of religion, and then the textbook writers go out and give the people who make the buying decisions what they want, because they have determined the parameters of the debate by being the people who have initiated the discussion.

[merithyn]

Given that I would have to study a textbook to know what to de-emphasize, it's a pointless question and answer session between us. I don't know what's taught explicitly (though I'd argue that my son's testimony is more valid than anything you or I could claim as it's been more than 25 years since either of us have looked at a text), so I couldn't give you a definitive answer, which is apparently what you're going for. What I can say is that having sat through a few of these classes as an observer, there is plenty of time to discuss this in the day.

Jimmy is probably the better person to ask as he's taught a similar class recently, and since he agrees with him, I'll happily defer to him... or grumbler for that matter.

[merithyn]

I don't agree that because a group of religious nuts brings something up, that is a valid reason to start questioning the experts on any particular topic.

If the issue has any validity, it has it *without* it being raised by people with an agenda. the problem with your position is that it plays directly into their hands. They bring it up, a bunch of people agree that yes, there needs to be more discussion of religion, and then the textbook writers go out and give the people who make the buying decisions what they want, because they have determined the parameters of the debate by being the people who have initiated the discussion.

I would argue that when ANY group brings up a topic it should be evaluated for validity. Some can be dismissed out of hand, while others may deserve a little more face time... like this one. And again, I think we all agree that the way it's being handled in Texas sucks and shouldn't even be entertained. I am assuming that more level-headed academics are making the first, middle and final decisions on what and how it's presented in the texts books.

[Berkut]

Given that I would have to study a textbook to know what to de-emphasize, it's a pointless question and answer session between us.

But you do insist that there is *soemthing* that can be tossed out in favor of more chat about religion, then? And while you say you don't know what is there, you DO know enough about what is NOT there to have an opinion about what should be added? That seems odd.

I don't know what's taught explicitly (though I'd argue that my son's testimony is more valid than anything you or I could claim as it's been more than 25 years since either of us have looked at a text),

Not really. Your son is a single person. He may be lying. He might have fallen asleep that day. He could be in some class that is not average or typical. Who knows? He is not a source of data at all.

I would trust any number of other sources before the word of some 13 year old.

What is more, my position is not at all based on MY knowledge of what IS taught, as I made clear. My position is simply that I have seen no reason to buy the idea that there is a problem simply because some religious fanatics say there is, even if your son agrees with them.

Therefore, if someone is proposing a change (you), I have to ask them why they want such a change, and how they intend to fit in this new content given a finite amount of time available to teach content.

so I couldn't give you a definitive answer, which is apparently what you're going for.

Of course you can't - that is my point. You are asking that something be added, based on you just admitting you don't actually even know what is taught, and are unable to say what should be removed to make room for what has been added - because in fact you don't know what is there to begin with - the fact that you don't know what to remove is *precisely* my point. You have not thought this through.

What I can say is that having sat through a few of these classes as an observer, there is plenty of time to discuss this in the day.

No, actually there isn't - this response is like someone saying we can easily pay for health care for everyone without raising taxes by "not wasting so much money".

Jimmy is probably the better person to ask as he's taught a similar class recently, and since he agrees with him, I'll happily defer to him... or grumbler for that matter.

While I would find grumblers position interesting, it would be on the basis of him being at least *something* of an "expert" in the field. I have already stated that I am perfectly content with letting non-politically motivated experts decide on these curriculum issues without interference from either religious nuts or busybodies who have no clue what they mean when they say "there should be more content about X in textbooks!"

[merithyn]

Actually, my opinions are as much formed by the article as by my sons' memory of the classes they've taken. The impression given throughout the article is that this aspect of the creation of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence isn't discussed in the current texts, or if done so is at the most minimal level.

And while I agree that I do not have the knowledge or ability to say at this moment what should or should not be cut out to discuss it (should that even be necessary), I do trust that experts in the field who are doing the actual updating would be able to. That I can't come up with something off the top of my head does not negate the potential changes that could - and arguably should - be made.

My point was and is that this topic is worthy of attention, that the Texas Board is not the ones who should be making these decisions, and that the religious conflict going on at the time of the birth of this country had an integral affect on what was written. If that is not being taught, which is intimated in the article, it should be.

And re: meri's comment
And of course academic curriculum should be largely determined by academics. I mean, duh.

You say this and yet a large portion of those deciding what goes into the curriculum are no more academics than you or I. In fact, a lot of those involved are politicians rather than educators. So if it's so obvious, why is it not happening?

You never addressed this, by the way.

[Malthus]

If I were a teacher, I'd have my kids analysing the background to this conflict over textbooks. It has it all - the current meaning and use of history to advance social agendas, the ongoing nature of American democracy, the conflict between populism and academic rigour, decentralization and local states vs. centralization and federalism. All sorts of ramifications.

You could divide the class and have one half debate that religion is sufficienty represented in the current textbook the class is using, and the other half debate that more religion should be required - choosing the teams based on putting those most in favour of one side on the opposite team. Give them time to thoroughly review the text and do some research to support their points.

[dps]

Given that I would have to study a textbook to know what to de-emphasize, it's a pointless question and answer session between us.

But you do insist that there is *soemthing* that can be tossed out in favor of more chat about religion, then? And while you say you don't know what is there, you DO know enough about what is NOT there to have an opinion about what should be added? That seems odd.

She's not arguing for more "chat" about religion in general, she's discussing the possibilty that it might be appropriate to put more emphasis on the role that religion played as a motivation for certain historical events (if I understand her correctly).  While religion and religious faith was not a major factor in the independenced movement or the events surrounding the adoption of the Constitution, they were a major factor in the intial settlement of the colonies, and in many important historical social and political movements (the abolition movement, the prohibiton movement, and the civil rights movement, just to name a few).  That's just the facts, whether you like it or not.

As for what should be ditched, well, that would obviously vary from one school system to another, depending on what the current curriculum includes.  This is just annecdotal, but when I was in school, in social studies we spent a whole year in grade school and another in junior high studying West Virginia history.  AFAIK, that hasn't changed in WV schools since, and is pretty much in line with what people from other states have told me about their schooling.  While I wouldn't want to say that state/local history shouldn't be taught at all, I think that is too much time devoted to the topic.  So a good bit of time could be freed up right there.  And that's just within the area of history/social studies, without touching other areas of the curriculum.  (As an aside, I think that there should be more emphasis placed on history and civics overall, but that's a different discussion.)

[Ed Anger]

As for what should be ditched, well, that would obviously vary from one school system to another, depending on what the current curriculum includes.  This is just annecdotal, but when I was in school, in social studies we spent a whole year in grade school and another in junior high studying West Virginia history.  AFAIK, that hasn't changed in WV schools since, and is pretty much in line with what people from other states have told me about their schooling.  While I wouldn't want to say that state/local history shouldn't be taught at all, I think that is too much time devoted to the topic.  So a good bit of time could be freed up right there.  And that's just within the area of history/social studies, without touching other areas of the curriculum.  (As an aside, I think that there should be more emphasis placed on history and civics overall, but that's a different discussion.)

I had a year in 7th grade devoted to state history. Total waste of time, and an easy 'A'.

[Berkut]

Given that I would have to study a textbook to know what to de-emphasize, it's a pointless question and answer session between us.

But you do insist that there is *soemthing* that can be tossed out in favor of more chat about religion, then? And while you say you don't know what is there, you DO know enough about what is NOT there to have an opinion about what should be added? That seems odd.

She's not arguing for more "chat" about religion in general, she's discussing the possibilty that it might be appropriate to put more emphasis on the role that religion played as a motivation for certain historical events (if I understand her correctly).  While religion and religious faith was not a major factor in the independenced movement or the events surrounding the adoption of the Constitution, they were a major factor in the intial settlement of the colonies, and in many important historical social and political movements (the abolition movement, the prohibiton movement, and the civil rights movement, just to name a few).  That's just the facts, whether you like it or not.

I don't think what I like is really a point of discussion, is it?

Nor have I ever claimed that religion was not a major factor in "many important historical and political movements". Why are you creating this strawman to get all enraged about?

[Berkut]

As for what should be ditched, well, that would obviously vary from one school system to another, depending on what the current curriculum includes.  This is just annecdotal, but when I was in school, in social studies we spent a whole year in grade school and another in junior high studying West Virginia history.  AFAIK, that hasn't changed in WV schools since, and is pretty much in line with what people from other states have told me about their schooling.  While I wouldn't want to say that state/local history shouldn't be taught at all, I think that is too much time devoted to the topic.  So a good bit of time could be freed up right there.  And that's just within the area of history/social studies, without touching other areas of the curriculum.  (As an aside, I think that there should be more emphasis placed on history and civics overall, but that's a different discussion.)

I had a year in 7th grade devoted to state history. Total waste of time, and an easy 'A'.

So now we have a candidate for something to be cut - state and local history should be pared down in favor of more time spent discussing the role religion has played in US history.

Fair enough - although I would wonder why religion should trump other important roles in US history that are not given much time now. Is there some reason to think that religion is given especially short attention compared to other topics?

If we could list, I don't know, two dozen important concepts that shaped US history and culture, is there some reason to think that religion (which would certainly be on such a list, I think we all agree) is given less attention than it deserves, right now?

So far, the only evidence provided that it does not get enough attention is the claim of people we all agree actually have an ulterior motive, and the word of a 13 year old who said it was not touched on in some particular class he took.

I am less than convinced. Obviously the word of the bible thumpers is completely uninteresting. The word of the 13 year old is slightly more interesting, but only very slightly - maybe this is covered in later classes in high school, or perhaps he wasn't paying much attention in the class he was in, and in fact it was covered.

*I* certainly managed to get through my secondary education with some knowledge of the role of religion in US history - did I hear that in class, or in some other setting, like my own reading? Kind of hard to say - I did plenty of outside the classroom reading on hsitory, so it seems hard to say waht actual knowledge I got IN the classroom. I am a poor source of information just like Meri's son is.

So what do the experts think? If in fact there is a reason to think religion does not get the attention it deserves - why doesn't it?

[Berkut]

I had a year in 7th grade devoted to state history. Total waste of time, and an easy 'A'.

I bet there is a bunch of people out there who would say:

1. That this was not a waste of your time at all, and learning about the history of your state/county/region is terribly important for a variety of reasons, and/or
2. Learning about how religion impacted various other historical events and times is perfectly adequately covered already, and is certainly NOT more important than learning about how Harvey County fought against Prohibition or something.

[dps]

Given that I would have to study a textbook to know what to de-emphasize, it's a pointless question and answer session between us.

But you do insist that there is *soemthing* that can be tossed out in favor of more chat about religion, then? And while you say you don't know what is there, you DO know enough about what is NOT there to have an opinion about what should be added? That seems odd.

She's not arguing for more "chat" about religion in general, she's discussing the possibilty that it might be appropriate to put more emphasis on the role that religion played as a motivation for certain historical events (if I understand her correctly).  While religion and religious faith was not a major factor in the independenced movement or the events surrounding the adoption of the Constitution, they were a major factor in the intial settlement of the colonies, and in many important historical social and political movements (the abolition movement, the prohibiton movement, and the civil rights movement, just to name a few).  That's just the facts, whether you like it or not.

I don't think what I like is really a point of discussion, is it?

"Goes to motivation, your honor."  You've made a point of questioning the motivation of the people on the school board proposing more emphasis on the roll of religion.  Turnabout is fair play. 

Nor have I ever claimed that religion was not a major factor in "many important historical and political movements". Why are you creating this strawman to get all enraged about?

You've made the point that religion did not play a major role in the events surrounding the Revolutionary War and the adoption of the Constitution, and cited that as a reason not to emphasize religion more in history class.  I'm merely pointing out that while you are correct about the Revolutionary War and the Constitution, there's more to American History, and religion did play a major role in other important historical events.

Fair enough - although I would wonder why religion should trump other important roles in US history that are not given much time now. Is there some reason to think that religion is given especially short attention compared to other topics?

If we could list, I don't know, two dozen important concepts that shaped US history and culture, is there some reason to think that religion (which would certainly be on such a list, I think we all agree) is given less attention than it deserves, right now?

Has anyone here stated or suggested that religion should trump other topics in US history that are not given much time now?  But since you bring it up, I will say that religion and other factors that provide motivation and context for historical events are generally given short shift.  As best as I can tell, there's still too much emphasis on things like learning to recite the Preamble to the Constitution, or the Gettysburg Address, or knowing the exact date that Vicksburg fell, or the names of the 3 ships Columbus had on his first voyage to the New World.  I'm not saying there's no value in those thing, just that context is important, and that religion was often an important part of the context of historical events.