Texas Lesson Plan Instructs Students to Design Flags for a ‘New Socialist Nation’
 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...ialist-nation/

"A curriculum system used across the state of Texas reportedly includes a lesson plan for 6th graders instructing students to create a flag for a “new socialist nation” using “symbolism to represent aspects of socialism/communism.”

The following was taken from the CSCOPE curriculum lesson plan: “Notice socialist/communist nations use symbolism on their flags representing various aspects of their economic system. Imagine a new socialist nation is creating a flag and you have been put in charge of creating a flag. Use symbolism to represent aspects of socialism/communism on your flag. What kind of symbolism/colors would you use?”

This is also the same folks that were teaching studetns that 'Allah is the Almighty God'

http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/texas-tea...-almighty-god/

I'd be curious to hear what Richard knows/thinks. According to my mom (middle school counselor), they use CSCOPE just as a supplemental source. It doesn't stand on its own, at least at her school.

From the article

She is old-fashioned. Florida schools will be fully digital by 2015. Some have already made the jump.

Is that like the "paperless office" everyone was talking about 15 years ago? Still haven't seen even one yet.

Well with the economy the way it is - who can afford paper?

I converted to a paperless office while provisioning frame-relay circuits a dozen years ago.
It was very effective.

Produced a little over 3 standard workloads (my employer got to bill for the work of 3 people) while only having to do about 2-3 hours of real work each day.
Ironically, my "system" was more robust than those who still used paper; didn't lose time working or lose data when servers crashed (paper pushers did).

Even more ironic was that the benefits were unintentional.
I developed it in a spirit of recalcitrance.

A vague directive came down requiring us to keep all "important" paperwork for one year.
Developed the paperless system, shredded files before enforcement began, and never printed anything ever again.
:D

I do not see why this is an issue. It is simply an activity that develops the idea that socialist/communist countries have used certain objects to symbolize their countries.

Both the first article, and the second article look to be looking for a story where there isn't any. A lot of it is taken out of context, or no context is provided what-so-ever. This is yellow journalism.




A major area of American political history is the differing interpretations of the Constitution and how Federal power has been expanded and contracted over the our history. Just because there is a Supreme Court decision does not mean that we should be writing collective rights advocates out of history. They have had an impact on our recent history, and will continue to be vocal group regardless of a Supreme Court decision. What if DC vs Heller had gone differently (the NRA wouldn't touch it because they were afraid it would)? Should the individual right's advocates be written out of history or marginalized?



I fail to see how learning about the 5 Pillars of Islam, requirements of conversion, or moral imperatives (I am guessing this refers to their legal system). The Islamic Caliphate is a pretty damn big deal when it comes to world history, and just like to study of any conquering empire, it is important to understand not only the way they operated, but also the way they absorbed conquered peoples. My experience in highschool has been that the ascent and decline of the Islamic empires are treated no different than the Roman or Mongolian empires.

Judging people that have long been dead by the standards of our time is not a very good idea. Furthermore, neither of these facts are exceptional, and are of little historical importance.

It pisses me off to no end that there are people that believe history should merely be taught simply as a morality tale that ends with the creation of the 21st Century United States. I don't want to memorize that the American Civil War was just about Lincoln wanting to preserve the Union, and the racist South wanting to keep their slaves. I want to study how and why race relations were different in the South, about how blacks fought bravely for the North, and about how the South also had black soldiers. I also want to learn about how Abraham Lincoln used the Federal Government to imprison his political opponents, and suspended Habeus Corpus. The morality-play version of history takes something that is dynamic and exciting, and distills it into something that is dull, and unbelievable. Furthermore, when we approach history from this perspective of having flawless heros, it discourages critical thinking, and I do not think that is something we should be doing.

I have. I've found that you have to literally do an end run around American journalism and the educational system; both are rooted and steeped in revisionism in order to adhere to the liberalism preached by the sociopolitical movers emanating from the northeast.

As for the caliphate and how its tactics and strategy applies today as much as ever-good luck. The brainwashing done by the libs has driven a healthy sense of caution out of the collective conscious of the Country's people in general.

The complacent sloth that is the normal American these days doesn't want to be discomfited by a necessity to maintain vigilance; he just wants a cut of Obama's stash. If they see socialism as an easy way to get it, they don't care.

The trouble is, as I've said before, until we make the women and minorities who voted for a socio-communist understand the trouble that lies down the road, based on what has historically happened, we'll be where Europe is ourselves by 2017, and inextricably so.

Education Curriculum in Texas
 

I don't think we need to worry the curriculum is becoming too liberal in Texas. See what the conservativre Fordham Institute says

http://www.chron.com/default/article...de-2292973.php

I agree. Nice post.

Richard :munchin

Teaching kids about a New Socialist Nation is old news:
 

Texas

http://www.examiner.com/article/he-s...praising-obama

Missouri

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mvP0ArKIGY

What a bunch of weak minded people. Lets help each other out of the hole but making a militant group of youths is not the way. Hitler Youth comes to mind........

Brain washing since those kids do not know what they were talking about.

FWIW- Here are some ideas for flags

I think that is already taken... Californication or is it Maxataxchutus?

I think this will be California's new flag in a few years...

This discussion brought back memories of living in Columbus, GA, in the mid-80's and having to explain to my sons why the banks, state and federal offices were closed on MLK Day...yet the Muscogee County offices were all open that day and then closed the following day in celebration of RE Lee's birthday.

It has also brought to mind how readily we can find someone somewhere who "doesn't have enough sense to know better than to pound sand down a rat hole" (as my father used to say) and then use it as "proof" to proclaim the entire {system, organization, society, etc} is either declining or broken and unmendable, and heading inexhorably towards some sort of tragic "-ismic" end-state.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qam1fbQmA_s

And so it goes...

Richard :munchin

FWIW, I agree. MOO: I would say it's less morally driven and more: "history is written by the victor". Case in point: In HS, I learned that FDR was was a brilliant statesman and his New Deal worked beyond expectation. As I got older, and started reading a bit more, I also learned that a) FDR was a brilliant politician, and nothing more, he was clueless with regards to most else b) each iteration of the New Deal mostly failed c) he was essentially a ruthless tyrant who used the position of the Executive to further his power and that of the Democratic party. Likewise with what I learned of Lincoln.

My .02

Amen.

Mine were silver. :p

American Presidents are all treated with a similar narrative in basic High School classes. Everything is focused on the good things that Presidents did, or tried to do. If there is something that is very obviously bad, it is pardoned by either "they had good intentions" or by Congress repealing the law. Their noble intentions always trump their actions.

Woodrow Wilson gets remembered for the League of Nations, even though it was a failure; but not so much for the Espionage and Sedition acts, and the desegregation of the Federal Government is not even mentioned.

And to say that it is simply North Easterners that are responsible for what amounts to whitewashing history is erroneous. Reconstruction gets a similar pass from the textbooks, with the radical republicans, carpetbaggers, and scalawags eventually being displaced by Redeemer governments. Jim Crow laws and the Ku Klux Klan get a passive mention. There is no critical analysis or discussion of what or why the country reacted the way that it did. Nor is there any discussion of the long-term social and economic impacts the Civil War and Reconstruction had on the United States; Probably the single most important event in American history.

Instead, everything is treated with a monolithic march towards progress. We may have not actually granted blacks civil rights in the 1860's...but we eventually got around to it in the 1960's. Or we may have had a government controlled press during World War I...but we eventually came to our senses and got rid of those bad laws. Instead of aknowledging our flaws, mistakes, or incongruity, and using it as teachable moments to reflect upon; we distill everything into a third person narrative that is more suited for a story book than a history book. It not only does a diservice to our history, it also makes what is probably one of the most exciting subjects in school into something that is a boring memorization of "facts" to write down on the next test.

That's pretty much the majority of history. I didn't really start to learn about history until I was an adult and out in the world. The highly sanitized version they taught back when I was a kid was a joke. And it hasn't improved since then. I have a friend who's about ten years younger than me who has a bachelors degree in history, and I am constantly shocked by the things he probably should know, but doesn't. If you want to know the truth, you've gotta dig for it.

Agreed, excellent post. I used the presidents as an example, however, as you have pointed out, there are other areas that have received the same or similar treatment. IMO: Many of the controversial areas of history are emotionally charged, and I believe that critical analysis has fallen by the wayside in fear of being stuck with a politically incorrect label. In the words of Warren Buffet: "It takes twenty years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it.", either yourself, or for someone else to ruin it for you.

Same here. Curiosity aside, I should credit several members(Sigaba, where art thou? :D) of this BB, for respectfully calling me out on occasion, piquing my interest in reading/researching more.

My .02

Nice post.

I would argue that there are places for moral judgements in history if historians:

• frame an issue with primary sources,
• leave the act of judgment to the readers' discretion,
• remind readers of the perils of applying current standards to the past, and
• point out that while trajectories of historiographical inquiry can shift over time, history moves in one direction.

For example, a discussion of the "peculiar institution" can be framed in the contemporaneous accounts of those who experienced it first hand, as well as the surrounding debates. If a historian casts a wide enough net, a reader will understand that many Americans found the practice evil while some thought slavery was good. From there, a reader can make his/her own decision.

MOO, the argument that the New York intellectuals' greatly influence the study and teaching of history is not historiographically sustainable.

Second, given the Hegelian formulation of thesis ---> antithesis ---> synthesis, it is difficult to argue that all historical works are not, in one way or another, "revisionist."

Third, lumping together the diverse range of viewpoints (personal, political, philosophical, methodological) that drive historical inquiry under the umbrella of "liberalism" flies in the face of the many intense (and bitter) debates among historians over myriad topics.
Do you recall the name of the textbook (including edition) as well as the other secondary works you were assigned on FDR's presidency?

As a rule of thumb, high school history text books are up to fifty years out of date by the time a student reads one. Moreover, if one is studying a president in that president's home state, lessons that discuss how great he (and, eventually, she) was may be more a reflection of local factors than a grand agenda.

On another point. Since the rise of the "new" social history during the 1960s, and its focus on history "from the bottom up," the study of America's past has largely centered around a "bottom up" approach. This method rejects soundly the notion that "victors write history."

My $0.02

That makes my point, doesn't it?

IMO, it's important to remember that teachers lead the direction of the class, not textbooks. A textbook is only as good, or as bad, as the students and teachers utilizing them.

Sigaba,
Unfortunately I don't, however, you do raise an important point: To be fair, IIRC, the textbook bullet points the major accomplishments of FDR's presidency, and for the sake of neutrality, sticks with the things that he *actually* did, versus the debate and consensus over the outcomes and consequences of his actions and legislation. Unfortunately, you end up with dry facts which raise the perception that each and every contribution was in fact an accomplishment as opposed to a possible detriment. Additionally, I do remember the little gold/tan colored 'Critical Analysis' questions box being very PC'ish in content, without sparking much analysis, critical or otherwise.

My .02

I agree. This is basically what we were graded on in our Advanced Placement History classes during Highschool; They were/are a lot different than our mandatory World History classes (a joke that focused almost exclusively on Europe), and United States History classes. The College Board test is geared towards a mix of memory work (multiple choice section) and then interpretting history and crafting an argument (essay section). For the second portion; you do not really have to be completely accurate as long as you demonstrate an ability to analyze cause and effect.

In regards to providing moral judgements of history, I still agree, but the author of the second article was upset that whatever history lesson he/she was refering to did not mention that Muhammed would be considered a pedophile and war criminal today. That is akin to being upset that our US History textbooks do not make a list of who the most/least racist US Presidents are. To do either would just be pedantic sillyness.

Piece of cake for Sig. :D

Public School
 

It's public school - what more can be said.

Me and President Obama believe in one thing thats the same - private school for our children.

And your kid is in public school learning this crap because.....................?

I don't quite think so. IME, "revisionist" works are the life blood of historical inquiry. From an egg head's perspective, the study of history isn't just about change over time, it is also about the interpretive debates that follow.

Even if one disagrees with almost every point a historian makes, rips his her work to shreds, and second guesses that person's use of primary sources and secondary works, if that work is written to the standards of the craft, one is going to have an opportunity to address new questions and to reconsider established answers.
IME, this statement is only accurate if a student approaches the task of learning from an intellectually passive position.This statement is an over generalization. Some instructors carefully incorporate a textbook into the instruction, others don't. Some students make the decision to read a textbook carefully, others don't. Some textbooks are outstanding pieces of scholarship that even specialists can profit from reading, others suck ass.
Another factor at play could be that your instructor might have"closed shop" intellectually at some point and stopped making any effort to engage students in a manner that breathed life into the subject and enabled students to think critically. This "gone fishin'" approach to the teaching of history can happen at every level of instruction.

"Should" lead - unfortunately, in JHS and HS in particular, many of the History teachers are also coaches and let the texts perfunctoritly lead while they focus their energies on their coaching duties. I used to refer to them as "Another Day - Another Worksheet" teachers. This focus often lends itself to making textbook review and selection a task seen as little but an additional 'time sucking' chore and hinders this important task's receiving the attention it should with expected results.

I disagree. How a textbook may be utilized is not the sole determinant of whether it is a good, mediocre, or bad text. For example, how should we view texts like "Our Virginia: Past and Present," a fourth grade history book which perpetuated the myth of African Americans fighting in Confederate armies during the Civil War. The textbook's author, who was not a historian, found that false claim repeated so many times on the Internet that she assumed it had to be true. The book was later removed from the state's list of approved textbooks - but is that book not, in fact, a 'bad' textbook? I would say it was.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/loc..._confeder.html

http://www.bluffton.edu/~bergerd/essays/trclark.htm

Richard :munchin

Would you mind elaborating? I think even intellectually active students need direction, especially at a younger age.

Maybe so, but I think it holds true in most scenarios. I believe there are learning opportunities in even the worst textbooks, and the benefits of the best ones can be squandered at the hands of "bad" teachers/students. My point was only to emphasize that the educational system has many facets, each with its own shortcomings. I don't consider our textbooks to be the most pressing issue.

Agreed. World History (freshman year) and World Geography (sophomore) were wastes of time. I think this is another facet of the system, something that should be tackled at the district/school board level. If the parents are truly concerned, they could be the forces behind a change in this preferred policy.

I would as well. I didn't mean to imply that utilization is the sole determinant. Rather, like I mentioned to Sigaba, "good" textbooks can be utilized poorly, whereas "bad" ones could be utilized in a constructive manner. It is my understanding that teachers don't get to pick which books they use. If it's out of your hands, I believe in making the best of what you have.

US History books are not very good to begin with, at least not in the sense that it is going to get students excited about history. There are a number of reasons, but one of those has to be how sanitized they become in order to not offend anyone. The people that make the decisions in what history books are not historians...they are politicians.

And when you let politicians make decisions on what the cirriculum should be, you end up with something that is heavily biased towards their political views. That's how we get silly nonsense like replacing the time usually devoted to the beleifs and influence of Thomas Jefferson with John Calvin.

So glad my teen aged kid is home schooled! 2 more years until graduation!

Anyone read any of the following?

The Mad, Mad World of Textbook Adoption

Mad World

Lies My Teacher Told Me

Lies

The Language Police

Language Police

I found some interesting insights in each of them IRT textbooks, textbook revisionism, and censorship...

Lies My Teacher Told Me is one book I'd recommend to anyone interested in the topic of this thread.

Don't Know Much About History: Everything You Need to Know About American History but Never Learned by Kenneth C. Davis is another.

Richard :munchin

Added.

Just recently finished Lies My Teacher Told Me. While there are nuggets of value to find, you have to shovel through a mountain of liberal BS to get to them. Later chapters rely on a small number of highly biased "source" documents, to include magazine articles. :rolleyes:

There is the fact that those holding the collective right opinion are just wrong.... ;)

They should not be written out of history rather they should be held as an example of how wrong people can be.