Conservative Think Tank Slams TX Standards

We’ll have more on this later, but we just sent out this press release. This is big news.

TFN PRESIDENT: FORDHAM ANALYSIS CONFIRMS THAT NEW SOCIAL STUDIES STANDARDS ARE A DISASTER FOR TEXAS SCHOOLS

Conservative Think Tank’s Report Savages State Board of Education for Politicizing New Curriculum Standards

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 16, 2011

A conservative think tank’s analysis confirms what the Texas Freedom Network has been saying for months: new social studies standards adopted by the State Board of Education last year are a disaster for Texas schools and students, TFN President Kathy Miller said today.

“This analysis adds to a growing chorus of criticism aimed at state board members who deliberately and arrogantly substituted their own political biases for facts and scholarship throughout the standards,” Miller said. “It’s hard to imagine a more damning indictment of the way the board has politicized and manipulated the education of Texas kids over the past several years. Political agendas – from the left or the right – simply have no place in our kids’ classrooms.”

The conservative Thomas B. Fordham Institute released its analysis today. “The State of State U.S. History Standards 2011” analyzes U.S. history curriculum standards from all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The report gives Texas a grade of “D” for its standards.

Among Fordham’s criticisms is that Texas State Board of Education members engaged in “ideological manipulation” by basing many of the new standards on their own personal and political biases. The analysis goes so far as to compare the heavily politicized approach in part of the standards to Soviet indoctrination in schools of the old USSR.

The report also criticizes the state board for its “overt hostility and contempt for historians and scholars” during the curriculum development process. A Texas Freedom Network Education Fund poll last year, conducted by the national firm of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, showed that 72 percent of likely Texas voters want teachers and scholars, not politicians on the state board, to be responsible for writing curriculum standards for public schools.

The state board adopted the new social studies standards last May. Those standards guide what students learn in all of the state’s public schools. Textbooks, other instructional materials and tests will be based on the new standards for the next decade.

Prominent critics of the new standards have included a wide array of teachers, education and civil rights groups, former Bush education secretary Rod Paige and now the conservative Fordham Institute. That criticism should sound a loud call to Texas lawmakers in the current legislative session, Miller said.

“Since the state board refuses to stop playing politics and focus on educating Texas kids, then it’s time for legislators to step in,” Miller said. “Do they stand with families who are tired of seeing their kids’ classrooms turned into political battlegrounds? Or will they make more excuses for politicians on the state board who care more about promoting the ‘culture wars’ than ensuring our kids get the education they need to succeed in college and the jobs of the 21st century?”

###

Examples of ‘Ideological Manipulation’ in the Texas U.S. History Curriculum Standards Highlighted by the Fordham Institute Analysis

The Fordham report is available here.

“A popular Lone Star State slogan proclaims ‘Texas: It’s like a whole other country’—but Texas’s standards are a disservice both to its own teachers and students and to the larger national history of which it remains a part.” (page 143)

Contempt for Expertise
“The conservative majority on the Texas State Board of Education (SBOE) has openly sought to use the state curriculum to promote its political priorities, molding the telling of the past to justify its current views and aims. Indeed, the SBOE majority displayed overt hostility and contempt for historians and scholars, whom they derided as insidious activists for a liberal academic establishment.” (Executive Summary, page 15)

Economic History
The approach in the standards regarding instruction about “the free enterprise system and its benefits” resembles, “in an inverted historical echo, Soviet schools harping on the glories of state socialism.” (Executive Summary, page 15)

“ ‘Minimal government intrusion’ is hailed as key to the early nineteenth-century commercial boom—ignoring the critical role of the state and federal governments in internal improvements and economic expansion.” (page 142)

Religious Liberty
“Members of the SBOE … showed themselves determined to inject their personal religious beliefs into history education. ‘Judeo-Christian (especially biblical law)’ and ‘Moses’ are, incredibly, listed as the principal political influences on America’s founders. The separation of church and state, a much-debated and critical concept of the state constitutions (1777-1781) and the federal Constitution (1787), is simply dismissed.” (Executive Summary, page 15)

“Complex historical issues are obscured with blatant politicizing throughout the document. Biblical influences on America’s founding are exaggerated, if not invented. The complicated but undeniable history of separation of church and state is flatly dismissed.” (page 142)

Slavery/Civil Rights/Civil War
“Native people are missing [from the standards] until brief references to nineteenth-century events. Slavery, too, is largely missing. Sectionalism and states’ rights are listed before slavery as causes of the Civil War, while the issue of slavery in the territories—the actual trigger for the sectional crisis—is never mentioned at all. During and after Reconstruction, there is no mention of the Black Codes, the Ku Klux Klan, or sharecropping. The term ‘Jim Crow’ never appears. Incredibly, racial segregation is mentioned only in a passing reference to the 1948 integration of the armed forces.” (page 142)

“Opposition to the civil rights movement is falsely identified only with ‘the congressional bloc of Southern Democrats’—whose later metamorphosis into Southern Republicans is never mentioned.” (page 142)

McCarthyism
“It is disingenuously suggested that the House Un-American Activities Committee—and, by extension, McCarthyism—have been vindicated by the Venona decrypts of Soviet espionage activities (which had, in reality, no link to McCarthy’s targets).” (page 142)

This article was posted in these categories: Fordham Institute, social studies, State Board of Education. Bookmark the permalink. Follow comments with the RSS feed for this post. Post a Comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.


-->

5 Comments

  1. Posted October 26, 2011 at 4:02 pm | Permalink

    The Civil War was about slavery, it was about abolishing slavery. Or, more accurately, about Southern unfounded fears that abolition could actually abolish slavery, something quite unlikely given the requirements for three quarters of the state legislatures to ratify a Constitutional Amendment. Slightly under half the states in the Union were slave states, and more than enough to stop any abolition movement to alter the Constitution.

    The Emancipation Proclamation only freed the slaves in those parts then in rebellion, which did not include Union slave states like Kentucky and Maryland.

    The Dred Scott Decison effectively ruled out Federal legislation as a vehicle for abolition.

    The “Reconstruction Amendments” (13,14,& 15) abolished slavery, established equal protection of the law and the requirement for due process. There was chicanery by the Federal government in securing ratification of those amendments by making readmission for the seceded states on conditon of ratifying those amendments. The fact that the secession was ruled unconstitutional, i.e. that a state can’t secede is inconsistent with Reconstruction policy that refused the elected Congressional representatives elected from the former Confederate states. A war that was fought to preserve the Union ended by partitioning it by the victors.

    Current Tea Party activists of the Confederate flavor such as David Parton, do not recognize any of those or any amendments added after the Twelfth Amendment, as contrary to what the “founders” intended. His opinion and those of other Confederate Tea Partites is the reflection of deep resentments going back to Reconstruction.

    His reading of the original set of Founders of which there were four including all sides and states party to the acts of ratification: Original Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the 11th Amendment, and the 12th Amendment. While historically correct, it is Constitutional irrelevant nonsense, as each subsequent amendment alters the original intent by the acti of amendment. Amending, for the obtuse, is a way of changing the law, or bill, or contract.

    For those who say, “you lost, forget it. Get used to it” miss the essential point is that the South and Southerners wherever are rising again. The energy behind this is from the gut, it is not the result of the machinations of some corporate pro-slavery Fascist conspiracy. Get used to that.

  2. Will Fraser
    Posted October 26, 2011 at 2:27 pm | Permalink

    Gail Lowe is soooooooooooooooooooooooo creepy…ughh
    Will
    Dallas

  3. Lurker111
    Posted February 18, 2011 at 11:33 am | Permalink

    Whenever someone says to me, “The Civil War wasn’t about slavery,” I always say, “Very good. So if slavery hadn’t existed, the Civil War would have happened anyway.” That usually shuts them the f**k up.

  4. Charles
    Posted February 16, 2011 at 7:45 pm | Permalink

    Well. We know what the answer from Gail Lowe will be even before someone asks her. I’ll save her the trouble and articulate it for you—probably better than she could. Here goes:

    “The Fordham Institute just does not understand how we do things here in Texas. Unlike in other states, the members of the Texas SBOE are not appointed. We are elected by the people in general elections. Therefore, we are politicians. We are not educators in this role and do not claim to be. It is unreasonable to expect an elected politician who occupies a political office to be nonpolitical in their thoughts and actions. We politicians were elected by a voter majority in each of our districts. We were sent here to do the political will of the voting majorities that elected us, and that will is extremely conservative in nature. The social studies TEKS reflect that degree of conservatism. Quite frankly, and it is really the nature of this political beast, if our public believes that Antarctica is covered with a layer of chocolate cake instead of a layer of ice, it is our sworn duty to deliver on that in the TEKS.”

  5. Posted February 16, 2011 at 1:52 pm | Permalink

    Obviously the Fordham Institute is infiltrate by Muslim socialists and other ’round earthers”.

Post a Comment

TFN Insider Comments Policy

Your email is kept private. Required fields are marked *

*
*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>