|
Post by Allen Wiener on Mar 14, 2010 17:22:48 GMT -5
Rewriting history is a slippery slope, regardless of which political agenda you are pushing; and this sounds like a serious push of one political view or agenda. It doesn't justify any PC efforts to skew these texts to downplay or play up other aspects of history. I think some version of this kind of skewing is inevitable with textbooks that are put together by committees. As I said earlier, I think they are outdated and have been pretty useless for a long time. I like the Document Based Question method far more and I think it actually teaches history as well the way that history ought to be explored and evaluated. But even without textbooks, each jurisdiction will want to establish some kind of guidelines or checklists of what it expects its students to come away with, and that, too, is open to politicization. I don't know how you eliminate that entirely, but I think incorporating a healthy dose of critical thinking into the curriculum could go a long way in minimizing political skewing. Present ALL of the evidence, for example, regarding Darwin, evolution and alternative theories and teach how to evaluate them using critical thinking. Not that I expect anything like this to happen any time soon.
Allen
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Mar 14, 2010 18:25:19 GMT -5
[ As I read it, the board omitted the references to Jefferson, apparently based on the idea that Jefferson's philosophy was derivative. According to reports, board member Cynthia Dunbar proposed dropping references to "Enlightenment ideas," and Thomas Jefferson from the standard. No we're talking about two different things. Reference to Jeffferson and others were originally totally deleted. But decisions made back weeks ago (before this started receiving national attention) placed him and the others back into the texts (we discussed this when you were last in Dallas the debate then then was over adding Cesar Chavez and more modern era people by deleting the founding fathers, etc). The philisophical discussion/decision was a totally different matter. Your blogger's statement of omitting Jefferson is simply oversensationionlism. Remember that for the most part the people that are attending these Public Hearings are the Cultural Warriors of both sides, and oversensationalism is their primary tool. Allen, no offense, but using the NYTs and the Huffington Post is far from unbiased reporting - they're the equivilant of citing Rush Limbaugh, ;D ,IMO.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Mar 14, 2010 19:49:25 GMT -5
I'm aware of the press biases on all sides these days, but I felt the NY Times magazine piece was pretty thorough and gave both sides a voice. Nonetheless, I get your point.
It sounds to me like people of various stripes trying to use history texts to push an agenda. The truth is that our country has evolved a lot over time -- that's what history is all about; nothing should be deleted or overemphasized. I'm not sure we've ever had an unbiased press. Some of the stuff that appeared in the early days was pure propaganda. I think we are able to read through that, but I'd like to be sure the next generation knows it when they see it too.
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Mar 14, 2010 19:59:03 GMT -5
I'm unable to find a source other than the NYT magazine article that covers the controversy in any kind of depth. Naturally, though, when a self-described Christian fundamentalist who believes in literal 6 day creationism is driving the debate, the opposition is going to counterattack. (In the interest of disclosure, I should mention that I'm a Methodist who accepts that the Bible is true, but also believe that truth is sometimes couched in metaphor as well as literalism.)
Seems to me the board in question is replacing what they deem an ultra liberal agenda with one just as suspect that reflects their own ideology. Very few people in the debate seem concerned with accurate history.
Just curious, how was this blogger's report inaccurate?
Jim
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Mar 14, 2010 20:20:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Hiram on Mar 14, 2010 21:17:29 GMT -5
Its not a textbook, just a history talk, but I've shared my interpretation of the Tex Rev with thousands of school children. I mention that when most people think of the Alamo, they recall the names of Bowie, Travis and Crockett. But I also mention that when they walk into the back of the Shrine, they can also read the names of 186 other known men who also fought and died at the Alamo. You see names like Smith, Taylor, Brown, but you also see names like Abamillo, Esparza, Losoya. I also mention John, either slave or freedman, who died at the Alamo.
I don't do this in an attempt to be PC, I'm simply noting the fact that men of different cultural and ethnic groups chose to serve.
I don't mention Seguin, but I also don't mention J.C. Neill or William S. Oury, I'm allotted approximately 20 minutes to make a presentation, so I have to do some editing.
"Rewriting history" and "revisionist history" are buzz words that are used in the vernacular. "Rewriting history" is simply changing the emphasis, examining the event from a different perspective. The civil rights movement, the assassination of President Kennedy, the Vietnam War, and Watergate led academia down new paths which led to a more critical view of history. So the emphasis shifted during the decades of the '60s and the '70s.
Folks like to say "I don't like revisionist history." What they really mean to say is they don't like bad revisionist history. Its impossible to change historical events, but it is possible to learn ways to better analyze and interpret historical events so that we can achieve a deeper understanding, and thus a better appreciation of those historical events. So what we strive for is good revisionist history.
I don't like textbooks...never have, never will. My approach to history is "what did they do? What did they write? What did they say?" And then, you analyze and interpret based on that criteria.
An ideal classroom environment would be a small group of students sitting around a Harkness table, utilizing Socratic questions to sharpen their critical thinking. In order to reach that pinnacle, society as a whole needs to understand that the current system of education is flawed and should be completely revamped.
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Mar 14, 2010 21:56:33 GMT -5
You said it, Hiram. Amen to that. Jim
|
|
|
Post by Hiram on Mar 14, 2010 22:03:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Mar 14, 2010 22:13:33 GMT -5
That's a great way of putting it, Hiram. I think the presentation of history has gotten skewed one way or another at different times at least partly as a reaction to past presentations and as an attempt to rectify them. Hopefully, it all evens out over time, but I agree that textbooks are a lousy way to teach anything. It doesn't teach you to think; it teaches you to memorize, and it's always memorizing someone's version of history; at worst, it's some committee's version.
Allen
|
|
|
Post by bmoses on Mar 14, 2010 23:36:19 GMT -5
What a great thread - I've really enjoyed reading through the posts so far! I'll study up on the controversy a bit more tomorrow before weighing in, but what I've heard so far certainly does seem disturbing.
Bruce
|
|
|
Post by Seguin on Mar 15, 2010 0:14:47 GMT -5
I never have understood why we can't balance the scales instead of tipping them either left or right! Me neither! That´s the way any history book should be written. Otherwise it´s dishonest and almost criminal, I think. All major viewpoints should be represented and facts should not be manipulated according to political beliefs because then they´re not facts anymore but mere propaganda. And you´re right about your remark about "angry conservatives". While liberals make fun of conservatives, some conservatives sounds very angry and hateful when they mention liberals. One of the most hateful remarks I´ve seen was about liberals being traitors to their country, as if the guy who wrote it preferred a one party state without any opposition at all (goodbye democracy, welcome fascism).
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Mar 15, 2010 6:01:09 GMT -5
Its an odd business and one that goes way beyond Juan Seguin. We have discussed the various motivations of the defenders so often in the past and there really is no DS solution to what happened and why at the Alamo.
As I’ve argued many times the Texas Revolution began as part of a much wider Mexican civil war which was hijacked by American secesh and the New Orleans Mob.
By writing Juan Seguin out of the script for whatever reason it revives the myth of white Anglo-Saxon settlers carving a new land out of an undeserving corrupt and decadent Mexico in the name of American values and manifest destiny. Henderson Yoakum would be proud.
|
|
|
Post by billchemerka on Mar 15, 2010 8:13:26 GMT -5
As a high school teacher for 30 years (and subsequently an adult school instructor and teacher of second-year classroom educators,) let me assure you that what is in or out of a textbook is not crucial for classroom instruction. The best teachers use many resources; the textbook is merely the most convenient tool.
Names left out of a text? Good teachers add them on their own. And then some.
In order to instill a sense of curiosity in my US History students (whether they be "basic" or "honors), I posted a growing list of bulletin-board 4"x6" file cards with a visual clue and a "Names That History Forgot." As the year progressed, I identified and explained each one. And all of them were associated with major events in US history. My students had the opportunity to ID as many as they could as an extra credit incentive at the end of the year. The list included such folks as Zbignew Stefanski, Penelope Van Princis, John Richards, Wasson, Brown Beauty, John Malcolm, Christopher Monk, Henry Stacks, Martha Moulton, Caleb Sweezy, William Churchill Houston, William Lambert, William Plumer, Isaac Dripps, Alfred Vail, William Johnson, Lucy Stone, Jon Peck, Thomas Mundy, Joseph Bradley, et. al.
Another note: The use of Document Based Questions (DBQ) are most associated with that aspect of the AP test which requires them; however, DBQs can be created by teachers according to a respective class' level of difficulty. DBQs do not teach critical thinking; they put critical thinking to the test.
Supplementary readers also play a role. Whether it be enrichment reading or text augmentation, supplemental titles can be very important. And they can also bring proper attention to figures ignored in texts. That's why I wrote Gregorio Esparza: Alamo Defender for young readers last year. And Juan Seguin: Tejano Leader is due later this year.
[See also: "The Alamo in Secondary School Texts" in The Alamo Journal, #69 (Dec. 1989).
Don't fret, then, too much about the names that get included/eliminated in textbooks as a result of the modern culture wars. As long as good teachers (those who have mastered both the art and science of teaching) are around, students will gain a more complete learning experience than just what is in the text.
|
|
|
Post by bmoses on Mar 15, 2010 8:38:03 GMT -5
This controversy highlights a central problem with the Texas State Board of Education; the 15 member elected board has a potential for becoming extremely partisan. A long-term fix would be to switch to non-partisan appointments whereby selected members represent appropriate fields such as education, science, and history.
Bruce
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Mar 15, 2010 9:51:08 GMT -5
Bill, the problem is that many teachers are not so inclined as you to go that extra mile to help challange students and expand not only their historical view points and understanding, but their critical thinking as well. And yes, Texas has an increditable book market for school age students: more books are produced for the primary school age market on Texas history than any other.
The problem seems to be where teachers use the book and only the book. I have some experience at this myself, (and certainly not as long and well toned as yours) where teachers are only interested in the workbooks that come along with the texts. In many cases, it is a matter of read the text, do the worksheets, review, and take the tests. With the required standard testing in Math, English, and Science going on, the concept is that this is where the focus should be, and going into depth on history only detracts from where the focus in education should be-
There are of course times when the administrators will come down on a teacher for not using the book.
I don't know how many school groups I have talked to over the years where the teacher arrives and announces that because they were coming to the site or program, they did no background work, because "you will teach them everything the need to know." Then again, there were those wonderful educators who had really prepared their students with the nuts and bolts before arrival, so the students could focus on the site and the details.
I was lucky that I had a junior high teacher and a set of high school instructors who went above and beyond the book. In addition, at Eastern Illinois, I had a prof who refused to use a text book, and everything we studied was in the form of copies of articles and documents so we could use our interpretive skills.
Personally, I wish you could get rid of the text books.
|
|