Lies My Teacher Told Me: God, History And The Texas Public Schools: A Debate That Impac... - 12 views
-
anonymous on 21 Feb 12Page 39 "If textbooks allowed for controversy, they could show students which claims rest on strong evidence, which on softer ground. As they challenged students to make their own decisions as to what probably happened, they would also be introducing students to the various methods and forms of evidence- oral history, written records, cultural similarities, linguistic changes, human genetics, pottery, archaeological dating, plant migrations- that researches use to derive knowledge about the distant past. Unfortunately, textbooks seem locked in rhetoric of certainty." The article talks about the debate currently happening between the Texas State Board of Education regarding the curriculum covered in textbooks. In the article, he points out what is being debated at the three-day conference, in particular that textbooks should reflect the Christian roots of our nation. He points out that on the states' curriculum advisory panel are two very religious advocates, Reverend Peter Marshall and David Barton. This brings light to how the curriculum is chosen and by whom it is chosen by. The author points out that by having these two men on the board, the decision of the board ultimately reflects their views of how and what society needs to be taught. On the contrary, he states, these men should instead be making decisions to "respect the ideas and needs of the larger public". This article relates to the quote because textbooks are locked into a "rhetoric of certainty" decided by certain individuals. By deciding what is to be put in textbooks, they are regarding as facts, and instead they are just opinions and beliefs of individuals and by offering no other information to challenge these beliefs, it allows for no controversy and are students' full educational development is limited.
- ...15 more comments...
-
Lindsey Wilkinson on 02 Mar 12Although I generally agree with the point made by the author of this article, I find the tart and sarcastic way it is written to be slightly offensive. I feel that the tone of this article sounds somewhat belittling, particularly when it states "Forget crossing over the line; these folks don't even acknowledge that the line exists." I believe the author's point was made in an unnecessary and disrespectful manner. As to the content, I do agree with the article. Although I am a Christian and firm believer in Christ (and would therefore be among the majority in America and would want schools to reflect my Christian faith), I stand by our Constitution and laws and support the separation of church and state. In my opinion, the article is right when it states "we know that there is a difference between teaching about the history of religion in America and preaching the Gospel to a captive audience of children in our nation's classrooms." I see no problem with teaching history or even the history of theology, but forcing theology and beliefs into classroom is a form of oppression in my eyes. Students HAVE to go to school. If schools preach doctrine (regardless of which religion it is), then students HAVE to listen to the preaching and are therefore in an oppressive environment.
-
Hope Kim Doit on 02 Mar 12"Religion has animated many causes in our nation's history, and our children are entitled to hear the entire story in all its complexity." I'm reading this book and this quote definitely describes what the author is trying to point out. He named several examples of famous people in history like Hellen Keller, Christopher Colombus and many other events in the past that are being sugar-coated by our textbooks nowadays. He talked about how writers neglect to show the negative stories of these people which are necessary for the children to be learned.