California moves to keep Texas curriculum out

May 17, 2010 | Filed under: Discrimination, Intolerance & Culture,Featured Block,Religious Curriculum | Posted by: Jenny Donati

Texans for Truthful Textbooks rally. Photo: MyFoxAustin

A state legislator has sponsored a bill intended to keep the Texas State Board of Education’s revisionist history out of California.

The Christian Fundamentalist-stacked Texas State Board of Education has been in the limelight a little more of late than is customary for boards of education. Why?

As we reported back in August, the BOE hired David Barton to rewrite the state’s social studies curriculum. Barton is president and founder of “Wallbuilders”, an organization which exists to:

. . exert a direct and positive influence in government, education, and the family by (1) educating the nation concerning the Godly foundation of our country; (2) providing information to federal, state, and local officials as they develop public policies which reflect Biblical values; and (3) encouraging Christians to be involved in the civic arena.

He worked closely with Peter Marshall, another appointee. Marshall describes himself thus:

Because he believes that our nation is in moral and spiritual crisis and that the only hope for restoration is revival, his increasingly prophetic ministry focuses on two major themes.

First, there is the urgent necessity of recovering the original American vision, and the truth about our Christian heritage. How can we restore America if we don’t know who we are?

Second, he strongly emphasizes the importance of putting 2nd Chronicles 7:14 into practice: “If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves, and pray and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then I will hear from heaven, forgive their sin, and heal their land.”

These men and the remainder of their panel have worked tirelessly to gut Texas’s social studies curriculum, de-emphasizing if not outright removing references to key historical figures like Thomas Jefferson, who coined the phrase “a wall of separation between church and state”. They also plan to include a section on the “conservative resurgence of the 1980s and 90s”, with positive commentary on the Moral Majority, and reference to Founders’ being “guided by Christian principles”.

Texas, having the second-largest public school system (behind only California), has a great deal of sway over what gets published in textbooks. It’s simply not cost-effective for publishers to print different editions for each state, so the large markets set the standard.

California State Senator Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, is having none of it. He has introduced SB1451, legislation requiring the California Board of Education to review textbooks with an eye out for the Texas revisions, and report on what they find to the legislature.

Yee comments, “While some Texas politicians may want to set their educational standards back 50 years, California should not be subject to their backward curriculum changes. The alterations and fallacies made by these extremist conservatives are offensive to our communities and inaccurate of our nation’s diverse history.”

California Board of Education representatives stress that their curriculum standards are already strong, and that there is little chance of Texans’ anti-American propaganda sneaking in. Says Director Tom Adams, “Our main concern is whether materials meet California’s standards. There’s nothing in our review process that says we should be following Texas or anything like that.”

Yee’s chief of staff, Adam Keigwin, reiterated in response that the bill is precautionary in nature. “. . . there are still things that could sneak their way into our textbooks, and we want to be sure. We don’t want any of those changes that Texas has proposed.”

The Texas curriculum changes will be finalized on May 21. This past Sunday, American Atheists sponsored the Texans for Truthful Textbooks rally in Austin; here’s the local news coverage. Of particular interest is the Liberty Counsel attorney at the end decrying the protesters as “a liberal atheist group” who would “probably want to remove reference to the Alamo because it was a Catholic mission, and remove ‘under god’ from the Pledge of Allegiance”.

You can review the proposed textbook changes for yourself HERE. Changes are in 19 TAC Chapter 113, Subchapters A-D.

25 Responses to California moves to keep Texas curriculum out

Pingback: Good news from California | The Skeptics Resource
Pingback: If she weighs the same as a duck, she’s made of wood? « Reason Freely
edwords May 18, 2010 - 10:17 am

Why would atheists want to remove the Catholic Alamo from history books? Did God help its defenders?

- StanFlouride May 18, 2010 - 11:47 am
  
  Huh? LOL The Alamo was an abandoned, deconsecrated mission at the time of the battle. Even their lawyer is ignorant of Texas history.
  
rrpostal May 19, 2010 - 9:57 am

Thank god someone is standing up to those anti-scientific stone aged troglodytes (god pun intended).

highplainsphoto May 22, 2010 - 6:39 am

The very powerful and the very stupid share a common trait. Rather than adjust their thinking to reflect the facts they will instead, attempt to adjust the facts to reflect their thinking. The Texas board of education is an example of what can happen when power and stupidity are combined in a single entity.

CJ4Edu May 22, 2010 - 3:42 pm

How about if we remove all mention of Texas as a state from our books.

- Kenton Forshee May 25, 2010 - 1:38 pm
  
  At the very least the Texas BOE should be prosecuted for the criminal miseducation of minors.
  
Pingback: Losing our religion : The Reid Report
RealTexan June 7, 2010 - 7:40 pm

I think we here in Texas would be fine if you did that. We don't really want you either. And just for the record, the misinformation in this article is typical of the current media. If you would like to read about what changes were really made (since the BOE website doesn't really make it easy to read, though I have read the entire thing), you can read about it here: http://www.juststatethefacts.com/

- Jenny Donati June 7, 2010 - 5:32 pm
  
  The website you provide, from the Liberty Institute, does not show the adopted standards. I read all one page of it, and assume you did as well. Therefore, you certainly knew it did not provide the adopted (or even the proposed) standards.
  
  - RealTexan June 8, 2010 - 6:52 pm
    
    Right… and I didn't say that it provided all of the adopted ones. However, it does point out some of the changes that were made versus what is being claimed by the media. Currently, a list of the finalized changes are only available through listening to all of the audio and video from the meetings. Per my conversations with the BOE, and yes I have talked directly to them about this issue, the text version of the finalized standards will not be available until around June 25th (you can see the time line for yourself at http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index2.aspx?id=3643) So, you either have to listen to the audio… which I have listened to quite a lot of it and am putting together a list of my own to be available before the BOE version… or you have to believe what you are told by others who write articles based on what THEY are told by others. I doubt very many people are actually going to the source for this information. But, the list on the website I gave in my first post does match what is in the audio, which is why I linked it. You have to do your research… think for yourself and don't just believe everything you read.
    
    - Jenny Donati June 8, 2010 - 1:39 pm
      
      Thanks for the info. I will be sure to check out the standards when they are complete. Until then, I find multiple sources of quotes on the standards from the mainstream media more reliable a source than a right-wing propaganda site created by the Liberty Institute.
      
      - RealTexan June 8, 2010 - 9:46 pm
        
        That's an interesting way to put it. I for one like to do my own research when writing an article that others will read. But maybe that's just me… and those other "right-wing propaganda" sites, like the Liberty Institute who actually attended all of the BOE meetings. Too bad they didn't have 2nd, 3rd, or 4th hand information to go on.
      - JennyD June 8, 2010 - 4:04 pm
        
        Where do you write? Under what name? Also, could you point out to me what in this article actually disagrees with the Liberty Institute site you pointed out? The Texas BOE de-emphasized Thomas Jefferson. Liberty Institute site agrees. They added a section on the "conservative resurgence of the 80s and 90s". Liberty Institute site agrees. They added references to Founders being "guided by Christian principles". Liberty Institute site does not comment on this. The bulk of this article isn't about the standards, but about California's response, and about the Christian Fundamentalists hired to help write the standards. Do you deny that the BOE hired David Barton, or the goals he states on his own organization's website?
      - RealTexan June 8, 2010 - 10:49 pm
        
        I did not post here to promote myself, so I think I will refrain from giving my information. I don't want this to be taken as an attempt to get people to read my work. I simply wanted to point out that facts are being misrepresented by many people all over the media and that this could very easily be remedied by doing a little research.
      - RealTexan June 8, 2010 - 11:19 pm
        
        Hmmm, the only part of your response that showed up was the question about where I write. Anyway… You do state a certain spin on several of the more controversial standards. Stating that there is a positive spin on the conservative movement and so on. For one, you said that the BOE "… worked tirelessly to gut Texas’s social studies curriculum, de-emphasizing if not outright removing references to key historical figures like Thomas Jefferson". In fact, Thomas Jefferson was not de-emphasized, but rather is mentioned for study and discussion 5 times throughout the various grades. He is one of the founding fathers mentioned most often, second only to George Washington. And no, the Liberty Institute does not agree with the statement that Thomas Jefferson was de-emphasized, at least not on http://www.JustStateTheFacts.com Yes, the Liberty Institute DOES say that a section on the "conservative resurgence of the 80s and 90s" was added to the standards, but points out that all references to said section are neutral. Whereas in your article, you stated that a "positive commentary" was in place. This "positive commentary" is not a fact, but rather an opinion that cannot be backed up by looking at the actual standards. Also, as for the references to the founding fathers being "guided by Christian principles"… if there is not a list of adopted standards, and you didn't listen to all of the audio from the meetings, you are taking hearsay as fact. I will be happy to provide you with an update on that particular fact once I do finish listening to all of the audio. I do appreciate the fact that you were writing about California's response to the standards. However, the response is due to the spin that is being placed on the standards and many of the "facts" listed as objections are not accurate. Lastly, of course I do not deny that David Barton was hired by the BOE as an authority on historical matters, which he is. Regardless of whether or not you agree with the goals that he lists on his website, he provides full out references and original sources for all of his information. If you don't like the history and the facts, that doesn't mean you get to change them to fit your own agenda… even if you don't realize that's what you're doing by quoting others without doing your own research.
      - JennyD June 8, 2010 - 4:34 pm
        
        We will both review the actual standards once they're published. Until then, you are only offering hearsay yourself. You have provided no transcripts, no evidence of any sort other than your word. You are no more reliable — in fact, far less reliable — a source than members of the mainstream media. And you write where? Under what name? You never answered. I'd love to see your work.
      - RealTexan June 8, 2010 - 11:46 pm
        
        I'd love nothing more than for you to review the actually adopted standards yourself. That was my whole point. All the best.
      - Jenny Donati June 8, 2010 - 10:46 pm
        
        I will be happy to, when they are available. You write where, and under what name?
      - proudlyanonymous June 9, 2010 - 8:22 pm
        
        I'm curious: What is the point of having a free forum for response if the criteria responses are judged by involves its location in traditional publications? I agree with many of your responses to RealTexan, but each time I see the phrase "Where do you write? Under what name?" I loose some respect for you. If I want to write based on an external authority, I'll try to get published in a newspaper, be it the Nowheresville News or the New York Times. If I want to participate in crowdsourcing and point out some facts that might have been mentioned, I'll post on a blog. One can try to reject arguments based on their anonymity, just as one can try to reject arguments not made in Latin. But I don't see how either move is logically valid. And when you repeat the objection twice, despite having had it answered in an earlier post ("I will refrain from giving my information"), you sound rather petulant and quite a bit more ignorant than your published article would indicate. Please either refrain from online discussions, or treat them as discussions rather than resumes. Yours, Mr. Anonymous
      - JennyD June 9, 2010 - 11:08 pm
        
        Mr. Anonymous, "RealTexan" based his critique on what he claims he does as an author. See his comment above, which states:
        
        I for one like to do my own research when writing an article that others will read. But maybe that's just me…
        
        He also declared himself a more reliable source than the whole of the mainstream media, when the only evidence he presented was his own word in the comments here, saying he had listened to "most of" the audio, and a site by a Christian-right organization (an organization with promoting the Bible in public school curricula as one of its stated goals) which does not show the standards either. Since he spoke of how he writes and researches articles, I asked where he writes and under what name, so I could see his work. Even if he wrote an anonymous blog, that would be something I could look at and see if he actually does what he claims. His anonymity is not the issue, but rather his claim to credibility greater than the whole of the mainstream media coupled with an utter lack of evidence to support his claims.
      - RealTexan June 10, 2010 - 5:03 pm
        
        Hello again Jenny, First off, I am a woman. Secondly, I am not claiming to be a more reliable source than anyone. My entire point of posting here was to say that you, and all others claiming facts of any kind, need to provide real research into the issue before stating said facts as truth. At no point did I say that I was the authority to be looked at, but rather called for individuals to do their own research. In one of my original posts I said this. "You have to do your research… think for yourself and don't just believe everything you read." I very much advocate not just believing everything you are told in life, especially from the media, but doing your own leg work to find the real facts. This includes all media outlets, not just the ones I don’t agree with. When I hear or read anything that I might want to add to a column or even just talk about with others, I do my own research into any original sources available before repeating the information. That is all I would ever want anyone to take away from reading this. I am not the authority, the facts are. I do not ask people to take my word for it; if you want to take a stand for something, do it with the actual facts in hand. You may be surprised what you will find; I often am. Sincerely, RealTexan
RealTexan June 7, 2010 - 7:42 pm

Also, the BOE website gives the PROPOSED changes… not the ones that were actually adopted.

Anonymous June 30, 2010 - 9:26 pm

For the real facts about the Texas Social Studies standards, go to http://www.juststatethefacts.com to link to the actual standards.