The War Between the States' Education Standards

[Trieste]

I kind of wish they would secede and be done with it.

I think it would also be funny if they seceded and were promptly annexed back to Mexico. I wonder how they would feel about affirmative action and minority politics then.

Thankfully, most students who want to learn... will learn. Even in the liberal bastion state of Massachusetts, I was able to learn about other viewpoints as a kid, and as much as we like to think that schools are the be-all, end-all of education, they are not. They are social cesspools, to be certain, but that happens across every state. At least now when there is a student who hasn't heard of Darwinism, they have an excuse for their lack of education. "I'm from Texas."

That seems to be an excuse for a lot of things, these days.

I wouldn't rely too much on California remaining moderate. They are more liberal-leaning than Texas, but California still has a massively conservative-leaning population, especially northern California.

[Chelemar]

One thing, hopefully, the children will have going for them are teachers who do not rely solely on the texts provided by the school, but rely as well on their education and outside sources as well when they teach.

One thing we were always encouraged to do in all of the history courses I took was to look beyond what was the given text and search for more sources.  If, as someone here wrote, the victor wrote the history books, then they want their views to be painted with a broader stroke.  Delving into the finer lines then to get a more intricate look at the rendering is the job of a historian.  A history teacher is still a historian first and foremost. 

[Jude]

Well, firstly I can point out that I never said they were equal. You are setting up a strawman.

I thought that was a reasonable summation of your point, however, I will concede that you didn't actually say that, and thus that you weren't making that point.

Secondly, declaring something I say ridiculous does not make it so. That is your opinion, perhaps, at most.

Stating a conclusion without showing us the evidence from which you drew that conclusion is what I was accusing you of doing--though it seems I was wrong because you weren't trying to make that statement of equality at all.  I do think it's ridiculous to state a conclusion without also providing the information from which you drew that conclusion;  ridiculous was perhaps a flawed term to use to describe it.  It's definitely a poor debate tactic if nothing else; certainly doesn't lead to substantive discussion.

Thirdly, yes, there are degrees of bias. The degrees of bias are so biased in of themselves as to be a wholly subjective thing, however.

Now, then, I could very well provide the evidence if you would be so kind as to operationalize the scale to be used and we come to any form of agreement on said operationalization. Until then, however, nobody can prove anything about the matter of which state has done more or less damage, since you seem intent on comparing them.

It seems to me that you're trying to reduce the discussion to a level of absurdity which essentially blows away the comparison of any political action's bias by requiring an operational definition that would become insanely complicated to state and nearly impractical to utilize.  Generally I applaud this level of precision, but in this case I think your attempts are disingenuous at best and aimed at drawing criticism from your original point, so if we could return to that.

You said: 

It's a pick your bias sort of thing. Texas skews it conservative, California skews it liberal, and they both ruin it for anyone who isn't in agreement with them. Both have a negative influence on the education system, in my opinion.

Regardless, California is not being more moderate, though a certain kind of liberal might think so because California is moving more towards their beliefs. Similarly, a certain kind of conservative might not see as much of a problem with Texas's moves if they agree with the beliefs being implemented.

And California has pressured various national standards to fit with what they want before, as well, though not quite in this manner.

You claim that regardless of the bold section you were not making a statement that California and Texas are equally biased.  Could you please explain what point you were trying to make and provide the evidence to back up your statement?  While you're at it would you...

be so kind as to operationalize the scale to be used and we come to any form of agreement on said operationalization

... so that we'll have criteria to utilize in discussing the degree of moderation.

[Sure]

It seems to me that you're trying to reduce the discussion to a level of absurdity which essentially blows away the comparison of any political action's bias by requiring an operational definition that would become insanely complicated to state and nearly impractical to utilize.  Generally I applaud this level of precision, but in this case I think your attempts are disingenuous at best and aimed at drawing criticism from your original point, so if we could return to that.

My point is that if we do not agree on how to compare things then there can be no comparison. If California pressured the SAT to change its standards, is that better or worse than Texas? Is any change inherently bad or is it only change that causes a bias? If so, what is a bias?

You claim that regardless of the bold section you were not making a statement that California and Texas are equally biased.  Could you please explain what point you were trying to make and provide the evidence to back up your statement?  While you're at it would you...

The point I am making is that California is not moving towards the center with this law. Do you dispute that? Or do you honestly believe that California would object as strongly if Massachusetts was doing this and whitewashed out the more religious founding fathers?

And since I am not trying to compare them, I have no need to operationalize them. I am asserting only that California is not moving towards the center, not that California is worse than Texas (or better, for that matter, or equal). The only thing that could even be taken to imply that is my opinion, which is just an opinion, that they both have a negative effect.

[Oniya]

Except for the fact that by having two radically different curricula (I'm guessing that's correct, since spell-check didn't throw up), the two balance the influences on the textbook market.  If you have one large client that wants you to write out Thomas Jefferson, and another large client that insists on keeping Thomas Jefferson, you're probably going to print both textbooks. 

If, on the other hand, you have one large client that wants you to write out Thomas Jefferson, and your other large client doesn't say anything about it, you might be tempted to just write out Thomas Jefferson to save on printing complications.

[Inkidu]

My point is that it's pointless to fight about it on any level. A state has the right to teach whatever it damn well pleases in its sate. That's its right. Now things like the No Child Left Behind Act (Example do not act on this at all or I will hit you with a pillow) might dictate how much federal dollar that state gets. Things like that. You know why each state's drinking age is 21 but they can set it to whatever they want. Well they like federal money for federal highways that bring traffic through. That kind of thing, etc.

California just doesn't like what Texas is doing so they're rubbing there nose in it. There are plenty of text book publishers out there willing to print whatever the state wants. What one state buys does not really effect what everyone else buys. Having lived in two separate school systems in separate states I sure can say its true.

[Jude]

And since I am not trying to compare them, I have no need to operationalize them.

It's a pick your bias sort of thing. Texas skews it conservative, California skews it liberal, and they both ruin it for anyone who isn't in agreement with them. Both have a negative influence on the education system, in my opinion.

Regardless, California is not being more moderate, though a certain kind of liberal might think so because California is moving more towards their beliefs. Similarly, a certain kind of conservative might not see as much of a problem with Texas's moves if they agree with the beliefs being implemented.

And California has pressured various national standards to fit with what they want before, as well, though not quite in this manner.

Even if you're not comparing Texas to California, which I highly doubt in the context of that quote though I suppose it could still be true, you're still judging California by claiming that they are not becoming more centrist.  Thus you must still operationalize it if you're going to demand the same of me.  By your own words:

I am asserting only that California is not moving towards the center

So you must operationalize what the center is, California's actions, and show how their actions are not moving in that direction.

Or, hey, we could always accept the typical political compass and common sense as "good enough" indicators, instead of making unrealistically rigid demands that a political scientist would have a difficult time qualifying.

p.s. All I really wanted from you was a little bit of information about what California is doing that's so egregious.

[Sure]

Even if you're not comparing Texas to California, which I highly doubt in the context of that quote though I suppose it could still be true, you're still judging California by claiming that they are not becoming more centrist.  Thus you must still operationalize it if you're going to demand the same of me.  By your own words:

Why are you insulting me by implying I am changing the meaning of my words? I know what I meant when I said it, you do not.

You have a point about the center, however.

Regardless, I will establish the center as neither liberal nor conservative. Liberal will, for convenience, be taken to mean similarity to the positions of the largest liberal force in American society, the Democratic Party, while Conservative will be taken to mean the similarity to positions of likewise the largest conservative force in American society, the Republican Party. Actions will, in all cases, be taken over words, except where action is unintended (as determined by mutual agreement). Note that we are not judging the actions by similarity to the actions of the parties but to the rhetoric and claims of the parties.

Now, then, if you want proof of California being liberal and acting in many ways similar to Democratic Party ideals, I can provide that easily. Since California is therefore liberal, and acting against Texas (a conservative state), unless a similar reaction can be shown against Democratic ideals then it is obviously moving towards them if we accept that politics is a continuum between the positions of the two parties. If it is moving towards Democratic ideals from an already Democratic starting point, it is not centrist.

There, that wasn't so hard was it?

p.s. All I really wanted from you was a little bit of information about what California is doing that's so egregious.

What do you mean by this? When did I claim California was doing something 'so egregious'? I don't think either side is doing something particularly egregious. I do believe both sides are putting political pressure on education and so on, in order to fit their view. Not even maliciously or, in some cases, consciously. But that's always been and probably always will be. Is that what you're challenging?

[Jude]

The discussion is about education standards; give me an example of an education standard that California has attempted to set that skews the facts in favor of liberalism.

[HairyHeretic]

Guys .. play nice, ok.

[MasterMischief]

I kind of wish they would secede and be done with it.

As a Texan, I would appreciate not being lumped in with some ridiculous comment made by Governor Perry.

[Brandon]

Maybe I misunderstand something. Why cant these two states turn to private businesses that make books, lay out what they require in the textbook, and then just purchase whichever one meets their needs?

[Trieste]

Maybe I misunderstand something. Why cant these two states turn to private businesses that make books, lay out what they require in the textbook, and then just purchase whichever one meets their needs?

Because textbook publishers aren't going to make two different textbooks if they don't have to.

[Brandon]

Then it seems to me that, if textbooks no longer meet the needs of the state, that state can take its money elsewhere. I still dont see why each state has to be forced to buy the same book when their education needs and standards are different.

[MasterMischief]

I am still sifting through the video, but I thought others might be interested in seeing exactly what was changed.  Texas Education Agency Meetings

You will need RealPlayer or another video player that can play .smil files.