The SBOE is composed of 15 members who are elected from districts based on equal population representation.  Elections to the board are conducted on a partisan basis, and the recent meetings demonstrated just how detrimental this can be to the educational process.  Brian Thevenot of the Texas Tribune has provided excellent coverage of these meetings, and his description of the approval process is no exception:

Debates leading up to the board’s consideration of social studies standards often pitted typically conservative “pro-America” dogma against more typically liberal explorations of women and minority leaders. Yet in the nitty-gritty of at-times testy negotiations, a spirit of mostly polite horse-trading predominated, and most members seemed to get most of what they wanted. And though an eight-member majority block dominated by conservatives often controls the board, votes over specific amendments seldom broke so neatly.

Yet at the end of the day, the approved revisions still took what Terrence Stutz of the Dallas Morning News described as a “tilt to [the] right.” This was highlighted by the inclusion of Phyllis Schafly and the Eagle Forum, the National Rifle Association, the Moral Majority, and the Heritage Foundation to a list of people and groups that student must learn.  The amendment passed on a 7-6 vote, but the comments surrounding it prove just as enlightening:

Board member Don McLeroy, R-College Station, offered the amendment requiring coverage of “key organizations and individuals of the conservative resurgence of the 1980s and 1990s.” McLeroy said he offered the proposal because the history standards were already “rife with leftist political periods and events – the populists, the progressives, the New Deal and the Great Society.”

If the current standards are “rife with leftist” ideals, then the approved changes and rhetoric of the board perhaps indicate a marked shift to the right, rather than just a tilt.  Derogatory remarks such as the following one reported following the meetings show not only a preference against multiculturalism, but an outright disregard for the ethnic diversity of our nation:

David Bradley, R-Beaumont Buna, also seemed upset by efforts of fellow board member Mary Helen Berlanga, D-Corpus Christi, to include the names of more Latinos in the standards. “If Ms. Berlanga, whose only criteria is skin color, had the votes, she would name us ‘the Hispanic Education Agency,’” he told one reporter.

The circumstances surrounding these meetings mark an unfortunate turn.  Instead of a focus on providing the best education for students, the curriculum process in the state of Texas has become the battle ground for the alleged “culture wars” that ultra conservative voices have been attempting to proclaim since the rise of the Moral Majority in the 1980’s.  And while I doubt that any protest I raise will ultimately be heard, I’ll close with these words from the SBOE History and Duties page on the Texas Education Agency website (emphasis mine):

As part of its efforts to provide the best possible education to public school students, the Board designates and mandates instruction in the knowledge and skills that are essential to a well-balanced curriculum.

I can only hope that the wisdom on which this board was founded will ultimately prevail.

————

Some highlights from the Proceedings of the SBOE on Curriculum Approval:

• A proposal is debated to change the definition of good citizenship for first-graders to include “holding public officials to their word.”
• The deletion of Dolores Huerta, co-founder of the United Farm Workers because she was a socialist.
• A requirement that eight grade students analyze ideas in Jefferson Davis’ inaugural address as president of the Confederacy.
• An attempt to change all mentions of U.S. “imperialism” to “expansionism.”
• Deletion of Margaret Sanger, a leading voice for contraception and relationship counseling, and founder of the organization that ultimately became Planned Parenthood.
• Removal of the words “from racial, ethnic, gender, and religious groups” from the existing standard: “Explain actions taken by people from racial, ethnic, gender, and religious groups to expand economic opportunities and political rights in American society.”

These highlights were gathered from live blog coverage of the meetings on January 14 and 15 provided by the Texas Freedom Network:

Live-Blogging the Social Studies Debate

Live-Blogging the Social Studies Debate II

Live-Blogging the Social Studies Debate III

————

• Related link: Hijacking History
• Related link: Hijacking History, Part 2: The Texas Curriculum Hearings

————

Cross posted at the Xenia Institute.

One of the frustrating things about living in Iowa City – a cozy, liberal-for-the-Midwest sort of town – is that I’ll make friends with intelligent people, considerate people, well-spoken, literate people, who nevertheless will pull out phrases like “I don’t believe in white privilege” when I have discussions with them.

To them, I dedicate this. (Originally posted on my own blog, http://magistrate.dreamwidth.org/.)

Click here to read the rest.

(Photo by Chris Hondros/Newsmakers) Content © 2008 Getty Images All rights reserved

In a previous blog, “Hijacking History,” I took on the subject of the Texas state curriculum for K-12 education (known as TEKS) and the implications of the proposed revisions to the curriculum that was to be presented to the State Board of Education (SBOE).  This new curriculum will not only determine what will be taught in Texas’ many public schools, but will also likely determine what is seen in new history textbooks throughout the nation.  (I explain this in more depth in my previous post.)

However, it is not just the revised curriculum that raises concern, but the highly pitched partisan battles that are taking place on the SBOE.  Various media outlets have covered the push by an ideologically conservative segment of the board to include standards that appear to better exemplify political and ideological positions than actual learning goals.  This January meeting was no exception, with the opening day hearings marked by controversy.  Brian Thevenot of the Texas Tribune describes the hearings:

As the State Board of Education grinded through testimony on Wednesday over its controversial social studies standards, much of the debate teetered on two basic fulcrums: teaching vs. indoctrination and patriotism vs. realism.

Scores of speakers, many affiliated with political organizations, ran complex issues of race and religion largely through those two filters for hours.

The importance of the curriculum decisions is evidenced by the sheer numbers of people arriving to testify before the SBOE.  Counts put the total near 130 speakers, far too many to be heard before the scheduled 6 pm adjournment.  Yet instead of extending the time for public comments, the board moved to adjourn for the evening anyway.  The Texas Freedom Network’s live blog reports on the events surrounding the close of the meeting:

6:13 – The board is getting angry comments from people who waited all day to testify. They’re demanding that the board continue hearing testimony. (We sympathize. After all, the board isn’t often asked to listen to their constituents on these issues.) A motion to extend the hearing fails on a tie vote. In the chaos, it’s hard to tell how all of the board members voted. But most of the “no” votes appear to have come from the board’s far-right faction…

6:18 – Now would-be testifiers are shouting in anger. More chaos. The chair, Gail Lowe, has to break a tie on a motion to adjourn the meeting. Could there be a clearer representation of the indifference some board members have for the concerns of their constituents? …

UPDATE: After adjournment, the state board’s five Democrats remained to continue listening to testimony from those who were unable to speak before the hearing ended. Many of the remaining testifiers were Latinos, some of whom had traveled from across the state to the hearing.

This crass indifference to the voices of many unheard witnesses is a testimony to the composition of the Texas SBOE.  Dominated by ultra-conservative ideologues who promote an ethnic insensitivity that is overtly racist, even if not overtly bigoted, a harrowingly nationalistic American exceptionalism that remains blinded to our history of injustice, inequity, and imperialism, and an unabashed Christian exclusivism, it should come as no surprise that they would have no compunction for those unfortunate enough to have been too far back in the witness line to speak before 6:00 pm.  While those members who continued to hear the testimony of the remaining witnesses are a credit to their elected office, the SBOE as a whole clearly turned its back on the democratic ideals its most hardened conservatives purport to defend.

Sadly, this is just another symptom of not only a failure of civility, but an utter lack of respect that appears to dominate our political landscape.  Sadder yet, this was only the first day of the meetings.

————

The Texas Freedom Network offered live blog coverage of the events of the January 13 hearings that you can find at the following:

Live-Blogging the Social Studies Hearing

Live-Blogging the Social Studies Hearing II

Related link: Hijacking History

————

Cross posted at the Xenia Institute.

————

This first came to my attention through an action alert from the United Farm Workers, an organization I’ve become connected to through my denomination’s participation in the National Farm Worker Ministry.  I received an email asking me to “Stop Texas from erasing Cesar Chavez and Hispanics from school books.”  It provided information about an upcoming session of the Texas State Board of Education (SBOE) that will be voting on new curriculum standards for social studies for the state of Texas.  UFW asked me to compose an email to Gail Lowe, the chair of the Texas SBOE demanding that they not further marginalize the voices of Latina/os within the history curriculum.

This call to action is one that I’m only too happy to answer.  In case you weren’t aware, as the Texas curriculum goes (which is known as Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills or TEKS), so goes the textbook publishers.  As the textbook publishers go, too often, so goes the nation.  Brian Thevenot offers his insights as to the importance:

Hijacking History  |  Texas Tribune

Following earlier clashes over curricula in other disciplines, the social studies debate will test whether the SBOE can cut through the fog of extremism and find a neutral mainstream. Though its appointees spent countless hours drafting the new standards, the board can toss or overhaul portions at any point, as it did with English standards in 2008 and science standards last year. And so a fifteen-member elected board dominated by social conservatives, few of them educators, will once again decide what will and won’t be taught in Texas public schools. Their influence will be magnified exponentially, as usual, because the content of textbooks in the lucrative Texas market drives what publishers peddle in other states.

Thevenot’s implication is clear: there’s even more at stake than the representation of Latina/os in the history curriculum.

The threat to Chavez’s inclusion in the curriculum is only one of many minority names that may be removed or downgraded to “recommendation” status in the curriculum.  Notable among the list of figures targeted for removal is Thurgood Marshall, the first African-American Supreme Court Justice and lawyer who successfully argued Brown v. Board of Education before that same court.

Lowe to guide education board through hot issues  |  AP

Two experts on a board-appointed advisory panel say Chavez, a civil rights activist who supporters say greatly improved conditions for Hispanic farm workers, and Marshall, who argued the landmark case that resulted in racial desegregation and was the first black U.S. Supreme Court justice, receive too much attention.

Panelist David Barton, an evangelical Republican activist who was appointed by Lowe, said Chavez “lacks the stature, impact and overall contributions of so many others.”

Social Studies “Experts” Don’t Know Much About History  |  Austin Chronicle

In another section on history studies, Peter Marshall downplays Thurgood Marshall as not being a “strong enough [example] in light of the multiplicity of persons who have impacted American history.”

…

“This has all been grossly misconstrued,” replied Peter Marshall in an interview with the Chronicle. “My point … is simply one of comparison. … If you’re trying to adduce examples for these guidelines of famous Ameri­cans that ought to be included in the teaching of American history, to pair those two men is silly. Chavez doesn’t begin to compare in terms of his impact on American history with Ben Franklin.” But he made it clear that his objections are also political. “My own personal guess is that the reason he was included in that is that it reflects the leftist bias of the people who wrote the guidelines last time. I don’t know; I don’t know who wrote them. But I’m suspicious of that. … In comparison with [other figures], Chavez doesn’t warrant much attention. … He’s just not real high on my list.”

In their criticisms, both Barton and Marshall along with fellow expert panelist Daniel Dreisbach argue in favor of focusing more on the “Founding Fathers,” and specifically, their religious convictions.  This turn toward what I can only politely describe as a pernicious blending of American civil religion with a particularly aggressive form of evangelical Christianity presents a threat to our national history of religious tolerance and the growing pluralism of this nation of immigrants.  The opinions of the alleged experts are basically echoed by the current chairperson of the Texas SBOE, Gail Lowe:

Lowe to guide education board through hot issues  |  AP

“This country was founded on Judeo Christian principles and to say otherwise is to deny what is very unique about our country.”

Hijacking History  |  Texas Tribune

The question of American superiority likely will come up again at next week’s SBOE meetings, Lowe said. “The state board members had given them (committee members) clear direction in the spring that we wanted that concept included, so it’s surprising they voted it down,” she said. “We don’t have to tell students what to think, but any educated person should have learned about American exceptionalism.”

These attitudes of American exceptionalism, along with its silent partner Christian exceptionalism, are simply inconsistent with our history.  Advocates of this misconception that the “Founding Fathers” were all Christian conveniently forget that many of them were Deists, a theological proposition that evangelical Christians roundly deny.  I doubt that either of the aforementioned religious leaders on the panel would subscribe to the tenets of deism. (David Barton is the founder of WallBuilders and Peter Marshall is founder of Peter Marshall Ministries.)  Yet beyond the religious realm, we often fail to see that American exceptionalism extends benefits to Americans who are white.  The exclusion of Cesar Chavez and Thurgood Marshall in favor of James Madison or Andrew Jackson is obvious on its face: the replacement of two figures of color by two white figures.  Yet in Oklahoma the racial implications of featuring Andrew Jackson in favor of a person of color should become even clearer, as we cannot forget the man who defied the Supreme Court and unconstitutionally uprooted Native Americans in a forced march across the country to their “reservations.” We have to be reminded that “American exceptionalism” all too easily morphs into “white exceptionalism,” the apathetic and unthinking accomplice of white supremacism.

This curriculum meeting should present as a moment for pause.  Yes, we may soon see a flood of deficient U.S. history textbooks that represent a narrow, rather sectarian point of view.  However, as a barometer of attitudes and currents within our nation, it indicates the presence of religious supremacy, structural racism, ethnic bigotry, and international indifference.  To make matters worse, groups and individuals exhibiting these attitudes are often belligerent, self-confident, and self-righteous; offering an understanding of dialogue that looks more like the evangelism of conversion than the engagement of conversation.  If the Texas SBOE approves these very narrow and ahistorical changes to the social studies curriculum in their meeting tomorrow, it will be a travesty on history.  The fact that so many people continue to hold to these inaccurate and dehumanizing ideals right now is a travesty on humanity.

————

As a note of gratitude, I am indebted to the Texas Freedom Network for their extensive coverage of the curriculum changes in their state.  Hats off to them for all of the good work they do on behalf of not only Texans, but the rest of us as well.  I also want to extend my thanks to Brian Thevenot for his article of the same name, whose title I have selfishly co-opted as my own.

Also, if you’d like to send in your comments at the last moment, you can still link here to the United Farm Workers advocacy page and email your comments to SBOE chair, Gail Lowe.

Cross posted at the Xenia Institute.

I am an aberration.

Considering all of the children of the 80’s in this country (I was born in ’79), I am one of probably four who wasn’t a fan of Michael Jackson.  And I have to be specific about this country because Jackson had such a huge following globally, not just here in the U.S.  There are children who were born around the same time as me who lived with a whole lot less than I did and still know the moves to Thriller – something I cannot even jokingly claim to know.  Heck, beyond “thriller,” I don’t even know the words to the song…

READ MORE