Texas Board of Education at it again Banning textbooks

[nguirado]

I know that I do.

So, there it is. No need to discuss things with bad people, right? I'll rest my case on the point that liberals are generally not knowledgeable about sophisticated conservative arguments (it's all bigotry), think conservatives are worse people, and generally mock conservatives rather than engage in honest debate.

Let's not bring it up again, unless it's to disagree with the conclusion and provide evidence supporting that dissenting conclusion (no mocking, in other words).

Anyways, I think Texas emphasizing the conservative narrative will result in more knowledgeable students.

This is a Rand study. It's from the nineties, but, if anything, the results would be more stark today:

http://www.rand.org/news/Press/naepscores.html

Even more dramatic contrasts emerge in the study's pathbreaking, cross-state comparison of achievement by students from similar families. Texas heads the class in this ranking with California dead last. Wisconsin, Montana, Iowa, Maine, North Dakota, Indiana and New Jersey cluster closely behind Texas. Louisiana, Mississippi, West Virginia, Alabama and Rhode Island perform almost as dismally as California.

[Donnageddon]

I want to return to the real conservatism of Teddy Roosevelt (breaking up the monopolies) and Ike Eisenhower (Top tax rate > 90%)

Hell, the latest crop of "conservatives" make Nixon and Goldwater look very good.

It is RIP for the GOP until they kick the zealous nutcases out of the party.

[Donnageddon]

A post of no useful purpose.. disposed of.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by nguirado

Let me put it another way:

The conservative would celebrate the first American on the moon and the liberal would celebrate the first Chicana in space.

I think you are treading on dangerous ice any time you try to paint with as broad a brush as appears in your last couple of posts.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by nguirado

...

This is a Rand study. It's from the nineties, but, if anything, the results would be more stark today:

http://www.rand.org/news/Press/naepscores.html

Unfortunately that study is almost 20 years old and given the changes in the last 20 years I don't think I'd put much faith in it for that reason alone.

[GeoffC]

Rising examination scores are often cited in a different sense here in the UK - syllabus and examination questions are "getting easier."

Just another suggestion where statistics can show anything one wants (well most).

[off-topic

[skin cancer is often correlated with increased sun-exposure; I'm surprised no-one has considered a correlation with increased use of sun-creme (chemicals massaged into the skin].

Okay - now back on topic please.]

[montsnmags]

(Just a small reminder, perhaps now unneeded...)

In a topic such as this, trying to avoid politics is obviously difficult, or impossible (see MobileRead Guideline #7, "Political and Religious Topics").

However, rather than simply closing the thread when it otherwise might follow and mostly has followed reasonable discussion lines, a focus on its original topic would avoid any such necessity.

Cheers,
Marc
Moderation Team

[tompe]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Unfortunately that study is almost 20 years old and given the changes in the last 20 years I don't think I'd put much faith in it for that reason alone.

And the web page also said:

Differences in state scores for students with similar families can be explained, in part, by per pupil expenditures and how these funds are allocated. States at the top of the heap generally have lower pupil-teacher ratios in lower grades, higher participation in public prekindergarten programs and a higher percentage of teachers who are satisfied with the resources they are provided for teaching. These three factors account for about two-thirds of the Texas-California differential. Teacher turnover also has a statistically significant effect on achievement. (California is now implementing class-size reduction and other reforms but these steps began after the 1996 NAEP tests.)

No mention of any difference in being liberal causing the difference.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

Rising examination scores are often cited in a different sense here in the UK - syllabus and examination questions are "getting easier."

Just another suggestion where statistics can show anything one wants (well most).

[off-topic

[skin cancer is often correlated with increased sun-exposure; I'm surprised no-one has considered a correlation with increased use of sun-creme (chemicals massaged into the skin].

Okay - now back on topic please.]

Off-topic reply....Not everybody uses sun-cremes, surveys can be done to gather the percentages of those who tend to use sun-cremes and those who do not and determine if the skin cancer incidence follow a usage trend versus an exposure trend. Whether or not such surveys have been done, I don't know, but I expect laboratory (animal) test have been done for the relevant chemicals on the skin of lab rats...

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Donnageddon

I want to return to the real conservatism of Teddy Roosevelt (breaking up the monopolies) and Ike Eisenhower (Top tax rate > 90%)

Hell, the latest crop of "conservatives" make Nixon and Goldwater look very good.

It is RIP for the GOP until they kick the zealous nutcases out of the party.

Um...slight correction. While the top tax rate was 91% under Eisenhower, the were set there by the 1932-34 Congress at the behest of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and the Democratic Party controlled both Houses of Congress during Eisenhower's two terms...

[nguirado]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

And conservatives don't?

Well, I'll give you that-- there aren't many conservative comics zinging liberals. Public conservative voices usually rely on red-faced rage and shouted indignation instead of biting humor.



I know that I do.

"Reality has a well-known liberal bias."

I also notice that liberals are most effective when they're making jokes instead of engaging in serious discussions.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by nguirado

I also notice that liberals are most effective when they're making jokes instead of engaging in serious discussions.

Yes, it seems that non-liberals cannot understand a serious discussion. It is all about sound bites and over simplifications for them.

[nguirado]

Originally Posted by kennyc

I think you are treading on dangerous ice any time you try to paint with as broad a brush as appears in your last couple of posts.

Somebody asked me for an example of the different approach to history the Texas school board wants to take. I gave what I think is an accurate description and gave this example, semi-humorously. I also gave the real-world Daniel Boone-Cesar Chavez example. If you look at California textbooks, you'll see that a much greater emphasis is given to the achievements of minorities in the context of overcoming prejudice. There's nothing inherently wrong with either the California or Texas approach and both points of view are accurate in what they deal with.

For a better illustration of what I mean, download Howard Zinn, for the California view (I studied it and it leaves out facts that don't correspond to his thesis like the railroads paid back the loans with interest a few years after building the railroads) and something like William Bennett for the Texas view.

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by nguirado

I also notice that liberals are most effective when they're making jokes instead of engaging in serious discussions.

Look, do you want SNL and The Colbert Report and things like that to be changed into Meet the Press and The McLaughlin Group? There are plenty of serious political discussion sources on TV. You are targeting comedians! Their job is to be funny! You are comparing apples to oranges then claiming that there are no oranges!

Your posts are coming off as smug and self-superior, implying (if not outright claiming) that liberals just aren't smart enough to understand serious debate... do you go by the same screen name over at The Free Republic?

[nguirado]

I know. Humor can be very effective. I don't blame them at all.

Sorry for the tone. I didn't have you or any other fair person in mind at all. I read through the posts and detected an attitude I encounter often. I hate having to dig people in these things, but like humor, it's the only way to get to some people.

Anyways, I think the issue is just choosing one approach over the other. My kids get the California approach in their public school and I supplement with the Texas approach at home. Maybe dissenting Texans can do the same in their home.