[publius1]

Hunh? I just excerpted the paragraph in which the NY Times editorial writers explained why the changes were bad, the ideological bent, as the Times sees it, of the new pedagogy. Is it really ideological to have students understand how taxes and regulations affect the cost of goods? Or to understand the origins of the American sense of religious freedom and what it has morphed into? Or to see what happens when government overreaches in the effect to make a new heaven and new earth? I don't get it. Am I blinded by ideology, so that I think that these are neutral questions? As I say, Hunh?

[pepsionice]

Pull out the list of items that Texas is going to require and put out a dozen questions for the Times reporters to answer. I’m pretty sure that they can’t answer more than half. At that moment...they might realize that they’ve missed some education in their meager lives.

[thecabal]

presumably to get them off to an early start in fearing government

As opposed to the NYT and the rest of the MFM, whose goal is to get you to love every minute of having government up your ass.

[rlmorel]

I have an impression of libtards out there, wielding their hysterical “Separation of Church and State! Separation of Church and State!” with the same wild-eyed fervor that a priest brandishes a crucifix in the face of a demon needing exorcism.

Good thread to post, even if it IS the NY Slimes.

[Soothesayer]

but politicization is “good” when students are taught about how humans are destroying the planet or singing praise to Obama in chorus rehearsal.

[txrangerette]

It isn’t you - it’s them.

Only lib content is acceptable.

[nathanbedford]

I was struck with the same reaction which you articulated and I do not think that it is you or I who are afflicted with values ranging out of the mainstream. I would add, that it is revealing that the New York Times wants bureaucrats and apparatchiks rather than parents or the elected representatives of parents to make these decisions:

The original curriculum standards were drawn up by teams of teachers and scholars who spent nearly a year on the huge undertaking. The board eagerly exercised its power to amend those requirements. . . .

In fact, not only does the New York Times want the educrats to set the rules, it hopes they will break them if they are lawfully set by others:

We can only hope that sensible teachers will find a way to teach their subjects as understood by mainstream scholars. Students in Texas deserve an education free of ideology.

Once again we see the leftist/statist exulting a tyranny of the unelected elitist over the people. Small wonder that the New York Times opposes school vouchers.

[mathluv]

The libs consistently tell us what they fear. They can’t be bothered to read the Constitution (or the bills in Congress). Maybe since they have no core beliefs, they have no problem in swearing oaths to protect something they are going to ignore.

[wintertime]

Ping for later.

[Ostlandr]

I read the changes proposed to Texas textbooks. I agreed with most of it, but there were a couple points I disagreed with strongly. However, I don’t vote in Texas. It’s up to the Texas electorate, through their representatives, to decide what’s in their kid’s textbooks. I have no say in the matter. Unless we want to set a one-size-fits-all National curriculum, which I’m sure the Left would love.

[mike-zed]

If it pisses off the Slimes it’s almost certainly a very good thing indeed.

[sirchtruth]

When are these dumbasses, and that's exactly what they are, going to realize religion is a huge part of America. It is in every facet of our lives and as long as the government doesn't require you to believe a certain way then it should be discussed, studied, and especially historically taught! It is our history!

It's not freedom FROM Religion, it's freedom OF religion. NYT, is nothing more than an Obama anti-Constitutionalist.

[LS]

I read the curriculum, made a few suggestions to the board, and wrote a letter fully in support of it. It’s a good curriculum (of course, teachers still have to teach it).

[sickoflibs]

RE :” In what looks like an effort to justify injecting more religion into government, it voted to require students to examine why the founding fathers protected religious freedom — and how that approach contrasts with “separation of church and state.” The board also required third graders to “explain how government regulations and taxes impact consumer cost,” presumably to get them off to an early start in fearing government. Older students will have to “evaluate efforts by global organizations to undermine U.S. sovereignty” and, under an earlier change, analyze the “unintended consequences” of such programs as the Great Society and affirmative action. “

NYTimes is upset kids will be learning this with ‘our tax dollars’ when they should be learning proved science like : global warming, sensitivity training, America's racist history, recycling to save the planet, how we all were illegal aliens once, that the founders broke away from Europe to be atheists and how it's government that creates jobs while capitalism just benefits the rich.

[Piranha]

Based on the excerpt you posted it looks like a great program. I hope more states adopt it.

[IronJack]

Hey, Times! Hold a mirror up to yourselves! When you advocate inclusion of homosexual themes in reading classes, and push for “multicultural” casts in math story problems or revisionist claptrap in History, you are guilty of infusing learning with ideology too.

I guess it’s okay when the ideology in question is anti-American, anti-white, and socialist, eh?

[sportutegrl]

When I read the NYT article, a song keeps running in my head, “God Bless Texas.”

[TXnMA]

Da*ned NYTreasonists can manage to put a liberal propaganda spin on anything...

[TXnMA]

Da*ned NYTreasonists can manage to put a liberal propaganda spin on anything...