Previously, I related how the Texas State Board of Education (SBOE) regards History as a laundry list of facts, dates, people, and events that must be taught. This list goes by the name Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS). Further advancing the absurdity is the effort ongoing to "streamline" the TEKS. As this article just published in the Texas Tribune reports, the streamlining was brought about by teachers complaining that there simply isn't enough time in the school year to teach all those facts.
https://www.texastribune.org/2018/11/13/hillary-clinton-helen-keller-state-board-education-texas/?fbclid=IwAR18yj4y3y7uV2qGBjT_lawJMLcP_xGUKez_ysjUlbX4NOe4xjKw7AO1dFc
Take a look at the makeup of the workgroups. "Work groups made up of teachers, historians and curriculum experts were tasked with cutting repetitive and unnecessary requirements out of the social studies standards." What's missing are business owners to provide insight into exactly what the marketplace is seeking in terms of "knowledge and skills". They could tell the Board that knowledge of Hillary Clinton, Helen Keller, and Moses is NOT what they're looking for. The global marketplace of the 21st century needs people who can THINK, not simply regurgitate facts from the past.
Another absurd, if not downright pernicious, aspect of the entire education system in Texas is the standardized test that students must pass in order to graduate. This is the State of Texas Assessment of Academic Readiness (STAAR). The salient question is readiness for WHAT? Isn't education intended to prepare one for life as a productive member of society? In researching the STAAR test, I found that "High school students must pass Algebra I, English I, English II, Biology and U.S. History end-of-course exams to graduate."
If a young person intends pursuing a career in law enforcement, of what practical use is Algebra, or Biology? And, one can live a happy, productive life, contributing to society without ever thinking twice about William Shakespeare. The basis of such a test reflects the arrogance of those who still subscribe to the 19th century attitude of what constitutes an "educated" person. Of course, those who advocate for continuation of such a curriculum must do so in order to protect their jobs. If Algebra ceased to be a required subject, there wouldn't be a need for so many Math teachers.
"Individual graduation committees must be established for students in 11th or 12th grade who have failed up to two of the EOCs. The committee determines whether a student can graduate despite failing the exams. The committee is composed of the principal/designee, the teacher of each course for which the student failed the EOC, the department chair or lead teacher supervising the course teacher and the student’s parent (or the student if at least age 18)." So, here you have a young person's entire future in the hands of education bureaucrats. Although the parent is included, practical experience with public education officials for the last 35 years has demonstrated that the parent is considered the LEAST important person in the entire process, even though it is the parents, as taxpayers, who make the entire system run.
Another trend prevalent in Texas has been the hiring of Curriculum Coordinators or Assistant Superintendents for Curriculum by school districts. When one looks at the prerequisites in a job listing, you find a requirement for a Masters degree in Education Administration. No regard is given to the discipline in which someone received their undergraduate degree and taught. So, you end up with someone who majored in and taught Biology being given full authority to tell a History teacher how to teach the discipline. It is only in the field of public education that this occurs. At the college level, a Biology professor wouldn't dream of trying to tell a History professor how to teach his class. If he did, the History professor would promptly say LEAVE.
As I've related before, the fundamental underpinning for the introduction of compulsory schooling in America in 1852 was considering the child the property of the State. In 1853, the Boston School Committee stated:
https://www.texastribune.org/2018/11/13/hillary-clinton-helen-keller-state-board-education-texas/?fbclid=IwAR18yj4y3y7uV2qGBjT_lawJMLcP_xGUKez_ysjUlbX4NOe4xjKw7AO1dFc
Take a look at the makeup of the workgroups. "Work groups made up of teachers, historians and curriculum experts were tasked with cutting repetitive and unnecessary requirements out of the social studies standards." What's missing are business owners to provide insight into exactly what the marketplace is seeking in terms of "knowledge and skills". They could tell the Board that knowledge of Hillary Clinton, Helen Keller, and Moses is NOT what they're looking for. The global marketplace of the 21st century needs people who can THINK, not simply regurgitate facts from the past.
Another absurd, if not downright pernicious, aspect of the entire education system in Texas is the standardized test that students must pass in order to graduate. This is the State of Texas Assessment of Academic Readiness (STAAR). The salient question is readiness for WHAT? Isn't education intended to prepare one for life as a productive member of society? In researching the STAAR test, I found that "High school students must pass Algebra I, English I, English II, Biology and U.S. History end-of-course exams to graduate."
If a young person intends pursuing a career in law enforcement, of what practical use is Algebra, or Biology? And, one can live a happy, productive life, contributing to society without ever thinking twice about William Shakespeare. The basis of such a test reflects the arrogance of those who still subscribe to the 19th century attitude of what constitutes an "educated" person. Of course, those who advocate for continuation of such a curriculum must do so in order to protect their jobs. If Algebra ceased to be a required subject, there wouldn't be a need for so many Math teachers.
"Individual graduation committees must be established for students in 11th or 12th grade who have failed up to two of the EOCs. The committee determines whether a student can graduate despite failing the exams. The committee is composed of the principal/designee, the teacher of each course for which the student failed the EOC, the department chair or lead teacher supervising the course teacher and the student’s parent (or the student if at least age 18)." So, here you have a young person's entire future in the hands of education bureaucrats. Although the parent is included, practical experience with public education officials for the last 35 years has demonstrated that the parent is considered the LEAST important person in the entire process, even though it is the parents, as taxpayers, who make the entire system run.
Another trend prevalent in Texas has been the hiring of Curriculum Coordinators or Assistant Superintendents for Curriculum by school districts. When one looks at the prerequisites in a job listing, you find a requirement for a Masters degree in Education Administration. No regard is given to the discipline in which someone received their undergraduate degree and taught. So, you end up with someone who majored in and taught Biology being given full authority to tell a History teacher how to teach the discipline. It is only in the field of public education that this occurs. At the college level, a Biology professor wouldn't dream of trying to tell a History professor how to teach his class. If he did, the History professor would promptly say LEAVE.
As I've related before, the fundamental underpinning for the introduction of compulsory schooling in America in 1852 was considering the child the property of the State. In 1853, the Boston School Committee stated:
“The parent is not the absolute owner of the child.
The child is a member of the community, has certain
rights, and is bound to perform certain duties, and so
far as these relate to the public, Government has the
same right of control over the child that it has over the
parent…Those children should be brought within the
jurisdiction of the Public Schools, from whom, through
their vagrant habits, our property is most in danger,
and who, of all others, most need the protecting power
of the State.”
This insidious attitude continues to the present day in the actions of the SBOE and, in fact, by the entire system of public education. History is supposed to be written in as unbiased a manner as possible. Although every historian brings his/her own personal views to their interpretation, those who are honest will strive to control for such biases. As David Hackett Fischer wrote almost 50 years ago, “A historian is essentially trained to be objective in his selection, analysis and interpretation of evidence. Unless he tries as much as possible to be objective, his person and work would hardly be respected.”
History should be taught the same way. What the SBOE is doing is fighting over "whose" facts should be taught, based on ideology. None of this prepares young people for real life.
Through the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in History, we have 100 years of data showing that the "facts first" approach to teaching History doesn't work. Unless they are professional historians, humans don't walk around with a bunch of facts about the past just waiting for a propitious moment to use them. But, even historians cannot know everything about everything. Someone who wrote their PhD dissertation on Medieval Europe will likely not remember many of the "facts" learned in their freshman American History survey course.
People first think of questions to be answered, such as "Why are things the way they are? How did they get this way?" Teaching them that History is just "what happened in the past", without giving them the tools to research the past and find the answers hampers them in meeting the demands of the 21st century.
History should be taught the same way. What the SBOE is doing is fighting over "whose" facts should be taught, based on ideology. None of this prepares young people for real life.
Through the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in History, we have 100 years of data showing that the "facts first" approach to teaching History doesn't work. Unless they are professional historians, humans don't walk around with a bunch of facts about the past just waiting for a propitious moment to use them. But, even historians cannot know everything about everything. Someone who wrote their PhD dissertation on Medieval Europe will likely not remember many of the "facts" learned in their freshman American History survey course.
People first think of questions to be answered, such as "Why are things the way they are? How did they get this way?" Teaching them that History is just "what happened in the past", without giving them the tools to research the past and find the answers hampers them in meeting the demands of the 21st century.
