The piece continues:
What made this case both interesting and ironic for me is that this year I started to assign Peter Charles Hoffers Past Imperfect (2004) in my history methods and graduate classes. Hoffer vividly chronicles this movement to control the interpretation of history on the part of conservative activists and how academia has responded to it. For my students, the situation in Florida gave them a local petri dish to examine how the issues Hoffer confronts are still alive. It was a chilling epilogue to the book.
The history of this legislation began in 2005, when Florida senator Mike Fasano introduced the following language into Senate Bill 2180 (and later in the 2006 version): The history of the United States shall be taught as genuine history and shall not follow the revisionist or postmodernist viewpoints of relative truth . . . . American history shall be viewed as factual, not as constructed. It should be noted that the New Port Richey senator is also a member of the Knights of Columbus, an organization that had a very vocal and visible fight in the early 1990s over how Christopher Columbus and his expeditions should be commemorated during the Quincentenary Jubilee. In committee, that language gave way to the less confrontational yet more problematic, factual, not as constructed, shall be viewed as knowable, teachable, and testable.
What made the revised language so problematic is that by losing the relativism and postmodern phrasing and instead adopting factual, not constructed, it leaves the reader with the impression that history is just facts and of course is unchanging and not interpretive in nature. This, of course, is what the lawmakers envision as history; however, the Florida Department of Education, the National Center for Education Statistics, and the National Assessment of Education Progress all demand that history be taught as analytical and interpretive, and that it measure critical thinking. So now the A-Plus-Plus Plan directly contradicts the standards and expectations of the federal and state departments of education. These agencies on the federal level assess how effectively states are complying with No Child Left Behind and could open the door for the U.S. Department of Education to rebuke the state over these reductive measures.
Even if these policies were ignored by state and federal education agencies, if implemented as intended, they will wreak havoc in history classrooms across the state. First, teachers are expected to teach just facts, specifically facts that promote patriotism, the free markets, and the genius of the Declaration of Independence. Tucked into the law are proclamations to teach the contributions of African Americans, women, and Native Americans. What are the plans to address how and why these groups were systematically left out of the freedoms guaranteed by the founding documents? Will mere facts satiate the questions of bright young students? As such, this law leaves history teachers ill-equipped to guide the intellectual development of their students.
<
p>
Where would we be if our founding fathers had learned history this way? We’d be watching cricket matches and complaining about the Queen as we served our masters…
<
p>
This strikes me as recipe for creating servants
In fact, if anything, the history they learned was authoritarian, not merely respectful of authority.
<
p>
Did you know the Declaration ORIGINALLY said ‘Life, Liberty and Property’?
<
p>
And please, pluck out which of these virtues you wish to have omitted. RESPECT for authority is not synonymous with TRUCKLING to authority.
Any why do you think it was changed, Mr. P.?
“Life, Liberty and Estate” was from John Locke’s Second Treatise on Government. Locke’s work was unassailably liberal for its time (and is a foundation of our liberal democracy), NOT authoritarian. Furthermore, Jefferson (or perhaps Franklin) changed that portion of the Declaration so it would be more uplifting, less economical and reflect American interpretation of the Enlightment liberalism that spawned our democracy (by using a phrase of George Mason’s).
<
p>
If you’re going to argue the founders were authoritarians (or had an authoritarian outlook), don’t use evidence that demonstrates the exact opposite.
He was part of the Committee of Three, and argued that Jefferson was too much a man of property to use that phrase, and suggested that it be changed in Jefferson’s draft (he wrote the original draft document). Not that he disagreed with the principle, mind, but that a little bread-and-circuses redirection was needed to keep the common folk on board.
<
p>
And I am NOT saying they were autoritarian – at least, no worse than anyone else in that era – but that they DID have a healthy respect for both authority and property. Although perhaps not John Hancock, who was primarily involved in the Revolution to avoid seizure of his property by the Crown for non-payment of taxes and debt.
Perhaps it is my libertarian streak showing through (can’t hide it with Grecian Formula 🙂
<
p>
But I have a real problem with this. It is not so much for what is on the list, but what is not on the list…
<
p>
For example where is, “Question Authority,” and “Challenge conventional wisdom?” How about “Creativity”?
<
p>
As far as plucking is concerned, “Respect for authority” is earned by those in the authority position.
<
p>
Telling people to “respect authority” gives those who have not earned it way more power than they deserve.
<
p>
For example, George Bush, while President, has, in my humble opinion, not earned my respect. Clinton did. (then lost some of it with his Monica mess). So when Bush tells me that “the world is not safe and we are doing everything to make it safer, I call “bullshit…”
<
p>
Net effect is “respect authority” risks creating “followers” and single party rule (or monarchies etc…)
<
p>
Mark
<
p>
that says, “Question Authority.” I also have another banner that defines the word propaganda.
<
p>
I’ve always taught students–middle school, high school, and adults–the value and importance of questioning authority. They have every right to question me, question their administration, question their parents, and question their government in a respectful and law-abiding manner. Given the nature of humanity, a docile and incurious society is one that is doomed to failure.
What do you do when a student defies your authority as teacher?
between defying authority and questioning it. I’m not sure what you’re asking, so I’ll cover both:
<
p>
If I give information to a student, that student has every right to question where I got it. Some have. I always give that student places/books to go to verify what I have told them. This is really cool when it happens because I always love an opportunity to prove I’m right. 😉
<
p>
In behavioral matters, if a student does not do what I ask or tell him/her to do, s/he is perfectly free to question why I am asking or telling him or her to do it. If I’m addressing inappropriate behavior, I will tell the student why I object to what s/he is doing. If, after explaining my rationale, the kid still refuses to do what I ask, then their refusal to cooperate becomes a discipline issue.
<
p>
Defying and questioning are not synonyms.
But what’s “Disturbing” about that list that was part of “Lines 1211-1219: The character-development curriculum”? Or even controversial. I don’t get it.
<
p>
Kid: Hi mom. I’m home.
<
p>
Mom: What’d you learn today.
<
p>
Kid: Well I learned to respect authority, respect life and liberty and personal property. The teacher said I shouldn’t lie and that I should be charitable. I should exercise self control and be tolerant of other people regardless of race and ethnicity. Also, she said I should cooperate with others.
<
p>
Mom: Bastard Conservative teacher! She’ll be hearing from me! I blame Bush. [Head spins around. Eyes bulge]
the hyperbolic response
<
p>
You’ve taken the hypothetical to the obsurd. But in the sprit of things, allow me to continue…
<
p>
Mom: Did you learn about the Boston Tea Party?
<
p>
Kid: What’s that?
<
p>
How many more examples of civil disobedience/disobeyers must I cite?
<
p>
Rosa Parks
Mahatma Ghandi
Martin Luther King Jr.
Thomas Jefferson and John Adams writing the declaration of independence was an act of civil disobedience
The Underground Railway
<
p>
the list goes on and on…
<
p>
I contend that for these people to take the actions they took, they had to stop respecting some form authority – and good came from all of their actions…
<
p>
Mark
And each of those stories is history and should be taught. I see nothing in those guidelines that say otherwise.
<
p>
You and I don’t disagree.
<
p>
My point is that the “The character-development curriculum ” stresses a number of values. My contention is that those values are worth stressing, yet, Bob contends they are “disturbing.”
<
p>
I’m asking what is disturbing about a teacher being guided to emphasize those values are part of a child’s character development?
I didn’t write the article, Gary. I also didn’t call anything in it “disturbing.” If you want anyone to listen to you, please try to get your citations straight. One consequence of not learning how to think critically is an inability to formulate compelling arguments, and a reliance on imaginary evidence. Here, a misattribution. There, imaginary WMDs. Tragic, in short.
If I could edit, I’d change the “Bob” in my post to “Smart Mass” who did call the quoted passage “disturbing.” Sorry for the miss-attribution.
It was I who called them disturbing – my reasons are elsewhere in the comment thread.
<
p>
Mark (Smart Mass)
Republican style. The “success” of this initiative will actually require replacing teachers in general and history teachers in particular with programable robots. I don’t see that any time soon, so we can at least take heart in the fact that this bullshit is unlikely to reach actual classroom instructional practice until those robots roll off the assembly line. Teachers, on the whole, have more integrity than a lot of people think.
Iris – whle growing up – a LONG time ago – a certain Miss Gallegher was miffed that she alone had to remain in class with Protestant me and a Jewish girl, as all the other teachers got to go home at 1 pm on Wednesday from our PUBLIC school, as our friends – really, the entire school – all had early dismissal to attend Catechism.
<
p>
She told me that I was going to Hell, as I knew the Savior but rejected the autority of the Pope, while my Jewish classmate ahd at least the possibility of Purgatory since she was a heathen.
<
p>
Teacher ‘integrity’ is highly ideosyncratic, Iris. Was then, is now.
<
p>
That statement implies there are teachers who don’t measure up and acknowledges the low opinion many, like you (I guess), have of teachers. I was a student once myself, you know, and I had my fair share of dolts. Every profession has bad apples. That said, however, I believe…wait for it…on the whole, teachers take what they do seriously and try to do the right thing.
<
p>
Sadly, many people share your poor opinion of teachers, but most of us will keep on keeping on, doing good work and doing the right thing.
So if they are required to teach the nature and importance of free enterprise, does that mean they have to teach students why corporate welfare is bad? Do they have to teach about why monopolies cause problems? Do they have to teach that corporate greed will lead to corporations taking advantage of every loophole they can find, so that the only way to maintain a free market is with significant government oversight?
<
p>
If they are required to teach “patriotism, responsibility, and citizenship,” will they be teaching about the importance of civil disobediance? Will they be required to teach the history of Nazi Germany and how evil governments arise as a result of citizens not speaking out against government abuses early and often?
<
p>
There are many ways of meeting the requirements of this law with an extremely liberal curriculum. The history of the United States is one liberal triumph after another. Other than “respect for authority” I have no problems with the character development section. And respect for authority isn’t a bad thing, as long as they don’t teach blind obedience to authority. It would be very easy to teach about the nature of free enterprise in this country in such a way as to make people strongly anti-business; it would be harder to teach that in a way that makes people pro-business.
<
p>
The free enterprise system made the US you see today:
<
p>
Warren Buffet worked hard made some smart and lucky decisions, got rich and gets to give it all to causes he sees are worthwhile.
<
p>
Deval Patrick came from a poor neighborhood, became a major player with some big companies, made some serious bucks and can now afford to run for Govenor.
<
p>
Joe down the street, came here from India, bought a small store and makes a nice living for his family.
<
p>
Pro-business isn’t a hard sell. More good stories than bad ones–it’s not even close.
…um, we DO teach about Teddy Roosevelt today, don’t we?
I thought this was the more provocative component of Jeb Bush’s new plan:
<
p>
It’s like not eating a food because you never tried it! Kids should be exposed to EVERYTHING, not just what ‘excites’ them. Hell, they’ll do that ANYWAY. I remember principles of physical geography FAR better than English composition classes, because I was excited about writing, and hated geology. I had to study hard to retain that, and even NOW I remember the stata and substrata better than Robert Benchley and Dr. Johnson!