Texas Insider

Texas Insider Exclusive

Authors note:  Before we begin today’s article, author Bill Ames wants to remind TexasInsider readers that today is November 11, Veterans Day.  For the benefit of Texas’ veterans, for those whose loved ones have served, and for all Texas patriots, you should know that the 1st grade social studies standards writers removed Veteran’s Day from the list of national holidays during its February meeting.   On this day, we remember those who have served in our military, fighting that we may keep our liberty and freedom as a free country.

Embarrassed by SBOE testimony from the Texas Public Policy Foundation’s Brooke Terry, and by being told the inconvenient fact that Veterans Day is an official American and Texas holiday, the review panel quietly returned Veterans Day to the list. 

Chalk up one victory for conservatives, in yet another skirmish in the Left’s War on U. S. History. 

Senator Shapleigh attacks SBOE chair

We have discussed the left’s attempt to create a revisionist view of American history, and the accompanying assaults upon the volunteer, unpaid members of the SBOE and it’s appointed expert reviewers. 

But without a doubt, the most egregious insult came from Senator Eliot Shapleigh, (D) El Paso.  His letter, dated September 8, goes beyond common decency in its attack on SBOE chairman Gail Lowe. 

September 8, 2009

 RE: Put Children First

Dear Chairwoman Lowe:

I write regarding the ongoing debate over new standards for social studies textbooks. Despite the strong rejection of an overly-politicized Board—and chairperson—by the Texas Legislature, it is becoming increasing (sic) clear that little seems to have changed since your appointment. Let us review some recent history:

• Political ideologues appointed by the far-right faction of the Board to the curriculum review panel stated that César Chavez should be removed from the standards because he is not the right kind of role model for Texas students. One panelist in particular stated that “Chavez is hardly the kind of role model that ought to be held up to our children as someone worthy of emulation.” That same member of the review panel also stated that U.S. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall is not “a strong enough example” of an influential historical figure.

• You weighed in on this debate, surprisingly stating that Marshall and Chavez are “not particularly known for their citizenship.” Given these historical figures’ enormous accomplishments, I am curious as to your definition of “citizenship.” Perhaps you may not realize that Justice Marshall was the first African American to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court and the lawyer that argued Brown v. Board of Education, the landmark case that dismantled the legal basis for racial segregation in schools and other public facilities. Additionally, you may not realize that Chavez was the 20th century’s leading voice for migrant farm workers in the U.S. Through Chavez’s leadership, the formerly-marginalized group’s horrible working conditions were brought to the nation’s attention and thus dramatically improved. Regardless of your protestations, however, both Marshall and Chavez are included in the first draft of the high school U.S. history standards.

• Predictably, the first draft of the high school U.S. history standards requires Texas high school students to “identify significant conservative advocacy organizations and individuals, such as Newt Gingrich, Phyllis Schlafly, and the Moral Majority,” yet fails to balance this with any progressive figures or groups.

As you know, the Board’s rank partisanship has caught the Legislature’s attention. During the 81st Legislative Session, the Legislature responded in a bipartisan manner with at least a dozen bills that would either strip elements of the Board’s authority, subject the Board’s activities to heightened legislative scrutiny, or require more public disclosure of the Board’s activities. In as clear a signal as Texas can send, the Senate stripped Don McLeroy of his chairmanship for precisely the unproductive, partisan behavior that now warrants delivery of this letter. Given the Legislature’s concerns, it is both alarming and disappointing to see that the Board feels comfortable continuing down the same path of politicization and gridlock.

On one issue we all agree: Texas’ future depends on how well we educate our most valuable resource—our children. Teaching children about our rich American legacy, where people from all walks, all ethnicities, and all regions of our great nation succeed by virtue of courage, hard work, honesty, and education—that is the story we ought to share with our next generation. Our children need to compete with the world using a working knowledge of real American history, not the results of the last primary.

I ask that you keep these words in mind as you continue to shape the standards that will guide the next generation’s education. For once, do right by the students, not by your political ideology.

Very truly yours,

Eliot Shapleigh

In this bullying, partisan letter, Senator Shaleigh ignores the obvious fact that his heroes, Marshall and Chavez, were both unrepentant liberals.  The inclusion of Gingrich, Schlafly, and the Moral Majority, rather than requiring ideological balance, ARE the ideological balance.

Summarizing the good senator’s letter ….. “Produce the leftist view of history, or we’re gonna BORK you the same way we BORKed Dr. Don McLeroy”…..

Incidentally, this letter is in the public domain, having been published by certain journalistic blogs whose attacks on mainstream Texans & conservatives are a mix of toddler temper tantrums and adult road rage.  One wonders who actually drafted the letter.

The Need for Diversity of Opinion in the standards

For me, the highlight of the October review panel meeting occurred on Friday morning, October 16, when we were visited by Dr. Jesus Francisco de la Teja, an expert reviewer who was selected by Democrat members of the SBOE . 

When it was my turn to ask a question, I focused him on the standards item covering civil rights, that at the time included the names of some 13 individuals and groups, that students HAD to learn and be tested on. 

Dr. de la Teja readily agreed that those on the list were left leaning. 

I then focused him on the inclusion of Gingrich, Schlafly, and the Moral Majority, and suggested that rather than creating the need for liberal balance, the conservatives ARE the balance.

Dr. de la Teja responded that Gingrich, Schlafly, and the Moral Majority, whether you agree with them or not, contributed to the patchwork of history and deserve inclusion.
 
He went on, emphasizing the need for “Diversity of Opinion” in the standards, and that we as a review panel were derelict if we did not insist upon presenting all sides of historical issues.

My leftist review panel teammates nearly fell out of their chairs. 

We have not created such a document, and unfortunately, on the next-to-last day of our months’ long work effort, we were out of runway to do so.

A glaring example of the lack of diversity of opinion is captured in the following student expectation, which was output from the review panel’s July meeting.

“Identify actions of government and the private sector to expand economic opportunities to all citizens, such as the Great Society and affirmative action”.

In addition to ignoring that economic opportunities for white males, Asian Americans, and all taxpayers were actually diminished, and in fact those groups were economically and socially punished, my group refused to consider my proposal to add the consequences of the Great Society and affirmative action to the standards: 

The explosion of the welfare state, the replacement of personal responsibility with dependence on government, the growth of single parent households with the resulting increases in poverty and crime, reverse discrimination in direct conflict with the Civil Rights Acts’ language, the Bakke and Hopwood court cases, the work of African-American Ward Connerly in ending affirmative action in the California university system, and the writings of Thomas Sowell and Bill Cosby.  

The refusal to include such diversity of opinion not only biases history, but also precludes the opportunity for students to debate all sides of the issue, thereby restricting development of students’ critical thinking skills.

The SBOE has much work to do between now and the standards finalization in March, to ensure that both sides of every issue are covered.

The SBOE has come thru in the past

Much work needs to be done.  But it will be done. Change proposals will be developed. 

In the January State Board of Education meeting, item-by-item, motions will be made and passed to accept the changes.  Gradually the standards will be transformed into a document that will make Texas students proud to be Americans. 

Textbook publishers, bound by the standards, will publish pro-America textbooks that are used, not only in Texas, but also across the country.

The process will be the history revisionists’ worst nightmare.

How can one be so confident of the outcome?  Because the SBOE seems able to win every curriculum battle.  The left always loses in Texas, whether promoting an environmental science curriculum that majors in doomsday scare tactics to frighten children, touting a fuzzy math curriculum that promotes rain forest math and mocks teaching multiplication and division tables, supporting Planned Parenthood’s efforts to promote an anything-goes sex education curriculum, censoring any questioning of evolution theory in a science curriculum, and promoting whole language in the reading curriculum, an approach that rendered a generation of California public school students essentially illiterate.

Reader actions: What can citizens do?

A January-June 2009 Gallup poll revealed that 43% of Texans are conservative, only 16% claim to be liberal.  So anyone who joins this effort is solidly in the majority, in spite of the constant rants from the left. 

First, find out who your legislator, senator, and especially who your SBOE representative is. 

To find your representatives, and contact information, copy and paste the following link into your browser (http://www.fyi.legis.state.tx.us), or click here.  Then enter your zip code.

Next, before year-end, write brief, respectful letters, using one or more of the following talking points, Tell your SBOE member and other representatives that …

1. The purpose of education is the transmission of academic knowledge and skills to the next generation, rather than to make radical changes in the attitudes, values, and worldview of students.
2. You want a view of history that is based upon our founding principles.
3. You want a positive view of history, including our leadership role in science, medicine, economics, agriculture, the arts, technology, religion, and government.
4. You want a focus on American exceptionalism, that is, the United States occupies a special niche among nations.
5. You want factual, unbiased, balanced social studies standards that include events and individuals that are both significant and represent traditional, American Judeo-Christian values.
6. You want standards that teach our youth to be proud Americans, and that America is a great country that has an overall positive history. 
7. While many ethnic groups and individuals have contributed to America’s success, their relative contributions and inclusion in the standards must be evaluated according to a uniform set of qualifications.  

During its meeting on January 13-15, 2010, the SBOE will be taking public testimony.  Anyone can sign up to make a three-minute presentation.  Those who can attend … sign up to testify by calling (512)463-9007, starting at 8 a.m. on Friday, January 8.

Written testimony can also be submitted.  Instructions can be found at:

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index4.aspx?id=3958#Public Testimony

This concludes my three-part article.  In this series, we have seen the Left’s War on History up close … It is a war that has been going on at least since leftist educators created the first national history standards in 1994. 

As we go forward, I am confident that the conservative members of the Texas SBOE, with support from the conservative majority of Texans, can win this battle.

America’s greatest hope lies in the hands of our children and those who would inspire them with a positive view of their country.  We can act, to make that hope and inspiration a reality, or we can allow a relatively few extremists to communicate their negative view of America. 

The choice is ours.

 _________________________________________

This is part III of a III-Part article series.  In Part I, Ames discussed the agenda of left-wing “educators” to organize and hijack the standards review process.  Yesterday, in order to assist the SBOE in focusing on the changes needed in order to teach our kids a overall positive view of America and make them proud citizens, Part II reviewed the damage they have done. 

Today, Ames exposed what he calls “the ultimate, leftist political insult to the SBOE to date.”  He also talked about past and recent successes of the SBOE in various curriculum areas, so that mainstream Texans understand how the SBOE shields our public schools from the bizarre policies of the liberal education establishment that occur in other states across the country.

Finally, he outlined actions that Texas citizens can take to support the State Board of Education’s (SBOE’s) attempts to counter the leftists’ revisionism of history.

Ames welcomes reader feedback at billames@prodigy.net