Stephen Colbert Interviews Former Chairman of the Texas State Board of Education

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Anyone remotely interested/concerned with the current state of the US educational system needs to watch this video (http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/413074/april-23-2012/don-mcleroy). For those who don't know, Texas is basically where most of the US gets its textbooks. Don McLeroy was the chairman of the board . . . and he doesn't like the experts.

[OrphanPip]

I saw the interview last night, scary attitude towards science and history. However, I've been aware of him (or rather the issue itself) for a few years, concerns about Texas school board regulations surface on science blogs a lot. I remember in 2009 when the story about revising science first surfaced.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qG2Zsxu9t7U&feature=relmfu

Edit: The good news though is that McLeroy failed to get re-elected and that the NCSE was able to talk sense into the board.

[tonywalt]

Anyone remotely interested/concerned with the current state of the US educational system needs to watch this video (http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/413074/april-23-2012/don-mcleroy). For those who don't know, Texas is basically where most of the US gets its textbooks. Don McLeroy was the chairman of the board . . . and he doesn't like the experts.

From reading US sourced textbooks I finally little that suggest like people like McLeroy have great input (thankfully) and influence on US textbooks. For the record, I do not agree with his views on evolution.

Having said that, the US high school history books are full of revisionist history. A few flimsy half-hearted paragraphs on the founding fathers, with a subtle but certain diminishing of their currency, especially Thomas Jefferson. But much cheerleading of certain movement leaders in the latter half of the last century.

Paul Johnson wrote an excellent history of the United States in "The history of the American People" but Howard Zimm is quoted much to generously in school textbooks. Franklin, Jefferson, Washington, Hamilton, and Adams should be granted much more space and currency. The first two were both genius polymaths and the last 3 founding fathers could hold their own with any living contemporary -easily, handsomely.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I saw the interview last night, scary attitude towards science and history. However, I've been aware of him (or rather the issue itself) for a few years, concerns about Texas school board regulations surface on science blogs a lot. I remember in 2009 when the story about revising science first surfaced.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qG2Zsxu9t7U&feature=relmfu

Edit: The good news though is that McLeroy failed to get re-elected and that the NCSE was able to talk sense into the board.

Yeah, but the damage has been done. Schools rarely get new textbooks every hear. Many not even every decade.

And I was always aware of the Texas/textbook situation, but hearing this loon talk is just scary.

[Buh4Bee]

I watched the video. Colbert really is very talented as a comedian and what he was able to get McLeroy to reveal.

One point McLeroy makes at the end is that textbooks are chosen based on whether they meet the state standards or not. Well, the standards are changing again to the Common Core as a way to standardize what we teach across the country. Of course, Texas hasn't adopted them.

http://www.corestandards.org/in-the-states

My point is these new standards are causing all the textbooks or teaching curriculum to be rewritten so it is realign with the new set of standards. Being that most of the national will be following the same set of standards, I wonder how much longer Texas can influence what is and is not in the textbook.

[Alexander III]

Having said that, the US high school history books are full of revisionist history. A few flimsy half-hearted paragraphs on the founding fathers, with a subtle but certain diminishing of their currency, especially Thomas Jefferson. But much cheerleading of certain movement leaders in the latter half of the last century.

Paul Johnson wrote an excellent history of the United States in "The history of the American People" but Howard Zimm is quoted much to generously in school textbooks. Franklin, Jefferson, Washington, Hamilton, and Adams should be granted much more space and currency. The first two were both genius polymaths and the last 3 founding fathers could hold their own with any living contemporary -easily, handsomely.


I fully agree, to be honest the 20th century pales in comparison to the 19th century, when it comes to great political figures.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I watched the video. Colbert really is very talented as a comedian and what he was able to get McLeroy to reveal.

One point McLeroy makes at the end is that textbooks are chosen based on whether they meet the state standards or not. Well, the standards are changing again to the Common Core as a way to standardize what we teach across the country. Of course, Texas hasn't adopted them.

http://www.corestandards.org/in-the-states

My point is these new standards are causing all the textbooks or teaching curriculum to be rewritten so it is realign with the new set of standards. Being that most of the national will be following the same set of standards, I wonder how much longer Texas can influence what is and is not in the textbook.
Hopefully not long.

[tonywalt]

I fully agree, to be honest the 20th century pales in comparison to the 19th century, when it comes to great political figures.


I fully agree, the historical figures of the 18th and 19th century pale in comparison with the exception of Britain during the 2nd World War - and he was a self styled throwback.

People I speak with who are in the US or use US textboks(such as in Cayman) hope that the studies are not designed by social engineers who seek to change a way of life which made the country great. The first step is subverting education.

The Progressive Theory that seems to be pushed more and more is isn't to instruct students in wisdom and knowledge, but to ensure students are ''socially well adjusted" and ensuring they are indoctrinated with certain beliefs.

I'm pretty sure that few Onliters would want to be taught in that sort of fashion.

[NikolaiI]

I couldn't load your video, Mutatis, but I watched about 10 minutes of yours Pip. I like Scott, she seems very intelligent. I'll try to watch the Colbert interview on a different machine sometime.

[JuniperWoolf]

I fully agree, to be honest the 20th century pales in comparison to the 19th century, when it comes to great political figures.

Yeah, but we know more about political figures from the 20th century as well, since media and technology has advanced. Maybe if we knew more about George Washington he wouldn't seem like such a heroic figure.

[Alexander III]

Yeah, but we know more about political figures from the 20th century as well, since media and technology has advanced. Maybe if we knew more about George Washington he wouldn't seem like such a heroic figure.

"men are flawed - great men are greatly flawed"

It seems natural to me that the greatest men would also have the grestest faults.

Washington had slaves and several children by his slaves - Hitler was agaimnst fox hunting and all forms of animal cruelty, as well as being a patron of art and anti-smoking.

That does not change the fact that Washington was a great man and Hitler was not.

The personal life of an artist, should not be used against his art, the same for a politician or military leader, their personal lives should not be used to demean what they have done for their nations.

They should be judged in accordance to what they did for their countries(or like Garibaldi and Cochrane , what they did for many nations).

Marthin Luther king, plagiarized his university thesis and had several affairs, does this demean his political work? Not at all, personal life and public life are separate. Most of the great geniuses of the past were aswholes, I do not care much abotu that, I judge a man by what he has done, last time I checked there was no one on this forum who devoted their lives to fighting for the liberty of their nations.

So easy with the words, who are we to judge after all, yes most of us are young and thus have not had the chance to achieve anything in our lives, but as it stands we have done nothing and are insignificant, until we prove otehrwise - a point which many forget when they critizise the men before them.
Last time I checked the american founding fathers gave their lives to their nations. Te

[JuniperWoolf]

"men are flawed - great men are greatly flawed"

It seems natural to me that the greatest men would also have the grestest faults.

Washington had slaves and several children by his slaves - Hitler was agaimnst fox hunting and all forms of animal cruelty, as well as being a patron of art and anti-smoking.

That does not change the fact that Washington was a great man and Hitler was not.

The personal life of an artist, should not be used against his art, the same for a politician or military leader, their personal lives should not be used to demean what they have done for their nations.

They should be judged in accordance to what they did for their countries(or like Garibaldi and Cochrane , what they did for many nations).

Marthin Luther king, plagiarized his university thesis and had several affairs, does this demean his political work? Not at all, personal life and public life are separate. Most of the great geniuses of the past were aswholes, I do not care much abotu that, I judge a man by what he has done, last time I checked there was no one on this forum who devoted their lives to fighting for the liberty of their nations.

...All excellent points.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Usually a thread at least goes a page before veering completely off-topic. Way to go!

[Alexander III]

Usually a thread at least goes a page before veering completely off-topic. Way to go!

Dare I say the original question was discussed and concluded, were people still interested in it the debate would have gone on, or if someone had brought up something interesting to say it would have continued. But no one did.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Dare I say the original question was discussed and concluded, were people still interested in it the debate would have gone on, or if someone had brought up something interesting to say it would have continued. But no one did.

Well thanks for the thoughtful and valuable commentary, Alex. Allow me to mark this post so I can look back on it in the future and reexperience it's indelible wisdom!

[Alexander III]

Well thanks for the thoughtful and valuable commentary, Alex. Allow me to mark this post so I can look back on it in the future and reexperience it's indelible wisdom!

hahah, well played.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

hahah, well played.

:cheers2: