Comments

"Two political groups objected: some conservative Christians objected to the critical thinking portion of the tests ... "

I'm curious why their religion is considered relevant, or why it's mentioned at all?

-- KtmGuest - 26 Jul 2005

Here are 2 links containing articles that pertain to this topic.

http://www.educationnext.org/20053/52.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2004-12-15-reading-usat_x.htm

-- LoneRanger - 27 Jul 2005

Here are 2 links containing articles that pertain to this topic.

http://www.educationnext.org/20053/52.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2004-12-15-reading-usat_x.htm

-- LoneRanger - 27 Jul 2005

I'm curious why their religion is considered relevant, or why it's mentioned at all?

That was their specific organization, as I understand it; in other words, they were organized as 'conservative Christians' and objected on conservative Christian grounds, as they defined conservative Christianity. At least, that's the way the people working on the Frameworks understood it....

I was surprised, I have to say. I guess I don't know that many conservative Christians personally....

Does this sound like a common position? Or were these folks a vocal splinter group? (Which is often the case in ed politics.)

The specific objections of this group were to critical analysis per se, or to historical interpretation per se. They did not want their kids to make historical interpretations, but instead to learn and respect historical truths.

I have to say that I have some sympathy with this position, because I confronted it when I was reading the History of US books out loud to Christopher, and then again this year, in 5th grade.

In the book, and in his class, religion was treated historically, as a belief system held by peoples around the world. Greek mythology, American Indian beliefs, Christianity—it's all Religion.

I didn't want Christopher thinking that way at that age. I was teaching him that God—and Jesus—are real and love him. In other words, I was teaching him the Christian religion as an absolute, although I wasn't teaching a literal belief in the stories of the Bible. (otoh, I wasn't teaching him that the stories in the Bible were myths to be interpreted, either.)

I wanted him to believe in God, not just know about God.

Later on, he'll be free to believe or not believe. That will be up to him.

But what I think I learned in my own life is that my childhood faith in God got me through Jimmy's diagnosis and its aftermath. I was like everyone else I knew; I hadn't been to church in years, and I only barely believed in God. I was never 'against' God; I was never a 'secularist.' I was a lapsed sort of Christian.

But even though I hadn't set foot inside a church in almost 20 years, all of my childhood religion was there for me, as part of my conscious and unconscious mind, and it gave me strength.

And that's as far off topic as I should get here on a math blooki!

So back to Christopher & the CA situation: I had my own point at which I didn't want Christopher to think analytically or 'historically' about God & religion. I wanted that to come later.

I wonder whether those parents may have felt the same way....did they want their children not to start analyzing and dissecting American history at that age?

I've talked to Ed about this some. American historians universally believe that it's wrong to whitewash bad episodes in our history.

I believe that, too, but I don't believe that for young children. I think it's important for young children to love and trust their country in almost the same way it's important for young children to love and trust their parents. Their country is home; it's who they are. They need to feel like their country is good.

Later on, they can learn about bad periods in our history, and learn from those bad periods—and they should.

So I asked Ed about all this, and he said it had been a big concern amongst all the historians involved: When is it OK for a child to start learning the bad stuff?

So, I don't know any more than that. I just know that the message the historians got was that these parents did not want any critical analysis of historical documents on state tests.

AND I want to stress that in telling this story I am absolutely not saying conservative-Christians-are-against-historical-interpretation, OR blacks-are-against-standardized-testing. (As a matter of fact, I happen to know that public opinion polls show black parents to be in favor of testing....)

-- CatherineJohnson - 27 Jul 2005

"American historians universally believe that it's wrong to whitewash bad episodes in our history."

I'd agree with that formulation as long as it also includes that it is wrong to only emphasize the bad episodes and the bad aspects of the good episodes in our history. Context is regularly treated as the only important thing in literary interpretation, but is not allowed in historical interpretation*. Further, we are not to discuss the good elements of complex historical events, being required to focus on the bad. That is arguably worse than whitewashing history (for exactly the reasons you use for your desire to teach religion rather than comparative mythology).

* Obviously I overstate the case for rhetorical effect, but there is a real case there.

-- DougSundseth - 31 Oct 2005

Almost as bad is when a spin is put on an historical event so that only one persepective of the even is presented and not the other. One example is how the "robber barons" - carnegie, rockefeller, et al, are now presented as representing all that it bad with American capitalism. In fact, they probably did more to increase the human condition than anything before or since. But they aer to be vilified because they made enormous sums of money in the process.

-- KDeRosa - 31 Oct 2005

To use Ken's example, Credit Mobilier was certainly regarded as scandalous at the time and was at least arguably illegal. That part of the narrative is quite adequately discussed (if the Robber Barons are mentioned at all.)

Yet without Credit Mobilier, the US might have ended up with something like a Trans-Siberian Railway (rather than the complex net of railroads that we did end up with) and on a construction schedule like that of the Trans-Siberian Railway. (The UP-CP took four years, the Trans-Siberian took 25.)

Siberia isn't much less hospitable than (say) North Dakota or Montana, but both of those are far more developed than it is.

-- DougSundseth - 31 Oct 2005

I agree, absolutely, that it's wrong to emphasize only the bad aspects of American history.

-- CatherineJohnson - 31 Oct 2005