Do You Want Your Children To Be Patriotic?

by Donna Garner

9.14.09

Children are our future.  If you care about the upcoming generations and what they learn about our nation's history, government, and economy, please read this article by Bill Ames (posted below) about the new Social Studies standards that are being developed in Texas.

These new standards (Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills -- TEKS) will determine daily instruction, textbooks, and tests for the next ten years not just in Texas but in other states because of Texas' huge influence on the textbook market. 

Now is the time for you to express yourselves to the Texas State Board of Education; they need to hear from you. They meet this week, September 16-18 in Austin. Your involvement in past years in the English / Language Arts / Reading and in the Science standards (TEKS) has made a huge difference in the end product.

Seven of the SBOE members have traditionally stood for conservative values. The seven are Gail Lowe, Don McLeroy, Terri Leo, Barbara Cargill, Ken Mercer, Cynthia Dunbar, and David Bradley. These seven need to know that you are supporting their efforts. 

Others on the SBOE need to hear your concerns over the Social Studies TEKS that the Writing Team is drafting (e.g., the exclusion of "Christmas" and "Rosh Hashanah" in the sixth-grade TEKS and the inclusion of the Hindu religious celebration Diwali -- Houston Chronicle, 9.11.09:  http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6614322.html). 

The SBOE members' contact information is found on the Texas Education Agency website at:  http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index4.aspx?id=3803

Succinct personal e-mails (not form letters) in which you give your name/city/state are the most effective. The SBOE members may not have time to write you back, but they do read them.  They do track constituent feedback just as all elected officials do. Your voices do count.

Bill Ames is on the Social Studies Writing Team, and he has given all of us a glimpse into the process by writing this excellent three-part series published in Texas Insider.com. 

In Part 3, Ames gives explicit instructions as to what to include in your SBOE e-mails. 

We are indebted to Bill Ames for his honest account of what is happening inside the Social Studies Writing Teams that are dominated by liberal education bureaucrats.

What we must bear in mind is that it is not the Social Studies Writing Team members who get the final vote on the Social Studies TEKS.  By law that authority is given to the 15 elected members of the Texas State Board of Education. 

A majority of the SBOE members who are present at the May 2010 meeting in which the final Social Studies TEKS version comes up for adoption determines the final TEKS standards.

Donna Garner

wgarner1@hot.rr.com

============================================================

http://www.texasinsider.org/?p=15016#more-15016

1:15 pm CST - September 09, 2009

Insertion of Liberal’s Texas History Warrants SBOE Action

By Bill Ames

Part I of III piece series outlines tactics to re-write Texas history

This year, teams of volunteers are working in Austin to review & rewrite social studies academic standards for Texas public schools.  Bill Ames is a member of one of these teams, the U. S. History writing team.  He gained significant insight into how standards flaws translate into unacceptable curriculum as a voluntary textbook reviewer during the 2002 social studies textbook review process. Ames negotiated some 100 changes within just two textbooks. 

Even as tens of thousands of Texas citizens rally against the Obama administration’s agenda of deficit spending and socialist health care policy, another leftist agenda is going relatively unnoticed.  A group of educators, some of whom are liberal activists, have  descended on Austin.  This year they have been busily rewriting U. S. history, revising the story of the most successful experiment in history – with its roots firmly anchored in Western Civilization – and replacing it with their own negative view of America told thru an overly multicultural lens of victimization and oppression of minorities and women.   

It is time for mainstream Texans to focus, if only briefly, on ensuring that our youth get an accurate historical view of the United States.  It is a history that has served America so well during its 200+ years.

Upon arriving at the kickoff meeting of the social studies writing teams on February 5, 2009 my first surprise was the overloading of the writing teams with representatives of the education establishment.  On the 16 writing teams, a group totaling just over 100 people, I was one of only four Texas citizens who represented interests outside the education establishment. 

Even so, the Texas Education Agency (TEA) initially rejected my nomination, put forth by no less than a member of the State Board of Education (SBOE).

Whether unelected TEA staff has the authority to reject nominations made by elected SBOE members is a question for another day.  Only a number of last minute phone calls by my State Board of Education (SBOE) sponsor assured my place on the U. S. history writing team.

Such an overloading surely violates the Texas legislature’s intent.  Texas Education Code 28.002(c) clearly specifies:  The State Board of Education, with the direct participation of educators, parents, business and industry representatives, and employers shall by rule identify the essential knowledge and skills of each subject of the required curriculum …

Reasonable observers would agree there are not enough parents, business and industry representatives, employers, or taxpayers on the writing teams.

Activist educators do not appreciate public representation in a process that determines what is to be taught to our students.  Especially activist educators who are liberals.  A Wall Street Journal column, published March 28, 2002 during the debate over that year’s review of social studies textbooks, clearly revealed the left’s agenda.

“Nothing about public involvement is reasonable as far as the Texas school board’s Democrat members are concerned.  ‘Groups of extremists are organized in an attempt to censor our textbooks by removing material that is unacceptable to them’, Mary Helen Berlanga, a voice of the liberal faction, bawled recently.  Having gotten used to exercising power over what is fed to impressionable minds, Ms. Berlanga and allies are loath to give it up.”

But Ms. Berlanga was not bawling earlier this year when the extremist, anti-Christian group Texas Freedom Network (whose most intelligent rebuttal to conservative Christian viewpoints is its often-recurring “That’s a crock!”), insisted on censorship of any classroom discussion questioning the validity of Darwin’s evolution theory. 

In fact, on March 27, 2009, Ms. Berlanga cast one of only two dissenting SBOE votes, thereby supporting such censorship.  The double standard is not surprising. 

The left’s allegations of censorship and extremism emerge only when its own ox is being gored.

Further, as far back as a 2003 Zogby poll of Texas citizens reveals that fully 84% of respondents agreed public schools in Texas should teach both evolution and intelligent design. 

So who is the mainstream here, and who are the censors and extremists, guilty of
politically motivated indoctrination of Texas students?

But back to earlier this year, on February 5th.

It soon became clear that the starting point for our work was not going to be the existing social studies standards, as is dictated by custom.  Rather, a group called the Texas Council for Social Studies (TCSS) had pre-prepared a document that it claimed was an “update” to the existing standards. 

One member of my writing team, at one time associated with the TCSS, arrived with “revised” standards on her laptop and assumed control as the de facto leader of our group, using the TCSS standards as the new starting point. 

My complaints toward the validity of our “starting point” were met with what can be best described as smug condescension.  Our “leader” controlled any flow of additions and deletions to the TCSS document during the three-day meeting.  Liberal and multicultural material was added freely.  My conservative suggestions were most often voted down by a 7 to 1 vote.  In short, the TCSS and its allies had hijacked the process. 

The history standards had gone from bad to worse.

What is the TCSS?  A study from a few years ago revealed that members of the TCSS comprise less than 20% of Texas’ social studies teachers.  Yet, by February they had anointed themselves as spokespersons for the standards work effort.

Further, the TCSS is the Texas arm of the left-leaning National Council for Social Studies (NCSS), whose spin off National Center for History in the Schools (NCHS) created national history standards that were so anti-American that they were rejected by a resolution of condemnation in United States Senate – including both Democrats and Republicans alike by a 99 to 1 vote. 

The Senate’s condemnation concluded with the words, “Any recipient of federal funds … for standards and curriculum development … should have a decent respect for United States history’s roots in western civilization.” 

Regardless, even today the NCSS distributes NCHS history standards thru its catalog.

Obviously the vast majority of social studies teachers in Texas are anything but radical.  But unfortunately, it is the leftist-activist minority who often show up to create the new standards, exploiting the opportunity to impose their ideology on unsuspecting Texas parents and their impressionable children.

There are two agendas at work here. 

First is an attempt to paint United States history in as negative light as possible thru dwelling on the negative, even coloring overall positive events in terms of any negative effects. 

Second is the agenda to add as much multicultural content as possible, with little regard for the historical significance of the contributions. 

The result, if left unchecked, will be to eliminate our real history; that is, Western Civilization’s role in creating the most successful country in the world’s history and replacing it with a story in which historical events are told in the context of how they caused oppression and exploitation of minorities and women.

After the meeting, I called then-SBOE chairman Don McLeroy with the bad news.  Dr. McLeroy collected and reviewed the offending documents, and wisely asked the Texas Public Policy Foundation’s (TPPF) education policy analyst, Brooke Terry, to look at the standards drafts created in the February meeting. 

One SBOE board member characterized the writing teams’ collective work as a “train wreck”.  Ms. Terry testified before the SBOE on March 26, 2009.  Much of her testimony and observations follow:

Good morning, Chair McLeroy and members of the State Board of Education.  I am Brooke Terry, an education policy analyst with the Texas Public Policy Foundation.

I am here today to share our concerns regarding changes to the social studies curriculum (TEKS).  Based on our review of the revised TEKS, we are concerned that important pieces of history are being removed or changed.  In addition, we see repeated examples of bias against individualism, against the free enterprise system, and against personal responsibility.

We bring this to your attention today in hopes that the Board can rectify this situation and protect Texas K-12 social studies curriculum from unnecessary or inappropriate revisions.

Here are some examples of the revisions:

Kindergarten Social Studies – Removes suggested selections of You’re a Grand Old Flag and a children’s biography of George Washington.

1st Grade Social Studies – Removes the suggested selection of a children’s biography of Abraham Lincoln.  In the section on holidays, customs, and celebrations, it removes Independence Day, Veteran’s Day, and the anthems and mottos of Texas and the United States.  In the list of character traits of good citizenship, it removes “a belief in justice and truth”.  Removes the Liberty Bell from a list of patriotic symbols.

3rd Grade Social Studies – References to Daniel Boone, Paul Bunyan, and Robinson Crusoe were removed.  Many new names, including Grace Hopper, Margaret Knight, Quanah Parker, Dr. Hector P. Garcia, Maya Lin, Maya Angelou, Sandra Cisneros, Kadir Nelson, Jean Pinkey, Angela Shelf Medear, Elisabet Ney, Carmen Lomas Garza, and Bill Martin were inserted.

(Author’s note:  This list is a multiculturalist’s dream.  It is the perfect example of testimony I have made elsewhere, exposing “multicultural overrepresentation” in U. S. history standards).

8th Grade – In the history of the revolution section, it removes the phrase, “describe how religion contributed to the growth of representative government in the American colonies.  In the section on the importance of personal responsibilities, such as accepting responsibility for one’s behavior, it deletes “supporting one’s family”.

High School World History – Removes John Lockes’s two treatises of Government and English Common Law.

High School Government – In the section on science, technology, and society, it removes the reference to the private sector as helping improve consumer products and only mentions government-assisted research.

High School Economics – Changes “free enterprise system” to “capitalism” throughout the document.

History Since Reconstruction – Wants analysis of contributions of political activist organizations including Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, National Organization of Women, Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee, Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and American Indian Movement. What about other activist organizations such as pro-life groups like National Right to Life? What about groups protecting constitutional rights like the National Rifle Association?

History Since Reconstruction- Adds in political groups, but only liberal ones (NAACP, LULAC, NOW and others are added). What about conservative political groups like the Christian Coalition, Family Research Council or the Heritage Foundation?

The biased content introduced in February by the writing teams screamed for intervention by the SBOE.

Tomorrow Part II of this article will cover the steps the elected Texas State Board of Education took to attempt to correct the flawed standards work.   Part II will also review in detail the actions of the writing teams during their second meeting July 28-31, 2009.

============================================================

http://www.texasinsider.org/?p=15125 

1:32 pm CST - September 10, 2009

Insertion of Liberal’s Texas History Warrants SBOE Action

Part II of III piece series outlines tactics to re-write Texas history

By Bill Ames

In Part I of this article, published yesterday, I exposed the liberal agenda of education activists to rewrite American history, downplaying the story of the most successful experiment in freedom and liberty in the world’s history. Their goal is to replace that story with one in which even America’s greatest achievements are told in the context of negativism and multicultural oppression and exploitation.The agenda was best exposed in testimony, covered in Part I yesterday by Brooke Terry, education policy analyst for the Texas Public Policy Foundation, on March 26, 2009.

Part II begins with actions taken in response by the State Board of Education (SBOE).

The first action of the SBOE was to cancel the scheduled April meeting of the writing teams, giving the Board time to determine what went wrong.  SBOE chairman Don McLeroy assigned the task to the SBOE’s Committee on Instruction (COI), chaired by Barbara Cargill.  The Committee on Instruction met April 22nd, and included public hearings.  I testified, recommending: 

• Throw out the ideologically-biased TCSS-based U. S. history document; 
• Develop guidelines that will ensure standards that are made up of fact-based academic education;
• Repopulate the TEKS writing teams with a cross section of Texans as required by the Texas Education Code; and
• Use experts to create direction to the new teams to create standards that are based upon an unbiased, fact-based view of social studies.

My recommendations were considered but not adopted.  Rather than balancing the writing teams and establishing boundaries on standards content, the Committee on Instruction focused mostly on the TEA process that creates the standards.

The Committee on Instruction (COI), chaired by Barbara Cargill, revised steps for the standards writing process, specifically stating that the previous TEKS guidelines were to be the “starting point” of all discussions.  While this direction was appreciated and vastly improved the process, in reality it had little effect on the content of next writing teams’ work session on July 28-31.

While some of the COI’s direction was followed, its spirit of the elected SBOE member’s instruction was largely ignored.  

For example, the Board’s asked the writing teams to emphasize the Founding Documents, as called out in the Texas Education Code to be covered during the Texas legislature-mandated “Freedom Week”.  This request was met by the writing teams with bland inclusion of Freedom Week content in the introduction to the standards, rather than in the mainline standards, thus eliminating any pesky requirement to test students on the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, which by the way includes those “controversial” unalienable rights endowed by our Creator.

Also, the COI required that the current standards, rather than the TCSS revisions, were to be the starting point for subsequent work sessions.  But my writing team “satisfied” this requirement by simply projecting the current standard on the wall, then doing a quick clerical update to get to the TCSS February output, and proceeded from there.

The elected Texas State Board of Education should, by now, be aware of these actions.

The July meeting, in some ways, was even more bizarre than the February meeting.  COI direction had opened up the process if not the content, so opposing views, for the first time, could be documented instead of just being ignored. 

Some examples of my team’s work follow:

In the section covering significant military leaders of WWII, Generals Omar Bradley and George Patton were removed, replaced by Oveta Culp Hobby and black Colonel Benjamin O. Davis.  It was a glaring example of significant history being compromised in favor of multicultural diversity.  The only justification given was that Hobby and Davis were “firsts”. 

But in later discussions, “firsts” Orville and Wilbur Wright (powered flight), and Neil Armstrong (moonwalk) were rejected by my writing team.  “Firsts”, in their context, means “multicultural firsts” only.

In the section covering “changing demographic patterns caused by immigration”, my writing team refused to acknowledge the changing demographic patterns created by 12-20 million illegal aliens in the U. S.

One example of excessive negativity centers on the annexation/acquisitions of Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines in 1898.  The current standards define these as “U. S. expansionism”, leading to a historical focus, as believed by Theodore Roosevelt, on growth, progress, commerce, and mutually beneficial self-interests shared   with the territories. 

Today, both the U. S. and the territories are better off as a result.  A majority on my writing team disputed this, however, changing “U. S. expansionism” to “U. S. imperialism”, and these educators made it abundantly clear that this issue was not about shared opportunity, but rather about American oppression of indigenous natives.

Why all the negativism?

In a TV interview aired September 4, Chester Finn, president of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, a nationally recognized education-focused think tank said, “Every group wants to impose its will.  So if you are a left wing, Marxist group you want them (students) to grow up thinking that America is an oppressive capitalist plot to undo the working class.”

During the coming months, the left will claim that conservatives are trying to “whitewash” history

They are wrong.  We are trying to balance their well-established and overwhelming negative bias about America. 

In an attempt to balance the negatives, I insisted on creating a standards line item covering entrepreneurs who had achieved the American Dream.  Included are Bill Gates, Sam Walton, and Oprah Winfrey.  But one team member attempted to even paint a negative picture of the American Dream … by proposing to add investment swindler Bernie Madoff’s name to the list.  Her objective?  Author Thomas Sowell nailed it when he wrote in his The Quest for Cosmic Justice, “to create a world in which successful people are to be considered a grievance rather than as role models”.

Liberal newspapers in Texas have roundly criticized another of my small successes; that of getting a few conservatives mentioned as part of the conservative resurgence during the 1980s and early 1990s.  However, my writing team allowed only three names on the list:  Newt Gingrich, Phyllis Schlafly, and the Moral Majority.  These names were only allowed following the “such as” qualifier, meaning that teachers did not have to use the names, and students would not be tested on them.  My proposal to include additional conservative groups and individuals such as the National Rifle Association and Rush Limbaugh was refused. 

One member commented, in later discussion, that negatives about Ronald Reagan should be added.

The few conservative names, rather than “one-sided, right wing ideology”, as trumpeted by Texas representative Trey Martinez (D-San Antonio), in the San Antonio Express-News, are actually just a small token when compared to the preponderance of numerous  leftist movements covered in the standards:  The Populists, the Progressives, the New Deal, and the Great Society.

Further, the section about civil rights contains no less than six entries (versus 3 conservatives), and the six individuals and groups are preceded by the word “including”, meaning that each must be covered in the classroom, and students can look forward to being tested on each of them.

The six civil rights items include such fringe groups as:  the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), the American Indian Movement (AIM), and the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF). 

The group would not agree to add the point that higher percentages of Republicans than Democrats in Congress voted for the various civil rights bills of the 1960s.  So much for Rep. Martinez’ allegation of “one-sided right wing ideology”.

Bizarre anecdotes from other writing teams demonstrate additional bias. 

In one group, a member who suggested the inclusion of Presidents Roosevelt and Eisenhower was rebuked for proposing the inclusion of “dead white guys”.

Another team, searching for minority entrepreneurs to possibly include in the standards, but not sure whether Wally Amos, founder of Famous Amos Cookies was black or white, googled “Famous Amos”.  If Wally is black, he makes the candidate list.  If white, well, sorry, Wally. 

Multiculturalism, in these standards, trumps historical significance.

And the grade 6 social studies writing team even removed Christmas from a list of religious holidays.

Tomorrow, in Part III of this series, I will reveal what happens to curriculum and specifically history textbooks, when they are based upon flawed standards.  Part III will also provides guidance for Texas citizens, with actions to take to ensure that the final social studies standards teach significant history to our youth, and also teach that America is a place of which our youth can be proud.

This year, teams of volunteers are working in Austin to review/rewrite social studies academic standards for Texas public schools.  Bill Ames is a member of one of these teams, the U. S. History writing team.  He gained significant insight into how standards flaws translate into unacceptable curriculum as a voluntary textbook reviewer during the 2002 social studies textbook review process, negotiating some 100 changes to two textbooks.

==========================================================

http://www.texasinsider.org/?p=15220

12:29 pm CST - September 11, 2009

Insertion of Liberal’s Texas History Warrants SBOE Action

Part III of III piece series outlines tactics to re-write Texas history

By Bill Ames

On Wednesday, in Part I of this series, I exposed the agenda of education activists to rewrite American history.  Yesterday in Part II, I discussed actions taken by the SBOE to address the situation, and the writing teams’ subsequent actions in response to the SBOE’s instruction during their second meeting on July 28-31.

Today, Part III will discuss what happens to textbooks when their content is driven by negative and overly multicultural standards, closing with what Texas citizens can do to urge the SBOE to approve a set of Social Studies Standards that will make our youth proud to be Americans. 

As a volunteer textbook reviewer during the State Board of Education’s (SBOE) 2002 textbook review and approval cycle, I reviewed a number of textbooks, including Glencoe McGraw-Hill’s American Republic since 1877, and gained valuable insight into how flawed, overly multicultural and negative standards deprive students of valuable knowledge. 

The aviation section of that book featured African-American female stunt pilot Bessie Coleman.  The Wright brothers and their first powered flight were omitted from the book.

The space exploration section featured astronauts Sally Ride and Franklin R. Chang-Diaz.  The Challenger crew was described as “Christa McAuliffe and six others”.   Not mentioned in the book were Neil Armstrong’s moonwalk, nor President Kennedy’s patriotic “We choose to go to the moon” speech at Rice University.

Texas historian Jesus de la Teja was quoted in the Houston Chronicle on August 17, 2009, saying, “The ultimate goal of teaching history is to make students feel they are part of the story.  And you cannot make them feel a part of the story if the story you are telling is irrelevant to their lives.”

Respectfully, Mr. de la Teja is wrong.

Today the Richardson ISD, the school district in which I reside, counts 82 different languages spoken by its collective student body.  It would truly be a touchy-feely, politically correct, and yes, worthless, history curriculum indeed, whose primary goal is to nurture the self-esteem of all 82 different ethnicities.  

More important, any student in Texas, whether brown, black, white or whatever, is deprived of a complete education if he can complete a history course not appreciating the achievement associated with the Wright brothers first powered flight, or feeling the patriotic pride caused by America’s landing the first man on the moon.

On July 4, 2002, columnist George Will lamented, “We are supposed to prefer explaining the past, not with reference to event-making individuals, but in terms of the holy trinity of today’s obsessions:  race, gender, class”.

My personal experiences, both years ago and during the past few months, confirm Mr. Will’s analysis.

In addition to excessive multiculturalism, the overly negative view of American history – driven by emphasis on social issues that divide, rather than on achievements and patriotic passion that unite – led to negative descriptions of America’s finest achievements.

During the American invasion of Omaha Beach, the bravery and determination of the U. S. 1st Infantry Division was tested in one of the fiercest battles of WWII.  General Omar Bradley later wrote, “Every man who set foot on Omaha Beach that day was a hero.”

But the Glencoe textbook headlined the page with the negative, “Nightmare at Omaha”, followed by text, “the landing of the U. S. 1st Infantry Division threatened to turn into … an ‘irreversible catastrophe’”, followed by, “Winds and a current pushed landing craft into clumps as the men moved ashore.  As a result, soldiers ran onto the beach in groups and became easy targets.  Many died.  Of more than 9,000 Allied casualties on D-Day, Omaha accounted for about one-third."

There was nothing in the book about successfully establishing the beachhead and driving the Germans back.   

It was as if the story was being reported by MSNBC!    

Perhaps the most egregious example of negativism was the Erie Canal story.  The Erie Canal, opened in 1825, was American’s greatest engineering feat up to that time.  It allowed the expansion of commerce into the western frontier.

However, driven by standards that emphasize the plight of workers rather than America’s accomplishments, the Erie Canal text in the Glencoe book’s review copy appeared as follows:

“In the summer of 1817, explosions suddenly began disturbing the peace and quiet of rural upstate New York.”

This was followed with,

“Building the canal was difficult and dangerous.  Canal beds collapsed, burying diggers.  Blasting accidents killed other workers.  In 1819 alone more than 1,000 men were stricken with diseases contracted in the swamps through which they dug.  Here, one investor coldly complains that the number of deaths is raising costs.  ‘In consequence of the sickness that prevailed in this section and its vicinity, we were under the necessity of raising wages from twelve to fourteen and some as high as seventeen dollars per month for common laborers, and pay physicians for attending to the sick, purchase coffins and grave clothes, and attend with hands to bury the dead.’”
 
There is a significant impact on the tone of history when the standards are overly negative.  But the negative agenda is not surprising. 

Today is September 11th, eight historical years to the day since the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon near our Nation’s Capitol.  And on September 11, 2002, one year after 9/11, the National Education Association (NEA is the national teachers union and documentable shill for the Democrat party,) released a series of lesson plans to public schools around the country. 

Guess what?  The tone of the lessons was that 9/11 was America’s fault.

Most social studies teachers don’t believe this propaganda, and as previously mentioned the Texas Council for Social Studies (TCSS) only represents a small percentage of Texas social studies teachers.  But unfortunately, it is mostly the leftist, activist minority who sign up to engage in the process to create the new standards, exploiting the opportunity to impose their ideology on mainstream Texas parents and their impressionable children.

A few weeks ago, I read commentary written by a student who is currently a college-level   history major.  Indoctrinated by his teachers and professors, his article blamed the U. S. for Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor.

What can citizens do? 

There is an SBOE meeting scheduled for next week, September 16-18 in Austin, at which the current version of the social studies standards will be reviewed. 

First, find out who your SBOE representative is. 

To find your SBOE representative, and contact information, copy and paste the following link into your browser.

http://www.fyi.legis.state.tx.us/ 

Then enter your zip code, and select District Type = SBOE.

Second, before that September 16-18 SBOE meeting …

Tell your SBOE representative that the purpose of education is the transmission of academic knowledge and skills to the next generation – not to make radical changes in the attitudes, values and worldview of students.

Tell your SBOE representative to create the view of history that is based upon our great State’s & Nation’s founding principles.

Tell your SBOE representative to stress the Western heritage model of history, along with its leadership role in science, medicine, economics, agriculture, the arts, technology, religion and government.

Tell your SBOE representative to focus on American Exceptionalism – that is, the United States occupies a special niche among nations.

Tell your SBOE representative that you want factual, unbiased, balanced social studies standards that include events and individuals that are both significant and represent traditional, American Judeo-Christian values.

Tell your SBOE representative to produce standards that teach our youth to be proud Americans, and that America is a great country that has an overall positive history. 

SBOE member Pat Hardy is, correctly, an advocate for minority content in the standards.  And when quoted in the Houston Chronicle on August 17, 2009, Ms. Hardy stated, “… you cannot distort Texas history.  You cannot give an elevated place in history when their place was not elevated.”

So, finally, tell your SBOE representative that 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, already well-established & objective set of standards.  

Beyond the SBOE September meeting, there is another SBOE meeting scheduled for November 18-20, during which time extensive public testimony is to be considered. 

I hope to share more about this with you in further articles in early November, but mark your calendars now to be in Austin to personally testify at that meeting.

We Texans have a choice.  We can act, or we can allow a few activist educators to determine what Texas students will be learning in the classroom for the foreseeable future.

Bill Ames is a member of one of the U. S. History writing team of volunteers working in Austin to review/rewrite the Social Studies academic standards for Texas public schools this year.  He gained significant insight into how standards flaws translate into unacceptable curriculum as a voluntary textbook reviewer during the 2002 Social Studies textbook review process, negotiating some 100 changes to two textbooks.