2012 Platform of Texas GOP rejects teaching critical thinking skills

Remove all ads!

Inimitably, the 2012 Platform of the Republican Party of Texas rejects the teaching of critical thinking skills:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...skills-really/2012/07/08/gJQAHNpFXW_blog.html


All the ridicule they receive for that they richly deserve.

 

If something goes wrong with US educational textbooks it sometimes relates in some way, shape, or form to Texas.

I followed the link to the blog and then to Colbert's commentary-which had me laughing.

 

Reading that with emphasis on "that are simply" and the comment makes sense.

 

Education, in the US especially, is known to use often inaccurate descriptions of teaching techniques to glorify a specific style of teaching. I've never heard of "Higher Order Thinking Skills" nor would I trust the name to accurately describe the program (I can't gain much info from the hots.org website either -- there doesn't appear to be much validation of the website's claims).

I would hope any school district, board of education, or governing body would be skeptical of "education" styles that involve buying into expensive software with only marginal validation.

On the other hand criticalthinking.org would probably scare most of the religious right.

 

Well, it's the US of Absurdum!

 

Ayuk, Ayuk, Ayuk, let's all make fun of those stupid Texans and the GOP. What a bunch of morons.

Wait a minute. I wonder what they could be talking about? It just doesn't seem plausible to me that Texas or the GOP would oppose people being able to think for themselves. That has always been the platform of the Democrats (trust in the government as we know what is best for you). So I decided to spend a quick moment and see what Higher order thinking skills are all about. What I discovered is quick and fascinating (at least to me).

Interestingly enough it appears that the RPT issued a clarification which for some reason our completely unbiased media source failed to mention. Oh well, I guess that is par for the course and it ruins a good story.

Now for some real analysis. Being the parent of a soon to be high school junior I feel qualified to respond. In our town they use HOTS for math at the elementary level and it is a disaster. Kids enter middle school with all of this high level theory of how math works, but they don't know how to do it. I blame myself for not being aware that my son never learned his multiplication tables. I just assumed that he was taught them and had it drilled into him. This caused him to flounder in 5th grade pre algebra. I spent about three weeks with him not teaching him, but melding into his brain basic math.

My wife felt the same way about "whole language" teaching. I admit to not really understanding what that was, but it drove her crazy.

If feeling that students must master the lower levels before advancing to higher levels means I'm worthy of ridicule, well I guess I am just as dumb as those moronic Texas Republicans. Yee haw

 

Snook,
you're making up personal rationalisations. Your reasons are not what the Texas GOP is opposing higher order thinking skills for. They oppose them, to quote from the wiki article you linked, not because they are poor teaching techniques that make kids perform poorly at math, but because they make kiddies uppity and secular:

I.e. theirs is a very different reasoning than yours.

 

That may be the case, but clearly the tone of the article and the general tone of this thread was focused more on education then values. I also don't see where there is a concern that the kids are becoming uppity. Just wait until you have children and then you will consider "parental authority" a little bit more important than you do now. You will be amazed. On one hand it is good that they treat students as adults, however, they frequently forget that they are not dealing with adults, but are dealing with minors.

 

You're still projecting your own ideas on the Texas GOP. That doesn't make them theirs, and it is only muddying the water.

What exactly about teaching critical thinking is it that undermines parental authority, and challenges students beliefs?

The elephant in the room here is religion (i.e. Texas style).

The teaching of evolution challenges students belief in the literal truth of the holy bible and so forth. It also challenges parental authority, in the sense that it confronts kids with an alternate view, which forces parents to address issues they'd rather not talk about openly (beyond evolution and the bible - think of, say, the stork or the blessings of abstinence). Or take the teaching of tolerance for sexual deviants which is obviously incompatible with fire and brimstone message of some parents and Sunday school. I could go on.

This isn't at all about how to properly communicate math skills and getting kids unruly by inducing in them, of all things, critical thinking.

The Texas GOP is simply in culture war mode. Projecting your more reasonable criticisms on a group you choose to sympathise with doesn't change that. It is entertaining for me but it leads you astray.

 

As is everyone in this argument. Once a person decides to do the "that's YOU'RE interpretation" argument they've pretty much closed any opportunity for an open discussion.

 

Actually, I don't think so at all.

Judging by what they say, the Texas GOP isn't concerned about Math skills but about teaching methods that allegedly "challenge students beliefs and undermine parental authority". If this isn't about the culture war, what then?

Pointing that out doesn't turn this into a he-said-she-said bickering.

 

You must be much better at critical thinking than I am if you were able to figure all of that out from the statement they made. I didn't see any reference to the Bible, Christianity, homosexuals, etc.

Now, I'm not saying you are wrong, but c'mon man, way to take a little tidbit and turn it into a full course meal all for the sake of bashing the Texas GOP (which I'm not sure how you have any skin in that game anyway).

All I can tell you, is there are plenty of things my "ultra liberal" public school is doing that I don't agree with. Luckily, I believe that my influence is giving Teen Snook a look at the other side so he can form his own opinion (wait a minute, is that critical thinking?).

I'm curious if you would be equally outraged to find out that Democratic party platforms might include things about promoting gay marriage, sex education, affirmative action, etc. or is this a "One way Street"?

 

The key is context, you know.

This is the Texas GOP 2012 platform after all. I read the whole thing in its full splendour. The bit about critical thinking reads:

I think the bit about fixed beliefs is something one ought to savour carefully. Undermining parental authority and challenge fixed beliefs about what exactly? The documents gives plenty clues as to what the authors have in mind:

Jefferson, NASA, Darwin, Liberals - you vile corrupters of youth, drink that cup of hemlock already!

My absolute favourite, however, is this one:

Yeah it ought to be used more.

 

While I am not an overly religious man, I can see their point of view. It certainly is a valid argument that the first amendment was to prevent the establishment of a "state religion". Instead it appears that the atheist left is more intereted in scrubbing God/religion from all aspects of society. I don't see anything that horrifying by this statement

I agree with them that parents should have the opportunity to review the materials and it isn't for the school system to instill a moral code/values on children it is for the parents to do so. I'm sure I'd be more in favor of "abstinence" if I had a daughter, but having a son we just hope he doesn't knock someone up. With the exception of the ridiculousness of "abstinence only" once again, nothing too horrifying here.

They should get bonus credibility for this sentence. I am so sick and tired of the dogma that " I'm right and you are wrong, and therefore I will do everything in my power to make sure you can't say anything". Since when did freedom of expression mean "Only if I agree with it".

I'll give you a point for this one. Good luck to any teacher who tried to use corporal punishment on high schoolers. I believe they are pretty much all bigger than the teachers.

Once again, I consider this thread misleading and inflammatory. If all of your major concerns are about the social platform of the Texas GOP (in which they aren't saying anything new or different than what pretty much everyone already knew their position would be) why the misleading attempt to make them seem "stupid" and against critical thinking.

Can I get a mod to change the name of this obviously misleading thread? I'm thinking a more appropriate one would be

"2012 Platform of Texas GOP rejects liberal indoctrination of school children". Wow, that is really a shocker. Who could have seen that coming.

---------- Added 0 hours, 5 minutes and 44 seconds later... ----------

Please see my above comment on freedom of expression. It has always been mind boggling to me that liberals, the "self proclaimed defenders of the truth and freedom of speech and exprssion" are always the ones who shout down people, throw pies in people faces, glitter bomb people, and protest to prevent people with differing opinions from speaking. I will never understand it.

 

I'm a big fan of critical thinking, and also of challenging pre-existing beliefs -- at an age appropriate time. High school is a good time for that, for example.

But for just a moment lets replace "religion" with "world-view". That's what religions are, basically. People whose "world view" is not religious cry foul when a religious "world view" is imposed on their kids. They scream bloody murder. Yet when the tables are turned, well, their world view is the one true path, and any objectors are evil and vile. Gimme a break.

If non Christians can object to the Lord's Prayer in a classroom as being inappropriate, then Christians can object to sex ed being taught in a way that they feels damages their kids and the values they are seeking to instil in those children.

And spare me the whole "It's Scientific fact" crap. I'm all for facts and stats, but it's a pretty big umbrella used by the non-religious world view proponents.

I'm all for keeping the Lord's Prayer out of school out of deference to the feelings of non-Christians. But Christians also deserve some deference for their feelings and opinions, don't they?

 

I understand your general point LKD, but I really don't think sex education is a particularly good example. How can sex ed be taught in a way that "damages their kids and the values"? How can you learn how to avoid getting your high school girl friend knocked up - and have this be damaging?

Although I guess that just goes back to the whole world view you were talking about. I favor teaching kids this, because I feel we will end world hunger, acheive world peace, and find an un-ending supply of free energy before we stop teenagers from screwing. So I think telling them about condoms can only help.

 

Unfortunately Aldeth, that is actually the point. All "values" are dumped into one great pot and there doesn't appear to be a differentiation of level.

I remember watching a talk show in Utah, the guest was a woman leading the fight against allowing a planned parenthood facility in the city. Her stance was simple -- just by being there the planned parenthood facility eroded the moral stance of the community and gave children the 'green light' to do 'bad things.' At the time Salt Lake City had one of the highest teenage pregnancy rates in the US and the interviewer made the comment that the kids were obviously already doing those things and that having 'sex ed' available from PP may help bring down the teenage pregnancy rates.

The woman vehemently -- to the point of making unreasonable rationalizations like, 'more kids will obviously be having sex so sex ed would increase the pregnancy rate' and ranting about abortions in the facility (which was not going to be licensed for such procedures). During which time she mentioned how her fifteen-year-old daughter should not be forced to be exposed to such an evil influence.

I thought the interviewer phrased it delicately when he pushed on the issue of her daughter -- the exchange went like this:

'I know you raise your daughter to have high morals, but every kid makes mistakes...'

'My daughter would not make that kind of mistake.'

'Granted, I accept that. But now make the leap that she had a lapse for some reason. Wouldn't you rather she had the knowledge to prevent a pregnancy?'

'No. And if my daughter were to get pregnant she would have to live with that burden. She made that bed and she -- alone -- would lie in it.'

That basically ended the discussion. I've found most of the far right use 'domino effect' type reasoning. Every little step is a little closer to the 'great evil.'

 

When you teach sex ed, it's next to impossible to NOT teach morality in some way, shape, or form. So the question is, whose morality? We know that it would destroy democracy as we know it for the Judeo-Christian morality to be taught with regards to sex, so we've shoved that out of schools. Fair enough.

But many people feel that today's morality is more Crowley-esque -- "Do what thou wilt be the whole of the law", is how I believe he termed it. In some cases sex-ed has been taught poorly and in a "go for it! you have no ability to control yourselves, so don't bother trying! Just eff around to your heart's content, because what you learned in church with your parents is wrong! Whoo hoo, party on, and if you get pregnant, what your parents say also means jack squat, because you can just abort it! Consequence free, baby!"

Now, that may be a little down the river kind of thinking, but as a parent, I am uncomfortable with the State going beyond the facts and teaching this sort of mindset to my kids. However, IMHO, the best solution for me is to counteract this sort of hedonistic crap at home with good teaching, a good example, and honest and open discussion. But I feel for those parents who don't want to be constantly fighting a State policy that directly contradicts their morality.

The schools should teach facts:

Abstinence: 100% effective in avoiding STIs and pregnancy.
Properly used condoms: 95% effective*
Improperly used condoms: 80% effective*
The Pill: 85% effective when used properly*, 0% effective for STIs
etc etc.

NOT "you're bound to do it anyway, so oingo boingo baby!"

 

Dead Man's Party was their best album.

LDK: That argument assumes all children have no mind of their own and will abandon all lessons taught by parents and church as soon as someone says 'oingo boingo baby.' It's a foolish argument and speaks volumes on how much parents do not believe themselves responsible for their children.

Ethics and values are instilled in children long before sex ed enters the picture -- they will not abandon the values they believe in. If their values do not include abstinence, then sex ed is a good thing.