Forty Six US states have adopted the Common Core State Standards, standards written by NGO's and approved, not by legislatures but rather political unions like the National Governors Association. Four years ago these standards were approved and put in motion outside the political discourse and parents are just beginning to hear the word Common Core!
With CCSS we have the most significant change in US education EVER and no significant national media coverage anywhere until just the last few months ago. HOW DOES THAT HAPPEN? How can a set of national standards, national tests, and national curriculum models that are binding on the states be transforming classrooms coast to coast before parents even know about it?
Even in the handful of states who haven't officially signed the pact with the federal government are making changes in the classroom to get in line with CCSS. For example, in Nebraska, Omaha Public Schools has been re-working curriculum and teaching models for at least a year to get ready for Common Core! All this before their state board of education has signed off on the standards.
It is disgusting to me that something so transformational can be in the works without any information going out to the public about it!! But then that's what the CCSS agenda is all about it has moved forward with no consultation of parents or the public, it's by-stepped legislatures by going straight to state boards, and it has moved into place with astonishing stealth to avoid public push back.
In the months of research I did trying to find the strings on the Nebraska truancy law the NFF fought hard to roll back in 2011/2012, I never stumbled into the CCSS. I saw all the strings, I traced the agenda to the 2009 stimulus dollars incentivizing states to build the SLDS (state student longitudinal data systems) as part of RTT but no mention of how these grants were being used to incentivize the CCSS agenda.
I sometimes wonder if this "quiet revolution", as Arne Duncan called it, is quiet because the NGA agreed to keep it quiet. After all the NGA had all the governors in line on the CCSS in 2009 when they met to "sign off" on the idea that was constructed by Gates Foundation and their partners.
I have never thought of myself as a conspiracy theorist but when Bush passed NCLB it was huge news, it was national legislation with congressional oversight. This is very different! My research of RTT in 2010/2011 made me very suspicious. I could tell Obama was planning something but I had no idea the plan was already set, the gates foundation and their partners had already spent 100's of millions, the NGA had already signed off on it, all before the "truancy" troubles in Nebraska began.
For all the national media attention, public outrage, and congressional pushback on Obamacare, essentially a federal takeover of the healthcare industry, there was a real takeover in the planning at the same time. A takeover of far more consequence! CCSS has been a clandestine un-democratic takeover of education coast to coast. This cannot be just a coincidence! This is a conspiracy to keep it from the people.
Which is worse the Feds having control over a persons health or a persons mind? Now we have both!
Sunday, March 31, 2013
Friday, March 29, 2013
Common Core: What Kind of People are we Growing?
Common Core State Standards (CCSS) are a set of content standards currently limited to English language arts (ELA) and mathematics. 46 STATES AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HAVE signed on to the Common Core State Standards Initiative. While supporters of CCSS have recently defended CCSS against rising opposition as a loose construct of base line standards. The push for common education standards argues that all American students should study a common curriculum, take comparable tests to measure their learning, and have the results interpreted on a common scale. National digital assessments are being written to line up with CCSS and schools nationally have been overhauling curriculum to line up with the tests. Change the test at the top control the curriculum and methods at the bottom that's the general intent.
This new construct threatens just about every academic discipline but as a lover of literature and a parent the changes in what books our children will be exposed to is of particular alarm. CCSS calls for 12th grade reading to be 70 percent nonfiction, or "informational texts" -- gradually stepping up from the 50 percent nonfiction reading required of elementary school students.
Mary Grabar, English professor of Emory University and writer, observed, "As a college English instructor, I am dismayed by how much we have already lost of our literary heritage. During the past 20 years, I’ve found each successive entering class to be less familiar with cultural and literary concepts. Often trained to parse imaginative works for political messages, students are rendered incapable of understanding the pathos of tragedy and the delight of humor evoked from sentences that build up complexly. They think that only facts are needed"
One South Carolina school administrator, defending Common Core, declared, “Kids don’t need to be spending hours and hours reading classical literature.” A representative from the state superintendant’s office claimed that students learn to write better if they study informational texts rather than literature. Perhaps, but they learn to write what? Technical instruction manual type writing, sure — but expressing ideas of value in elegant pros and inspiring truth, NO!
The real story behind Common Core's ratio 70/30 in favor of "informational texts" is that it won't be applied 70% great historical non fiction like Tocqueville and 30% enlightenment era classics "A Tale of Two Cities", because there has already been a growing trend of assigning pop fiction in place of the classics; many teachers do it to keep students happy. This focus on keeping kids happy is a deficiency in teaching. Good teachers inspire excitement of meaningful literature and lead children to understand the significance of great historical non-fiction. No meaningful study will automatically appeal to the angry birds generation.
As a parent I have painfully witnessed this shift away from classics first hand. My 14 year old has read one classic novel in his entire education thus far — Frankenstein — he hasn't read in school To Kill a Mocking Bird, Animal Farm, Lord of the Flys, Treasure Island, Tom Sawyer, Little House on the Prairie, Grimm's Fairy Tales — all of which I read before I was his age. And many more books schools could encourage Uncle Toms Cabin, Robin Hood, Arabian Nights, Christmas Carol, The Count of Monte Cristo, Sherlock Holmes, Jane Eyre... And the list goes on. I never hear of these books being read in school anymore!
So why do books like these matter? Classic novels, especially from the enlightenment era of western civilization, stretch a student to ask questions that inform their understanding of human character, historical context, and universal truths. These books are the foundation of our civilization, they have shaped science, religion, inspired the founding of our nation, and reformed the world. When my son read his first "classic novel" at fourteen it was really tough for him. He really struggled to understand the language, themes, and the lessons taught in the book. It takes exposure and practice for a student to grasp the truths found in the pages of the best books.
Anyone can read and understand simple non-fiction, it's self explanatory, but reading literature and historical non-fiction from the Enlightenment Era and understanding the complex themes, morals, alliteration, ironies, historical context, and analogies connects students with the significance of human history, our social progress, our language. It develops the abilities of thought that make it possible to think and judge for ones self and discern truth. This exposure reaches both intellect and spirit.
Grabber says, "We are losing not only writing skills, but cultural cohesion. What will the future hold when we have no frame of reference, such as a “Rip Van Winkle” or an “Invisible Man”?" With such sober warnings why would the majority of our leaders in both parties support the Common Core? Why would so many embark together on such a destructive path? Common Core's mission statement sheds light on the answer: "The standards are designed to be... relevant to the real world, reflecting the knowledge and skills that our young people need for success in college and careers."
What does "relevant to the REAL WORLD" mean? It means classics are no longer relevant or true (real). In the same way that secular socialists are systematically removing morality and God from education the thoughts and values that have informed our western civilization are "out of date" and no longer relevant — or have been determined to be completely false. Most of this classic literature delves deeply into themes that relate to the role God has played in shaping history and human society, if not promote spirituality, and we can't have that!
What is meant by "skills that our young people need for success in college and careers?" It means the American political and corporate classes see education as purely technocratic and want education tailored to workforce placement. Thus, CCSS establishes the P-20/Workforce Longitudinal State Data Systems for tracking and analyzing personal student data from birth to career and is unaffected by cutting classic literature. For this purpose you don't need people who know Shakespeare or citizens who think for themselves, are creative, and self-taught. The corporate money and interest in the SLDS gives validity to this argument.
As a mother who sent my son to school at the onset of NCLB and have seen what that experiment has done! My 14 year old takes tests very well. He knows how to make the grade! He's a straight 'A' student. He has learned to regurgitate the text book, even when he doesn't believe the interpreted conclusion. He can follow an assignment rubric to the letter, but I'm not sure how that facilitates any creativity. He will excel in high school, he will get 'A's', and he will probably score very well on his Common Core aligned ACT!
This year for the first time I felt as though I had really failed my son. I have not been oblivious to the deficits in his public school education. I have tried to expose him to what I thought he was missing at school but in the end school has taken so much family time away with longer and longer school days and years, more and more homework, that there's no time left for re-educating at home. It has been a real struggle.
As a prolific writer myself I am disheartened when I watch my son struggled to write out his thoughts and conclusions after spending quality time reading and discussing the complex themes. Years ago as they beat into him a stale 5 block writing technique I thought how unnatural it was and worried they were beating out the children's unique voices. Now I worry, is he is handicapped.? He struggles to hear his inner voice and write how he speaks.
When I learned that the Common Core will further deemphasize classics, and continues to drill writing techniques that destroy creativity, there was simply no way could send my youngest into school now at the onset of Common Core. What will they prepare him for? To navigate the over regulated technocratic corporate world? Smother him in busy work so he won't be frustrated by bureaucracy paperwork and rubrics of compliance? Make him adept at storing factual information in his brain and regurgitating it upon request? It won't matter that he doesn't know his own mind because no one will care to ask what he thinks.
The education reforms of the past two decades that have favored standardization, deluged our children in test taking skills, and de-emphasized classics have been devastating to the development of our children's minds and character. I believe this transformation is designed on one hand to deconstruct intellectual and moral character by cutting our children adrift from self discovery and the sound ethics on the pages of the great literary works. And on the other hand this deconstruction acts to turn our children into workforce technocrats who are proficient technical writers with the skills and factual information they need to be good employees but who possess no wisdom.
What will the next generation look like in this construct? What education will children be left with when they have been saturated in facts and technology at school and media and pop-culture at home? What kind of people will they be when their lives contain NO discussion of universal truths or social morality at school, and for most American children even less exposure to these concepts at home? What kind of people are we growing?
This new construct threatens just about every academic discipline but as a lover of literature and a parent the changes in what books our children will be exposed to is of particular alarm. CCSS calls for 12th grade reading to be 70 percent nonfiction, or "informational texts" -- gradually stepping up from the 50 percent nonfiction reading required of elementary school students.
Mary Grabar, English professor of Emory University and writer, observed, "As a college English instructor, I am dismayed by how much we have already lost of our literary heritage. During the past 20 years, I’ve found each successive entering class to be less familiar with cultural and literary concepts. Often trained to parse imaginative works for political messages, students are rendered incapable of understanding the pathos of tragedy and the delight of humor evoked from sentences that build up complexly. They think that only facts are needed"
One South Carolina school administrator, defending Common Core, declared, “Kids don’t need to be spending hours and hours reading classical literature.” A representative from the state superintendant’s office claimed that students learn to write better if they study informational texts rather than literature. Perhaps, but they learn to write what? Technical instruction manual type writing, sure — but expressing ideas of value in elegant pros and inspiring truth, NO!
The real story behind Common Core's ratio 70/30 in favor of "informational texts" is that it won't be applied 70% great historical non fiction like Tocqueville and 30% enlightenment era classics "A Tale of Two Cities", because there has already been a growing trend of assigning pop fiction in place of the classics; many teachers do it to keep students happy. This focus on keeping kids happy is a deficiency in teaching. Good teachers inspire excitement of meaningful literature and lead children to understand the significance of great historical non-fiction. No meaningful study will automatically appeal to the angry birds generation.
As a parent I have painfully witnessed this shift away from classics first hand. My 14 year old has read one classic novel in his entire education thus far — Frankenstein — he hasn't read in school To Kill a Mocking Bird, Animal Farm, Lord of the Flys, Treasure Island, Tom Sawyer, Little House on the Prairie, Grimm's Fairy Tales — all of which I read before I was his age. And many more books schools could encourage Uncle Toms Cabin, Robin Hood, Arabian Nights, Christmas Carol, The Count of Monte Cristo, Sherlock Holmes, Jane Eyre... And the list goes on. I never hear of these books being read in school anymore!
So why do books like these matter? Classic novels, especially from the enlightenment era of western civilization, stretch a student to ask questions that inform their understanding of human character, historical context, and universal truths. These books are the foundation of our civilization, they have shaped science, religion, inspired the founding of our nation, and reformed the world. When my son read his first "classic novel" at fourteen it was really tough for him. He really struggled to understand the language, themes, and the lessons taught in the book. It takes exposure and practice for a student to grasp the truths found in the pages of the best books.
Anyone can read and understand simple non-fiction, it's self explanatory, but reading literature and historical non-fiction from the Enlightenment Era and understanding the complex themes, morals, alliteration, ironies, historical context, and analogies connects students with the significance of human history, our social progress, our language. It develops the abilities of thought that make it possible to think and judge for ones self and discern truth. This exposure reaches both intellect and spirit.
Grabber says, "We are losing not only writing skills, but cultural cohesion. What will the future hold when we have no frame of reference, such as a “Rip Van Winkle” or an “Invisible Man”?" With such sober warnings why would the majority of our leaders in both parties support the Common Core? Why would so many embark together on such a destructive path? Common Core's mission statement sheds light on the answer: "The standards are designed to be... relevant to the real world, reflecting the knowledge and skills that our young people need for success in college and careers."
What does "relevant to the REAL WORLD" mean? It means classics are no longer relevant or true (real). In the same way that secular socialists are systematically removing morality and God from education the thoughts and values that have informed our western civilization are "out of date" and no longer relevant — or have been determined to be completely false. Most of this classic literature delves deeply into themes that relate to the role God has played in shaping history and human society, if not promote spirituality, and we can't have that!
What is meant by "skills that our young people need for success in college and careers?" It means the American political and corporate classes see education as purely technocratic and want education tailored to workforce placement. Thus, CCSS establishes the P-20/Workforce Longitudinal State Data Systems for tracking and analyzing personal student data from birth to career and is unaffected by cutting classic literature. For this purpose you don't need people who know Shakespeare or citizens who think for themselves, are creative, and self-taught. The corporate money and interest in the SLDS gives validity to this argument.
As a mother who sent my son to school at the onset of NCLB and have seen what that experiment has done! My 14 year old takes tests very well. He knows how to make the grade! He's a straight 'A' student. He has learned to regurgitate the text book, even when he doesn't believe the interpreted conclusion. He can follow an assignment rubric to the letter, but I'm not sure how that facilitates any creativity. He will excel in high school, he will get 'A's', and he will probably score very well on his Common Core aligned ACT!
This year for the first time I felt as though I had really failed my son. I have not been oblivious to the deficits in his public school education. I have tried to expose him to what I thought he was missing at school but in the end school has taken so much family time away with longer and longer school days and years, more and more homework, that there's no time left for re-educating at home. It has been a real struggle.
As a prolific writer myself I am disheartened when I watch my son struggled to write out his thoughts and conclusions after spending quality time reading and discussing the complex themes. Years ago as they beat into him a stale 5 block writing technique I thought how unnatural it was and worried they were beating out the children's unique voices. Now I worry, is he is handicapped.? He struggles to hear his inner voice and write how he speaks.
When I learned that the Common Core will further deemphasize classics, and continues to drill writing techniques that destroy creativity, there was simply no way could send my youngest into school now at the onset of Common Core. What will they prepare him for? To navigate the over regulated technocratic corporate world? Smother him in busy work so he won't be frustrated by bureaucracy paperwork and rubrics of compliance? Make him adept at storing factual information in his brain and regurgitating it upon request? It won't matter that he doesn't know his own mind because no one will care to ask what he thinks.
The education reforms of the past two decades that have favored standardization, deluged our children in test taking skills, and de-emphasized classics have been devastating to the development of our children's minds and character. I believe this transformation is designed on one hand to deconstruct intellectual and moral character by cutting our children adrift from self discovery and the sound ethics on the pages of the great literary works. And on the other hand this deconstruction acts to turn our children into workforce technocrats who are proficient technical writers with the skills and factual information they need to be good employees but who possess no wisdom.
What will the next generation look like in this construct? What education will children be left with when they have been saturated in facts and technology at school and media and pop-culture at home? What kind of people will they be when their lives contain NO discussion of universal truths or social morality at school, and for most American children even less exposure to these concepts at home? What kind of people are we growing?
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Common Core: No Longer the Land of the Free
I live in the state of Maryland where the national Common Core standards were implemented this school year. My early comparisons between Maryland who enthusiastically adopted the standards and Nebraska (where we moved from) who has resisted the pull has me seriously concerned. Let me share with you just one example (I could give many) from our most recent encounter.
I was particularly concerned yesterday when we took a walk and Ted asked me, "Mom, what do you do when a teacher asks you to answer a question and you know the answer your supposed to give but it isn't what you believe is true?" Of course my concern was peaked at this question and I asked him a series of questions to better understand the problem.
He went on to explain that he was going to be writing an end of the unit essay worth a lot of points toward his grade and that he was concerned that if he didn't answer as he is supposed to his grade might suffer. He told me the essay question asked if based on the "source documents" reviewed in class do they think America is the land of the free as it claims to be?
My inquiries uncovered a perplexing problem, that the context in which the source documents were presented, coupled with similar lessons in history class taught at the same time, produced a weighted focus on deficits in American freedom rather than the successes. This left my son with the overall impression that the curriculum was prompting students to conclude that America is not the land of the free it claims to be.
After speaking with his teacher, who I respect, he told me that he had no intention of any student feeling pressured to answer in any certain way. He said that "the unit is designed to show that American freedom, though limited in its early history, has been expanded to all people over time, thereby celebrating how America truly is the land of the free." His teacher was surprised that some students concluded that our nation isn't the land of the free since he believed he had provided balance.
I wonder, can a student come to another conclusion when they are taught that our founders primary motivations for breaking with England was for economic gain rather then liberty, that westward expansion was the beginning of "American Imperialism", that the ideas of Manifest Destiny and "American Exceptionalism" are almost entirely to blame for the demise of native tribes, that US "invasions" of Canada played a significant role in conditions leading to the War of 1812, and that the primary motivation of Alamo defenders was slavery rights not the military dictatorship of Santa Anna that threatened their liberty? At the very least this curriculum will lead students to seriously question the premise on which their freedoms are founded.
Since I know my son to be a perceptive diligent student my take away was that even with his teachers best efforts to "celebrate" American freedom the negative impressions left by the curriculum could not be overcome even with a student inclined to look for the good in his country's history.
I know very well that or nation is not perfect and has had some very sad chapters in its history but In light the brilliance of our founders generation, the timeless system of government they devised, and the extraordinary good that has come as a result of the founding of our nation to both expand personal liberties within our nation as well as to facilitate the spread of free democracies throughout the globe America is certainly the home of the free!
It of course won't surprise you that my son shares my view of our nation and his studies of America at home have informed his love of country. I would hope that our public school curriculum hasn't fallen so far as to purposefully bleed students of this love of country and the freedoms our nation provides us.
Not only is it a serious concern when students feel constrained to answer questions in a way that does not represent their own knowledge or belief, but it is a dire threat to education when we construct curriculum to lead students to one overriding conclusion. Historians take the same facts, the same sources and come to opposing views. The key in a solid education is not constructing curriculum to produce a desired belief in students but to present sources and facts that are thorough, factual, and balanced.
I am very concerned about setting national standards and assessments that will inform curriculum far removed from the oversight of local boards and parents. This makes curriculum more susceptible to political agendas to control the way our children think by controlling the facts they have access to.
It appears to me that the curriculum Maryland is using is designed to challenge traditional American ideals of Republicanism and convince students that the US is a imperial colonialist oppressor whose ideals are mere lip service to liberty. I wonder when the textbooks have been rewritten to line up with Common Core will there be anything left of American history that we recognize.
I was particularly concerned yesterday when we took a walk and Ted asked me, "Mom, what do you do when a teacher asks you to answer a question and you know the answer your supposed to give but it isn't what you believe is true?" Of course my concern was peaked at this question and I asked him a series of questions to better understand the problem.
He went on to explain that he was going to be writing an end of the unit essay worth a lot of points toward his grade and that he was concerned that if he didn't answer as he is supposed to his grade might suffer. He told me the essay question asked if based on the "source documents" reviewed in class do they think America is the land of the free as it claims to be?
My inquiries uncovered a perplexing problem, that the context in which the source documents were presented, coupled with similar lessons in history class taught at the same time, produced a weighted focus on deficits in American freedom rather than the successes. This left my son with the overall impression that the curriculum was prompting students to conclude that America is not the land of the free it claims to be.
After speaking with his teacher, who I respect, he told me that he had no intention of any student feeling pressured to answer in any certain way. He said that "the unit is designed to show that American freedom, though limited in its early history, has been expanded to all people over time, thereby celebrating how America truly is the land of the free." His teacher was surprised that some students concluded that our nation isn't the land of the free since he believed he had provided balance.
I wonder, can a student come to another conclusion when they are taught that our founders primary motivations for breaking with England was for economic gain rather then liberty, that westward expansion was the beginning of "American Imperialism", that the ideas of Manifest Destiny and "American Exceptionalism" are almost entirely to blame for the demise of native tribes, that US "invasions" of Canada played a significant role in conditions leading to the War of 1812, and that the primary motivation of Alamo defenders was slavery rights not the military dictatorship of Santa Anna that threatened their liberty? At the very least this curriculum will lead students to seriously question the premise on which their freedoms are founded.
Since I know my son to be a perceptive diligent student my take away was that even with his teachers best efforts to "celebrate" American freedom the negative impressions left by the curriculum could not be overcome even with a student inclined to look for the good in his country's history.
I know very well that or nation is not perfect and has had some very sad chapters in its history but In light the brilliance of our founders generation, the timeless system of government they devised, and the extraordinary good that has come as a result of the founding of our nation to both expand personal liberties within our nation as well as to facilitate the spread of free democracies throughout the globe America is certainly the home of the free!
It of course won't surprise you that my son shares my view of our nation and his studies of America at home have informed his love of country. I would hope that our public school curriculum hasn't fallen so far as to purposefully bleed students of this love of country and the freedoms our nation provides us.
Not only is it a serious concern when students feel constrained to answer questions in a way that does not represent their own knowledge or belief, but it is a dire threat to education when we construct curriculum to lead students to one overriding conclusion. Historians take the same facts, the same sources and come to opposing views. The key in a solid education is not constructing curriculum to produce a desired belief in students but to present sources and facts that are thorough, factual, and balanced.
I am very concerned about setting national standards and assessments that will inform curriculum far removed from the oversight of local boards and parents. This makes curriculum more susceptible to political agendas to control the way our children think by controlling the facts they have access to.
It appears to me that the curriculum Maryland is using is designed to challenge traditional American ideals of Republicanism and convince students that the US is a imperial colonialist oppressor whose ideals are mere lip service to liberty. I wonder when the textbooks have been rewritten to line up with Common Core will there be anything left of American history that we recognize.
Monday, March 11, 2013
Public School Curriculum: Historical Distortion Tears Down our Free Republic
Most Americans believe the 189 Texans who died at the Alamo in 1836 were fighting for independence and liberty, but my 8th grade son's teacher tells him Davy Crockett, Jim Bowie and all the rest were actually fighting to defend slavery. Not that slavery was one of many motivations but rather that it was the primary motivation. His teacher taught that when the Mexican government outlawed slavery the "American settlers" living in Mexico (Texans) "freaked out".
The other less important reasons given for the Texan Revolution were that American Settlers were unwilling to abide by Mexican law and refused to assimilate into Mexican culture. The whole lesson was framed to leave the distinct impression that Texans were American settlers who pushed their way unlawfully into Mexican lands, saw their culture and race as superior to the natives, and fought a war against the lawful government motivated by racism and greed. Of course the lesson was more subtle then that but that was the point.
The Alamo is taught to students in Texas schools as a symbol of courage, sacrifice and the fight for liberty, but the historical facts that support this motivation for the Texan War of Independence had no place in my son's east coast classroom. There was no mention of Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna installing himself as dictator of Mexico and tearing up the 1824 Mexican Constitution, which provided for a republic, more like the US government. There was no mention of legitimate political grievances that Texan landowners had against the dictator. And there was no mention of the fact that defenders of the Alamo were of diverse ethnic backgrounds and nationalities.
The facts that support liberty as the primary motivation for rebellion against Santa Anna were conveniently omitted:
That fact that when Santa Anna seized power in 1833 and dissolved the country's legislature making himself a military dictator had NO part in the classroom discussion.
The fact that Texans of both Mexican and American decent were appalled and that Texans weren't alone in their outrage, that there were three popular uprisings put down by Santa Anna's tyrannical tactics in other parts of Mexico before the Texas rebellion was completely ignored.
The fact that the majority of Alamo defenders were not slave owners and most held views contrary to slavery was not mentioned. In fact, nearly 30% of the defenders of the Alamo were European immigrants and of those American born settlers only a quarter were from southern slave owning states wasn't mentioned. 8% of the defenders were of Mexican descent and there were 2 blacks who gave their lives in the defense of the Alamo but all such facts were conveniently omitted.
What motivation might they all have held in common that would have been strong enough for less than 200 to withstand the 13 day siege of 1500 well equipped Mexican troops? Certainly this diverse group of men fought for something gar more exalted than the desire to enslave others.
When the full historical facts are laid on the table it would be hard for students to conclude that the most passionately held grievance at the Alamo was the abolition of slavery as these fierce defenders faced certain death and would not flee.
A lesson on the Alamo that omits so many significant facts can hardly be considered educating our kids. Certainly the slavery question has muddied the image of the Texas revolution which was fought against a tyrant, but I believe the singular focus on slavery is part of a organized design to degrade patriotic love of country in the hearts of American school children. It is obvious to me that there is an agenda to lesson the honor of those who died at the Alamo and the principles of freedom they stood for.
The public school curriculum year to year sets the stage for this historical indoctrination. The foundation for this twisted lessons on the Alamo was set in my Son's 7th grade class. He was taught last year to view Santa Anna in a positive light.
General Santa Ana, "the Napoleon of the West," as he described himself, was the leading villain of Texas history. He determined that Mexico was not ready for democracy and pronounced himself dictator. Despite popular uprisings throughout his country in opposition to his brutal rule, my sons 7th grade teacher glorified him as a visionary leader who brought advancement to the Mexican economy. I see now that she was laying the foundation for the re-write of Alamo history he would be taught in 8th.
Though the Texan war for Independence was by no means singular in its purpose, our public schools are teaching that the Texans opposition to a power hungry dictator was in fact fueled by greedy slave holding white men who wouldn't assimilate into the Mexican culture. And what are the implications of such a lesson? That Santa Anna was a loved visionary leader who opposed slavery and was fighting to keep his country united, a Mexican Abe Lincoln, and dirty rotten American settlers fought to death to defend the scourge of slavery.
Santa Anna is widely held by historians as the principal inhabitant, even today, of Mexico's black pantheon of those who failed the nation. His centralist rhetoric and military failures resulted in Mexico losing just over half its territory. Thus the nation he supposedly fought so hard to "unite" he lost in war or turned around later and sold off to the US.
Santa Anna's government made and repealed slavery laws on and off for years. They never took a stand for or against it, and ironically, at the time of the Alamo Santa Anna came to San Antonio with his personal slave and used slave labor in mines and infrastructure projects as part of this "economic development" that my sons teacher applauded him for. In total abolishing slavery became a political calculation used to punish his enemies and reward his friends.
The history lessons in American public schools that make Santa Anna out to be Mexico's Abe Lincoln are par for the course these days. What could be the purpose behind teaching Gen. Santa Anna to be something he certainly wasn't if not to make centralized government good and make federalist fighters look greedy and racist?
The curriculum must hide an awful lot about the man to pull this off. Santa Anna consolidated power among the wealthy landowners and exploited the poor and American Natives, former slaves, and peasants shared little in the economic expansion of Santa Anna's empirical rule. So much for the benevolent socialist dictator who advanced his nation and fought those dirty greedy Texans.
How long will parents tolerate this indoctrination? How many parents are paying attention to what their children are being taught? And how many take the time to counter it at home?
It should be no surprise that we are raising generations of kids who have little love or loyalty to their country, who don't understand the value of a federalist democracy, and who see their country as inherently greedy and racist everywhere they look.
The other less important reasons given for the Texan Revolution were that American Settlers were unwilling to abide by Mexican law and refused to assimilate into Mexican culture. The whole lesson was framed to leave the distinct impression that Texans were American settlers who pushed their way unlawfully into Mexican lands, saw their culture and race as superior to the natives, and fought a war against the lawful government motivated by racism and greed. Of course the lesson was more subtle then that but that was the point.
The Alamo is taught to students in Texas schools as a symbol of courage, sacrifice and the fight for liberty, but the historical facts that support this motivation for the Texan War of Independence had no place in my son's east coast classroom. There was no mention of Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna installing himself as dictator of Mexico and tearing up the 1824 Mexican Constitution, which provided for a republic, more like the US government. There was no mention of legitimate political grievances that Texan landowners had against the dictator. And there was no mention of the fact that defenders of the Alamo were of diverse ethnic backgrounds and nationalities.
The facts that support liberty as the primary motivation for rebellion against Santa Anna were conveniently omitted:
That fact that when Santa Anna seized power in 1833 and dissolved the country's legislature making himself a military dictator had NO part in the classroom discussion.
The fact that Texans of both Mexican and American decent were appalled and that Texans weren't alone in their outrage, that there were three popular uprisings put down by Santa Anna's tyrannical tactics in other parts of Mexico before the Texas rebellion was completely ignored.
The fact that the majority of Alamo defenders were not slave owners and most held views contrary to slavery was not mentioned. In fact, nearly 30% of the defenders of the Alamo were European immigrants and of those American born settlers only a quarter were from southern slave owning states wasn't mentioned. 8% of the defenders were of Mexican descent and there were 2 blacks who gave their lives in the defense of the Alamo but all such facts were conveniently omitted.
What motivation might they all have held in common that would have been strong enough for less than 200 to withstand the 13 day siege of 1500 well equipped Mexican troops? Certainly this diverse group of men fought for something gar more exalted than the desire to enslave others.
When the full historical facts are laid on the table it would be hard for students to conclude that the most passionately held grievance at the Alamo was the abolition of slavery as these fierce defenders faced certain death and would not flee.
A lesson on the Alamo that omits so many significant facts can hardly be considered educating our kids. Certainly the slavery question has muddied the image of the Texas revolution which was fought against a tyrant, but I believe the singular focus on slavery is part of a organized design to degrade patriotic love of country in the hearts of American school children. It is obvious to me that there is an agenda to lesson the honor of those who died at the Alamo and the principles of freedom they stood for.
The public school curriculum year to year sets the stage for this historical indoctrination. The foundation for this twisted lessons on the Alamo was set in my Son's 7th grade class. He was taught last year to view Santa Anna in a positive light.
General Santa Ana, "the Napoleon of the West," as he described himself, was the leading villain of Texas history. He determined that Mexico was not ready for democracy and pronounced himself dictator. Despite popular uprisings throughout his country in opposition to his brutal rule, my sons 7th grade teacher glorified him as a visionary leader who brought advancement to the Mexican economy. I see now that she was laying the foundation for the re-write of Alamo history he would be taught in 8th.
Though the Texan war for Independence was by no means singular in its purpose, our public schools are teaching that the Texans opposition to a power hungry dictator was in fact fueled by greedy slave holding white men who wouldn't assimilate into the Mexican culture. And what are the implications of such a lesson? That Santa Anna was a loved visionary leader who opposed slavery and was fighting to keep his country united, a Mexican Abe Lincoln, and dirty rotten American settlers fought to death to defend the scourge of slavery.
Santa Anna is widely held by historians as the principal inhabitant, even today, of Mexico's black pantheon of those who failed the nation. His centralist rhetoric and military failures resulted in Mexico losing just over half its territory. Thus the nation he supposedly fought so hard to "unite" he lost in war or turned around later and sold off to the US.
Santa Anna's government made and repealed slavery laws on and off for years. They never took a stand for or against it, and ironically, at the time of the Alamo Santa Anna came to San Antonio with his personal slave and used slave labor in mines and infrastructure projects as part of this "economic development" that my sons teacher applauded him for. In total abolishing slavery became a political calculation used to punish his enemies and reward his friends.
The history lessons in American public schools that make Santa Anna out to be Mexico's Abe Lincoln are par for the course these days. What could be the purpose behind teaching Gen. Santa Anna to be something he certainly wasn't if not to make centralized government good and make federalist fighters look greedy and racist?
The curriculum must hide an awful lot about the man to pull this off. Santa Anna consolidated power among the wealthy landowners and exploited the poor and American Natives, former slaves, and peasants shared little in the economic expansion of Santa Anna's empirical rule. So much for the benevolent socialist dictator who advanced his nation and fought those dirty greedy Texans.
How long will parents tolerate this indoctrination? How many parents are paying attention to what their children are being taught? And how many take the time to counter it at home?
It should be no surprise that we are raising generations of kids who have little love or loyalty to their country, who don't understand the value of a federalist democracy, and who see their country as inherently greedy and racist everywhere they look.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)