2012 Texas GOP Educational Platform: "oppose critical thinking"

[Nepenthe]

Giving this is own topic as per suggestion of Patticus, and because this is way too interesting a topic to leave buried in the annals of the status updates. Here's an article excerpt:

Early this month, Texas Republican delegates met in Fort Worthto approve their 2012 platform, notable parts of which take aim at the state's education system.

In the section titled "Educating Our Children," the document states that "corporal punishment is effective" and recommends teachers be given "more authority" to deal with disciplinary problems.

Additionally, the document states the party opposes mandatory pre-school and kindergarten, saying parents are "best suited to train their children in their early development."

The position causing the most controversy, however, is the statement that they oppose the teaching of "higher order thinking skills" -- a curriculum which strives to encourage critical thinking -- arguing that it might challenge "student's fixed beliefs" and undermine "parental authority."

The rest of the article as well as the entire platform in a pdf. can be read here. There's some real good stuff in the entire thing, and it's all basically a reaffirmation of the draconian social beliefs people have implicitly derived from the GOP over these past few years. What's amazing, however, is that it's finally been written down, so now there can be no confusion and hand-wringing as to what exactly these people mean, meaning it will be much much easier to call them out now. But in regards to education, here's some other bits I found off-putting that aren't in the article:

The dismissal of multiculturalism as "political correctness" in favor of pledging to both the American and Texas flags, the equal treatment of nonscientific theories about life, such as intelligent design, in science classes and the ability for teachers and students to challenge evolution, two confusing bits about the authority of school officials- one promoting corporal punishment but another that prevents disciplining a child without the parents' consent (someone help me here), and "abstinence only" sexual education.

I think the material speaks for itself. Fire away, or if you agree with these few things in contention, then please help me and others understand why.

[Tornado]

Texas currently has mandatory pre-school? Why? I went to pre-school because they thought I had a cognitive speech disorder when I was really young, but I don't see why everyone needs to.

[Nepenthe]

I actually didn't know that kindergarten being mandatory was something controversial. I always figured that once you started public school, you started there, not the first grade. At least that's how I did it. Mandatory pre-school is another headscratcher; I actually agree that I don't see why it shouldn't be optional.

[-Robin-]

Unless that mandatory preschool bit was implemented recently, I was never put in pre-school when I lived in Texas. Went straight to kindergarten after daycare. I dunno if Texas currently has mandatory attendance on the law books.

Anyway, Communications Director Chris Elam claimed the rhetoric of opposing critical thinking skills made it into the platform on accident.

Contacted by TPM on Thursday, Republican Party of Texas (RPT) Communications Director Chris Elam said the “critical thinking skills” language made it into the platform by mistake.

“[The chairman of the Education Subcommittee] indicated that it was an oversight of the committee, that the plank should not have included ‘critical thinking skills’ after ‘values clarification,’” Elam said. “And it was not the intent of the subcommittee to present a plank that would have indicated that the RPT in any way opposed the development of critical thinking skills.”

Elam said the members of the subcommittee “regret” the oversight, but because the mistake was part of the platform approved by the convention, “it cannot be corrected until the next state convention in 2014.”

TPM asked Elam what the intent of subcommittee had been in including the “Knowledge-Based Education” plank.

“I think the intent is that the Republican Party is opposed to the values clarification method that serves the purpose of challenging students beliefs and undermine parental authority,” he said.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/06/texas_gops_2012_platform_accidentally_opposes_teaching_of_critical_thinking_skills.php?ref=fpb

So they realize the faulty rhetoric, and will remove it at the next possible chance, two years from now.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Texas currently has mandatory pre-school? Why? I went to pre-school because they thought I had a cognitive speech disorder when I was really young, but I don't see why everyone needs to.

Don't know why, but Texas has had Pre-K for at least 12 years last I remembered.

But this small summary of the platform is the GOPs most hilarious move yet. They're really desperate, aren't they?

[Nepenthe]

Hard not to take that as a backtrack. That's a pretty damn big oversight, and it doesn't stray too far away from any of the other off-putting, curriculum-based initiatives in the platform. In all honesty, I'd rather they remove those instead first.

[Komodin]

The dismissal of multiculturalism as "political correctness" in favor of pledging to both the American and Texas flags, the equal treatment of nonscientific theories about life, such as intelligent design, in science classes and the ability for teachers and students to challenge evolution, two confusing bits about the authority of school officials- one promoting corporal punishment but another that prevents disciplining a child without the parents' consent (someone help me here), and "abstinence only" sexual education.

Acknowledging the existence of other cultures than one's own is "political correctness," now? That's... just plain wrong. Unsurprising, but still messed up.

[Patticus]

So they realize the faulty rhetoric, and will remove it at the next possible chance, two years from now.

When even a single day is considered a long time in politics, two years is an eternity, and you can bet that the local Democrat party will be taking advantage of this, for better or worse.

[-Robin-]

When even a single day is considered a long time in politics, two years is an eternity, and you can bet that the local Democrat party will be taking advantage of this, for better or worse.

Oh, the Democrats and other opposing factions are definitely going to run this gaffe into the dirt, and it's going to kill the Republicans for the next two years, that's the rules of the game. But the Republicans have noticed the gaffe, and know better than to risk political suicide by supporting such statements after the fact beyond what's written on the platform. It's just to be two years of constant "Yes, I know that's what's on the platform, and no, we do no support that" over and over.

Edited June 29, 2012 by Qwilfish

[Patticus]

Somebody had to know that that was on the platform though, somebody had to read the entire thing and approve everything. I'm having a hard time believing that that statement even made it into a draft version of the platform without the knowledge and consent of at least some of the state's Republican Party leadership. I mean, they're hardly using obscure and confusing language there, the statement is clear, even a glancing look should pick up on it.

And if they honestly really didn't know about it, I have to question their ability to read and understand words, and their basic suitability for the job.

[SenEDDtor Missile]

So they promote ignorance, submissiveness, and the "all American" way?

................................................................................................................................................................................

No Comment.

Edited June 29, 2012 by Enigmatus

[Tornado]

Somebody had to know that that was on the platform though, somebody had to read the entire thing and approve everything.

The only one who probably read the whole thing was the poor bastard that they made write it.

[turbojet]

Somebody had to know that that was on the platform though, somebody had to read the entire thing and approve everything. I'm having a hard time believing that that statement even made it into a draft version of the platform without the knowledge and consent of at least some of the state's Republican Party leadership. I mean, they're hardly using obscure and confusing language there, the statement is clear, even a glancing look should pick up on it.

And if they honestly really didn't know about it, I have to question their ability to read and understand words, and their basic suitability for the job.

[Biafra Republic]

Texas currently has mandatory pre-school? Why? I went to pre-school because they thought I had a cognitive speech disorder when I was really young, but I don't see why everyone needs to.

It's half-day, but yes they have it. I for one support state-mandated early childhood education, making this development quite disconcerting...

When even a single day is considered a long time in politics, two years is an eternity, and you can bet that the local Democrat party will be taking advantage of this, for better or worse.

Unfortunately, the Texas Democratic Party has been in quite a shambles since 1994 that the State Republican primary has largely become tantamount to re-election in this state unless you're campaigning in a majority non-Anglo district. Which is a shame as I largely sympathize with the more progressive Democrats.

Aside from the aforementioned pre-kindergarten development, the Texas Republican Party platform has always been a far-out one. Case in point, back in 1999, shortly before the handover of the Canal Zone back to Panama, the Texas Republicans wanted to tear up the handover treaties and keep the canal for ourselves.

[SenEDDtor Missile]

Aside from the aforementioned pre-kindergarten development, the Texas Republican Party platform has always been a far-out one. Case in point, back in 1999, shortly before the handover of the Canal Zone back to Panama, the Texas Republicans wanted to tear up the handover treaties and keep the canal for ourselves.

I'm no politician, but that sounds akin to "not just shooting ourselves in the foot", but nuking ourselves with a rail gun propelled nuclear warhead...with no bunkers.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

I'm no politician, but that sounds akin to "not just shooting ourselves in the foot", but nuking ourselves with a rail gun propelled nuclear warhead...with no bunkers.

You've been playing too much Metal Gear Solid son.

Either way, you're right. That is just so stark raving stupid of them, and so narrow-mindedly selfish. I especially love the short translations they give us, which goes to show that a lot of politics is just people making these (for lack of a better word) flowery arguments to make it less obvious what their true intentions are.

And one of the reasons why I probably could never be a politician, as I'm too much to the point on what I say.

[Speederino]

the equal treatment of nonscientific theories about life, such as intelligent design, in science classes and the ability for teachers and students to challenge evolution

[Patticus]

I actually don't care if they teach intelligent design, but what possible reason is there to put it in SCIENCE CLASS aside from spite? There's a bajillion other courses it would fit in just fine, there isn't anything remotely scientific about it.

[Shan Zhu]

it's all basically a reaffirmation of the draconian social beliefs people have implicitly derived from the GOP over these past few years.

I see where you're coming from, but Texan politicians don't define the GOP any more than Jimmy Carter defines the Democratic Party. In fact, the GOP consists of a wide set of allied but hugely disparate groups--Burkeans, Tocquevillians, libertarians, classical liberals, Christian fundies, neo-fascists--who rarely agree on much besides opposition to the dominant ideas among Democrats. The same is true of Democrats, a hodgepodge of Rawlsian liberals, non-Hegelian socialists, structural communitarians, communists, and so on.

Any attempt to characterize such a group, consisting of tens of millions of people, based on an anecdote, isn't really fair press--as you would immediately point out if I dug up some of the stupider policies in Californian education.

Further, many of the ideas even these idiot Texans have suggested are not fairly represented.

Critical thinking

Here's the quote from the document:

Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.

This does not say "kids should not have critical thinking skills." It refers instead to a specific school of educational theory that opposes classical (Aristotelian) models and John Dewey's socialization/democratic model. "Critical thinking" in this context is jargon that refers to education that emphasizes teaching "how to learn" rather than specific facts and rules or integrated socialization that proceeds from classical subjects.

Many people oppose "critical thinking" in this context, not just stupid Republicans. Communitarian Democrats also fall into this category. Like them, I like Dewey's model; the Republicans probably prefer classical education or something more wonky, if I had to guess. Nevertheless, their position is not a small one in education academia and presenting it thus out of context is inaccurate. Generally if you think the position is "Der herp derp, we don't like thinking," you're not being fair.

Multiculturalism

The document states:

"We believe the current teaching of a multicultural curriculum is divisive. We favor strengthening our common American identity and loyalty instead of political correctness that nurtures alienation among racial and ethnic groups."

This is, again, not an uncommon idea. The idea is not that the local culture is better than other cultures; that we should ignore cultures other than our own; or that we should discourage diversity of thought and ideology.

It rather maintains the view that social norms are the organic basis of society and that a monolithic, integrated social system for a given social group is inevitable. From this, it's supposed that disparate cultural groups must find some way to integrate through commonly held ideas, i.e. within the scope of a fair and mutually accepted public discourse, or they will inevitably run into destructive conflict. Thus, education along these theories emphasizes those aspects of social identity held in common such as the national culture, standard norms, or public reason. These ideas are in fact more common in Rawlsian, communitarian, and Marxist Democratic views than in the largely libertarian Republican body.

Again, I'm not saying I agree with these Republicans (or Democrats). Structuralism seems like a flawed methodology to me as it presumes to know a lot more about what makes society tic than we can really know. Further, I object to the politicization of culture beyond what's absolutely unavoidable. What I am saying, however, is that these are not new ideas, they are not specifically Republican ideas, and they aren't particularly stupid ideas.

intelligent design

... I'm siding with Nepenthe on this one. I.D. isn't science, and no one who knows what they're talking about thinks it is.

one promoting corporal punishment but another that prevents disciplining a child without the parents' consent (someone help me here), and "abstinence only" sexual education.

I don't care enough about these to comment. I don't agree with them, and there's not much discussion in academics one way or another; it's just a lot of desperate "save traditional family structure" fear finding irrelevant expression in public policy.

Edited August 19, 2012 by Lord Shen

[SchemingMinor]

Ohhh yeah. This again in the news.

Seems this thread has the right timing because the same message is getting parroted by some members of the Kentucky GOP after ACT test scores reveal that their students 'aren't too bright at learnin' those heathen maths and sciences.'

http://wonkette.com/...-to-know-things

Edited August 19, 2012 by Scheming Minor

[SenEDDtor Missile]

Ohhh yeah. This again in the news.

Seems this thread has the right timing because the same message is getting parroted by some members of the Kentucky GOP after ACT test scores reveal that their students 'aren't too bright at learnin' those heathen maths and sciences.'

http://wonkette.com/...-to-know-things

I cannot help but lose brain cells from what I've just read.

[Conando]

It's a pretty widespread problem in our country, the whole thing with people not giving a shit about math and thus not putting effort or funds into teaching it properly. I find the outrage hilarious, though.

Edited August 19, 2012 by Crow T. Robot

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Ohhh yeah. This again in the news.

Seems this thread has the right timing because the same message is getting parroted by some members of the Kentucky GOP after ACT test scores reveal that their students 'aren't too bright at learnin' those heathen maths and sciences.'

http://wonkette.com/...-to-know-things

Holy shit, screw losing brain cells. I wanted to smash my head against the wall after reading this insane troll logic of an excuse to make the ACT easier for their students!

My god!

Edited August 19, 2012 by ChaosSupremeSonic

[Patticus]

Somebody clearly has absolutely no idea that the term 'theory' has scientific and non-scientific meanings, and in regards to the 'Theory' of Evolution, its meaning is not that which he attributes to it:

A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment." Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.

The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, which is measured by its ability to make falsifiable predictions with respect to those phenomena. Theories are improved as more evidence is gathered, so that accuracy in prediction improves over time. Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease.

Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. This is significantly different from the word "theory" in common usage, which implies that something is unproven or speculative.

[Shan Zhu]

Again, I don't defend Intelligent Design. But that article you're all freaking out over doesn't seem like the most fair of sources likely to present... well, facts or fair quotes |D

I wouldn't object--it's just evolution crap--except we just finished freaking out over an article saying Texas opposed "criticial thinking," when all it really opposes is Outcome-based Education with a knowledge-based focus (as opposed to, as one example of many, traditional education with a skills-based focus). This is a leap akin to saying those who oppose Americans for Prosperity oppose prosperity.

People who want to talk about politics ought to treat their opponents with enough respect to try to understand them, not just point and laugh when someone with an agenda says, "Hey look! Fools! Sub-human neanderthals!"

Edited August 19, 2012 by Lord Shen