Texas

Everything is better in Texas!!

http://www.slate.com/id/2250999

The men aren't afraid to dance and love steak - I'll take it.

Everything is better in Texas!!

http://www.slate.com/id/2250999 Originally Posted by Rudyard K

Well, not everything. The State Board of Education is re-writing history through the contents of children's text books. No more:

1. Thomas Jefferson
2. Martin Luther King, Jr.
3. Bishop Romero
4. Theory of Evolution
5. Removing separation of church and state
6. Emphasizing Christian principles

See http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/ed...n/13texas.html.
The list goes on.

Well, not everything. The State Board of Education is re-writing history through the contents of children's text books. No more:

1. Thomas Jefferson
2. Martin Luther King, Jr.
3. Bishop Romero
4. Theory of Evolution
5. Removing separation of church and state
6. Emphasizing Christian principles

See http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/ed...n/13texas.html.
The list goes on. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

You have a bit of a problem with comprehension, don't you? Did you even read the article?

No more Thomas Jefferson? Didn't see that. Did see that one reference to him on one subject matter replaced him on a list.

No more MLK? Didn't see that? Did see that that someone asked the Black Panther history be added. Are they not a part of history?

No more Bishop Romero? Didn't see anything about him. Got to admit though, I don't know who the hell he is.

No more theory of evolution? Didn't see that either.

No more removing separation of church and state? I'm kind of guessing that is just a distorted sentence that means you are saying that the words "separation of chuch and state" is not in the constitution. Hate to clue you in, but they are not.

No more emphasizing Christian principles? I sure I don't know what that means.

Looks to me like most of the changes are "opinions" of things that ought to be taught in addition to other things that are taught. Sounds like you have a problem with alternative views. And being a texan from way back...that is not the Texas way.

So yep, things are still better in Texas.

What I want to know is why is Bevo the logo of the article? Tea Sip probably wrote the article J. Either way, The Great State is faring much better than most. I agree with the article. There are other factors of course, but it’s the oil bidness and the fact that Texas didn’t have a magnificent housing bubble. Although I’m a little miffed that the appraisal district hasn’t devalued my house any – oh well.

You have a bit of a problem with comprehension, don't you? Did you even read the article?

No more Thomas Jefferson? Didn't see that. Did see that one reference to him on one subject matter replaced him on a list.

No more removing separation of church and state? I'm kind of guessing that is just a distorted sentence that means you are saying that the words "separation of chuch and state" is not in the constitution. Hate to clue you in, but they are not. Originally Posted by Rudyard K

- The Board removed Thomas Jefferson from the Texas curriculum, "replacing him with religious right icon John Calvin."

- The Board refused to require that "students learn that the Constitution prevents the U.S. government from promoting one religion over all others."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_497440.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_498003.html

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/03/12/...its-textbooks/

- The Board removed Thomas Jefferson from the Texas curriculum, "replacing him with religious right icon John Calvin."

- The Board refused to require that "students learn that the Constitution prevents the U.S. government from promoting one religion over all others." Originally Posted by winemaker

You might want to link the actual changes, as proposed by the BOE, not some link to some reporter's view of what it said. I have had trouble finding it. I did find where it was being proposed that Jefferson was being removed as a key player in philosophical teachings related to some historical thought process...but not "removed from the Texas curriculum" as you and your reporter implies.

Most of the time, when you think something might not be right, it is best to look for yourself. Unless, of course, you're just trying to sound knowledgable and smart about something that you really don't know anything about.

What Texas decides to teach in their schools is the business of the state (mostly, the Feds have No Child Left Behind and other stuff). Votes are held for the Board of Education (and one of the most conservative members in fact lost in his re-election bid). What does trouble me is the outsized effect that the Texas curriculum has on textbooks that are then used in many other states. Unlike many other states Texas buys textbooks en masse. So having a textbook certified for use in Texas is a major deal for the book publishers. What that means is that those textbooks are then often used unchanged in other states and that would be my issue.

What Texas decides to teach in their schools is the business of the state (mostly, the Feds have No Child Left Behind and other stuff). Votes are held for the Board of Education (and one of the most conservative members in fact lost in his re-election bid).. Originally Posted by discreetgent

Agree. Texans should teach what they want. If you don't like it, get involved in the process. Change the School Board.

What does trouble me is the outsized effect that the Texas curriculum has on textbooks that are then used in many other states. Unlike many other states Texas buys textbooks en masse. So having a textbook certified for use in Texas is a major deal for the book publishers. What that means is that those textbooks are then often used unchanged in other states and that would be my issue. Originally Posted by discreetgent

Fine. But if you don't like what Texas is teaching, get involved in the process. Change the School Board where you live. Nobody is holding a gun to your head to use the same books Texas is using.

It sounds to me like if anything a lot of lazy/savvy/resource constrained/(you pick your adjective here depending on how you see it) school districts are leveraging the work & investment Texas has made in curriculum development.

It sounds to me like if anything a lot of lazy/savvy/resource constrained/(you pick your adjective here depending on how you see it) school districts are leveraging the work & investment Texas has made in curriculum development. Originally Posted by atlcomedy

It needs to happen on a much bigger scale than a district here and a district there. There has to be an economic incentive for the publishers to publish multiple editions of a textbook.

It needs to happen on a much bigger scale than a district here and a district there. There has to be an economic incentive for the publishers to publish multiple editions of a textbook. Originally Posted by discreetgent

Let me answer this one for you ATL.

DG, then get involved on a much larger scale. You see how this works? If Texas controls the school book publishers, it is because they got involved some time ago. Now, if others want to, they must do the same.

Who'd a thunk it? We have some nut jobs on the school board but its swinging back to the middle DG.

From RK link. RK had a link? Very intresting.......

"House prices didn't experience a bubble in the same way as the rest of the nation," said Anil Kumar, senior economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. But it's also because of two attributes not commonly associated with the Longhorn State: financial restraint and comparatively strong regulation. Unlike many of its neighbors, Texas has state laws that prohibited consumers from using home-equity lines of credit to increase borrowing to more than 80 percent of the value of their homes

Who'd a thunk it? We have some nut jobs on the school board but its swinging back to the middle DG.

From RK link. RK had a link? Very intresting.......

"House prices didn't experience a bubble in the same way as the rest of the nation," said Anil Kumar, senior economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. But it's also because of two attributes not commonly associated with the Longhorn State: financial restraint and comparatively strong regulation. Unlike many of its neighbors, Texas has state laws that prohibited consumers from using home-equity lines of credit to increase borrowing to more than 80 percent of the value of their homes



Originally Posted by WTF

Yep, it is a question of "Top Down" regulation, or "Bottom Up" regulation. It would seem that the current regulatory quest is to try to come up with a Top Down regulatory system. In other words, "How do we come up with regulations to keep Fat Cats from preying on the poor?" Just look around...We have Payday loans, overdraft protection, credit cards for poor credit folks, and mortgages for poor credit folks.

The interest rates these people have to pay are unbelievable. But the rational for charging those rates is not because there are Fat Cats just picking on the poor...It is because they are poor credit risks. And those Fat cats who choose to get into that business must charge excessive amounts to cover the costs of default as well as the cost of monitoring the credits from poor credit risk clientel. The people who are paying as agreed are having to pick up the cost of those who do not pay as agreed. If capital could get an adequate return, after expensing defaults and operating and collection efforts at 8% instead of 15-20-25% or more?...it would. Capital has no motivation other than an adequate return. And if Fat Cats A, B and C are making a killing on these customers, Fat Cats D, E and F, will undercut them to steal market share. This process will continue until all the Fat Cats are competeing based on something else (like servicing their customers, convenience, etc).

What Texas did on the home equity regulation was to protect its population from itself. Hell, until somewhere in the 1990's or early 2000's, you could not even get a home equity loan here. You could only get an acquisition mortgage loan. While that did penalize its citizens from liviing the high life on equity from their home, it has now protected them from the downfall that has occured elsewhere. Maybe not as much happiness for the citizenry during the good times, but now not as much pain for its citizenry during the bad times.

It may appear to be unfortunate, but whatever the regulatory environment you choose to have, such environment will serve to limit the options available to the poorest members of our society, because they are the poorest credit risks. More regulation?...less options...but more stability. Less regulation?...more options... but less stability. Take your pick.

If Texas controls the school book publishers, it is because they got involved some time ago. Now, if others want to, they must do the same. Originally Posted by Rudyard K

When did Texas put in place its policy of buying books state wide? A more interesting question: was it done specifically to influence what was in them?

When did Texas put in place its policy of buying books state wide? A more interesting question: was it done specifically to influence what was in them? Originally Posted by discreetgent

I don't know the answer to either question. Don't really care.

The question I have for you is, "What if they did do it to be able to influence what is in the books?" Is that wrong? As you said earlier, "What Texas decides to teach in their schools is the business of the state". Book publishers can cater to the influences of the state of Texas or not.

You seem to be whining about the fact that I handed the Matre D a "c" note to get a table up close to the stage...and you wanted that table. Maybe next time your date needs to go with me.