SBOE's Controversial Curriculum Changes [Remember the Alamo?]

Many members of the SBOE have expressly chosen this opportunity to skew history more to the right and have frequently questioned whether evolution, separation between church and state, institutions of racism, and Hispanic and Black leaders should be included in the curriculum. Board Member Don McLeroy, who recently lost his primary, has been one of the lead proponents that those in the fields of history and economics are “skewed too far to the left”. However, many others, in and out of Texas, are insisting that the newly amended state curriculum is skewed too far to the right.

The new planks added by the SBOE include:

• the conservative resurgence of the 1980s and 1990s, including Phyllis Schlafly, the Contract With America, the Heritage Foundation, the Moral Majority and the National Rifle Association.
  
• replacing the word “capitalism” with the term “free-enterprise system” because of concerns that “capitalism” had become more of a negative connotation
  
• the study of American Exceptionalism
  
• the inclusion of the study or increased focus on leaders from the Confederacy, including a side by side comparison of Jefferson Davis’s inaugural speech with Abraham Lincoln’s speech

The SBOE chose to remove, not include or not make mandatory several other provisions such as:

• removing Thomas Jefferson from a list of writers who inspired the revolutions of the
  late 18th and 19th Century and replacing him with St. Thomas of Aquinas, John Calvin, and William Blackstone
  
• not mandating that students are taught that Hispanics fought in the Battle of the Alamo against Santa Anna
  
• not including that the founding fathers protected religious freedom in America by barring the government from promoting or disfavoring any particular religion above all others
  
• removing any reference to the United States as “democratic” and mandating that it be referred to as a “constitutional republic”

In total, the Republican members of the board added more than 100 amendments to the 120-page course curriculum for history, sociology and economics. The additional amendments have not only frustrated many Texans, but led to increased bickering amongst the SBOE members. With 10 Republicans to the 5 Democratic members on the Board, the conservatives have a huge advantage. In the final day of the meeting last week, three Democratic board members walked out, claiming they had no power. The Republican amendments led to claims by some that the SBOE was seeking to “whitewash” Texas and US history.

Along with the disparity along party lines, less than half of the Board members have been educators; indeed, only one member claims in their SBOE biography to have studied history. There seems to be no one on the board who has studied economics. One fifth of the members are attorneys, roughly another fifth are involved in real estate, another fifth claim to be businessmen, and there is one dentist. The board members are elected by and represent designated portions of Texas. The only qualification for board members are that they reside in the District they represent, be at least 26 years old, and not be a lobbyist.

In a world that is becoming increasingly competitive, is the current political party-driven SBOE the proper entity to decide what is taught? Or should experts in education, history, sociology, science and math take charge of the curriculum?

The current system is primed for a party-driven curriculum (as opposed to an accurate education). Running in party primaries before they run in general elections means that board members must run on party ideology before seeking the vote of the general public.

Therefore, instead of seeking to educate students about only facts, the politics place pressure on board members to also add their party’s agenda into the education curriculum. Not only is this the logical conclusion, it is the expressed goal of several members, including Don McLeroy, David Bradley, Barbara Cargill, and Cynthia Dunbar.

It is premature to know the effects such changes may have, or whether they will have an effect at all, especially in the age of the Internet. The SBOE will not have their final vote on the curriculum language until May of this year. Until then a group of public hearings will occur, allowing the general public to express their view of the curriculum.