I took those to mean that textbooks should remain on topic across all disciplines and ensure that the dominant liberal meme that "CRT is not taught outside of law schools" remains technically correct. Although it does make me question why only math textbooks were flagged.Originally Posted by bae
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
That's what caught my eye, as I'm having trouble imagining integrating those materials into a math textbook.
And then the claim in their press conference that they had identified math books with CRT in them.
Now that's a clever and amusing spoof!
I recall a year or so ago there was talk among some in the educational community that math was racist and some states were suggesting that math instruction be refocused to an equity based method of instruction. Is mathematics racist? California could blaze pathway with woke math - Washington Times Perhaps some textbook publishers incorporated those ideas into their offerings.
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
All of this makes me actually happy I am the age I am right now and retired. My Dad is turning over in his grave. Instead of everyone working to make early education and access to it easier and more effective, they are spending time and money dumbing down content. It hurts everyone except those who can afford the money and time to get their kids advanced education and thereby makes it even more elite. But it does make the media happy and takes the pressure off finances by focusing it on the content of a few textbooks.
Big Sigh.
Well, maybe I can shed some light- or maybe just muddy the waters some.
It seems to me that Florida is going way above and beyond, in attempting to draw attention to the textbooks, probably in their attempt to recruit others to their stand against “Critical Race Theory” and “Social Emotional Learning” in grades K-12.
Florida, Texas, and California are the Only 3 states that have historically done statewide textbook adoptions. And historically, the major publishers have printed a California edition, a Florida edition, both labeled as such right on the cover of the book- and a “General” edition (no additional label) for the rest of the country. In the states that don’t do statewide adoptions, i.e. textbooks evaluated at the state level and authorized for use (and purchase with state funds) in all public schools in the state, individual schools and school districts are free to choose whatever they desire, presumably with some public evaluation and input, i.e. public schools.
I can write, with almost 100% confidence, that the kinds of things Florida is finding objectionable in their K-5, but most particularly K-1, is references to families that are not “a white Mom and Dad, married before children, living in a home where Dad works outside the home, and Mom does not.” Any reference to same sex couples as parents would be taboo, as would single parents. And, heaven forbid, the mom is an attorney, and dad stays home with the kids! Only the “ideal” can be portrayed in any way in the textbooks.
An example of an objectionable item in a text might be: Juan’s mom is an attorney and works from 7am-5pm. His dad takes care of the children and runs the house. He often works 6am to 11pm. Which parent works more hours? How many more hours? “
Because the social studies curriculum in grades k and 1 focuses on Family and Community Helpers, respectively, there is typically a lot of integration with the math curriculum. Grade 4 is study of the people and culture of a region, grade 5 is a first pass at US History. Lots of places in both of those where the narrative that much of the rest of the country would accept as “real” Florida labels as Critical Race Theory, and Social Emotional Learning. And— certainly can’t have any of that!
[25 years ago, I worked for one of the major K12 publishers for 2 years. Part of my job was to actually Read the textbooks and be able to talk to teachers, administrators and parents about content and editorial biases. I vividly recall the superintendent of a very large district saying, “I’m happy that (your company’s) editorial bias matches my every day reality.”]
Thank you Mschris.
Many people are trying to get the details on which texts were banned and why through the freedom of Information act. Until they get this secret information we can only guess.
To tell you the truth, I highly suspect dictator DeSantis and his cult have a financial stake in the "approved" textbooks. I would be highly surprised if this is anything but political or financial as he gears up for a presidential run so he can be the next Trump. The funny thing is under the guise of freedom he actually is imposing more restrictions and taking away personal choice and freedom. If he had his way it seems you would not be able to marry the person of your choice, worship your preferred god or even be protected from gun violence and disease. Free dumb and all.
Mschrisgo- excellent explanation. I remember when (70s and 80s) our reading texts were questioned at a school board meeting. Those objecting had all the exact passages that were offensive on a piece of paper. they had not read the book. One they objected to was "The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe"!
The great name change seems to be happening here. They recently announced that the 30 various landmarks with "squaw" would be renamed. Squaw Pass, Squaw Mountain, etc. The Colorado Squawfish was renamed the Colorado Pikeminnow some time ago. Our first governor back in the mid-1860's considered native Americans an inferior sub-species to be minimalized. So the mountains, towns, and streets will be renamed. I've not heard the fate of Kit Carson Peak, named after the famous pioneer guide and Indian fighter, but it's on the chopping block, and I could imagine that Carson City might be scrutinized. Not to mention the sports mascots, although Thunderbirds has not seemed offensive.
More globally I was surprised to heard that the Nation Audubon Society would be renamed due to slave ownership. And all evidence of the modern father of ichthyology have been removed from Stanford due to his support for the popular eugenicist movement in the early 19 hundreds. Statues, halls, etc.
I wonder how deep it should go. Our forefathers have a pretty sullied history, but that was then.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote