A PARANOID ASSUMPTION ABOUT GOP REASONING – TRUE OR FALSE
COMPILATION AND COMMENTARY
BY LUCY M WARNER
FEBRUARY 23, 2017


THIS IS A NEGATIVE ASSUMPTION, YES, BUT NOT PARANOID BECAUSE IT IS BASED ON DEMONSTRABLE REALITY. JUST START READING THE NEWS ON A DAILY BASIS AND SEE WHAT YOU FIND WITHOUT WHITEWASHING IT.

THERE ARE IN THE RANGE OF SIX ARTICLES IN HERE THAT RELATE TO EDUCATION, AND PARTICULARLY TO THIS TEA PARTY PHILOSOPHY THAT EDUCATING PEOPLE TO A POINT THAT THEY CAN THINK ON THEIR OWN MAKES THEM DISLOYAL AND DISOBEDIENT. WELL, I AGREE THAT IT MAKES THEM DIFFICULT TO LEAD AROUND BY THE NOSE, BUT THEY ARE CAPABLE OF BEING BETTER CITIZENS IN A BETTER NATION. OF COURSE, WHO SAYS THAT THIS ALT-RIGHT GROUP WANT A BETTER NATION?

THE PARAGRAPH IN THE TEXAS STATE REPUBLICAN PLATFORM THAT HAS DEMOCRATIC BLOOD BOILING IS THE FOLLOWING:

“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.”

I BELIEVE THAT LOGIC SHOULD BE TAUGHT EARLY AND OFTEN, AND THAT OUR BELIEFS SHOULDN’T BE “FIXED” AT ALL, AS THAT PUTS AN IMMEDIATE STOP ON ALL FUTURE LEARNING. IT ALSO FUNCTIONALLY LOWERS THE IQ. WE NEED MORE STIMULATION AND READING AND DISCUSSING RATHER THAN LESS. IF THAT DESTROYS FAITH, THEN THE FAITH WASN’T BASED ON SOMETHING RATIONAL, BUT RATHER ON GROUP CONSENSUS, OFTEN PHYSICAL PUNISHMENT, AND PERHAPS RITUAL. IT IS THE MOST POTENTIALLY DESTRUCTIVE FORM OF “GROUPTHINK,” WITH NATIONALIST PATRIOTISM COMING SECOND IN MY VIEW, AND BOTH OF THOSE ARE MENTIONED IN THE TEXAS DOCUMENT.

I WANT A FLEXIBLE AND PERSONAL FAITH THAT EXPANDS OUTWARD TOWARD OTHERS RATHER THAN INWARD AWAY FROM THEM. THE GOLDEN RULE, FOR INSTANCE. THE GREATEST BENEFIT OF TEACHING CRITICAL THINKING IS THAT OUR KIDS WON’T BE AS LIKELY TO BE CRUEL TO THE OUTSIDER, OR FEARFUL OF NEW INFORMATION. SCIENCE, FOR INSTANCE, IS NOT A FIXED AND RIGID SET OF DATA TO BE MEMORIZED, BUT A LOGICAL AND UNDERSTANDABLE WAY OF INTERACTING WITH THE WORLD. IT GROWS AND CHANGES AS TIME GOES ON BY THE PROCESS OF EXPERIMENTATION AND OBSERVATION. WE ONCE THOUGHT THE WORLD WAS FLAT AND THAT THE SUN REVOLVED AROUND THE EARTH. SEVERAL OF OUR EARLY GREAT SCIENTISTS WERE PERSECUTED BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH FOR PROPOSING REASONED THEORIES AND EVEN PROVING SOME. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE TELESCOPE AND LATER THE MICROSCOPE TRANSFORMED HUMAN KNOWLEDGE BY OPENING UP OUR ABILITY TO UNDERSTAND THE WORLD. THAT IN NO WAY WILL DESTROY A STRONG AND INTELLIGENTLY FORMED FAITH. WE NEED TO TEACH MORE CRITICAL THINKING NOT LESS.

BELOW ARE SEVERAL ARTICLES ON THE FRIGHTENING GOP ATTEMPTS TO STOP TEACHING A SPECIFIC AND CRUCIAL SURVIVAL SKILL: HIGHER ORDER THINKING SKILLS (HOTS). IT IS BEING BANNED IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS IN A NUMBER OF STATES BECAUSE IT MAKES CITIZENS LESS FIERCELY PATRIOTIC, LESS MENTALLY MANIPULABLE AND PERSONALLY STRONGER, I.E. HARDER TO BULLY AND DOMINATE. THERE HAVE BEEN SEVERAL NEW STORIES ON THIS SUBJECT SINCE THE ARRIVAL OF TRUMP ON THE SCENE, AND THERE WERE AT LEAST SIX IN 2012 WHEN THE STATE OF TEXAS FIRST MADE THAT RULING.

THIS IS THE ISSUE AT THE HEART OF THE CONSERVATIVE BATTLES AGAINST THE TEACHING MODEL CALLED COMMON CORE. I WOULD AGREE THAT IT MAY BE INFLEXIBLE; THE MANY ROUNDS OF TESTING THAT MODERN KIDS HAVE TO GO THROUGH DON’T SEEM TO ME TO BE HELPFUL; AND THE WHOLE EXPERIENCE IS SO TRAUMATIC TO THE STUDENTS AND THE TEACHERS THAT IT IS HARMFUL. I WOULDN’T WANT TO GO THROUGH SCHOOL THE WAY IT IS BEING HANDLED NOW. I HAVE THE FEELING THAT THERE IS VERY LITTLE ROOM FOR INDIVIDUALITY IN THIS, AND THE PLEASURE IN LEARNING THAT I HAD WHEN I WAS YOUNG WAS PARTLY DUE TO THE FREEDOM THAT WE HAD.

I HAVE NEVER HAD A STRONG FEELING ABOUT THE ADVOCACY OF HOME SCHOOLING UNTIL THIS CAME UP; BUT I RECOMMEND NOW, TO ALL PARENTS WHO WANT A FULLY INTELLIGENT, EDUCATED AND EMOTIONALLY WELL-CONDITIONED CHILD WHO CAN TAKE THEIR PLACE IN A CIVILIZED AND GENTLE SOCIETY, TO SERIOUSLY CONSIDER HOME SCHOOLING. AN ARTICLE FROM THE LAST FEW DAYS SAYS THAT BERNIE SANDERS, IN HIS WELL-STATED WAY, CALLED OUR NATION NOW “THE TOTALLY NEW POLITICAL WORLD.” AND HOW !! THESE RIGHTISTS MAY SO WARP THE THINKING OF THIS COUNTRY THAT WE CAN BE CONVINCED TO DO WHATEVER THEY WANT US TO. THAT JUST AIN’T MY AMERICA!

IF THE PARENT DOESN’T HAVE A GOOD GROUNDING IN THE BASIC SKILLS, I SUGGEST THE FORMATION OF COMMUNITY GROUPS FOR THE PURPOSE. SUNDAY SCHOOL TEACHERS, MOST MODERN YOUNG PARENTS, SOME RETIRED SCHOOL TEACHERS, CAN BE FOUND IN MOST NEIGHBORHOODS. THE TEACHERS’ UNIONS WOULD OFFER ADVICE AND HELP TO GET GROUPS STARTED, I THINK. SOCIAL GROUPS WITH NAMES LIKE, “READING FOR ALL,” “COLLEGE OF THE STREETS,” “PARENTS FOR A QUALITY EDUCATION,” ETC. WOULD BE A GREAT IDEA. SUCH NAMES WOULD PULL INTERESTED INTERNET SURFERS IN OUT OF CURIOSITY, AND THEY THEN MAY WELL WANT TO VOLUNTEER THEIR SERVICES.

EVEN IF SUCH GROUPS AREN’T INCORPORATED, THEY CAN UNITE INFORMALLY TO PUSH BACK AGAINST THE NEW RIGHTIST THINKERS IN POLITICS ALSO; AN EXAMPLE IS “BLACK LIVES MATTER.” THEY STARTED SMALL, BUT ARE INFLUENTIAL NOW. THEY HAVE A SIMPLE BUT ELOQUENT STATEMENT ABOUT THEMSELVES. ALL THAT’S REALLY NEEDED IS A WEBSITE. ANOTHER SUGGESTION IS TO GET IN TOUCH WITH THE SANDERS GROUP “OUR REVOLUTION,” OR HIS OFFICIAL SENATORIAL WEBSITE. THE WAR THAT THE KOCH BROTHERS ARE WAGING ON AMERICANS IS COMING FROM INSIDE THE COUNTRY, SO DON’T SPEND TOO MUCH ENERGY ON WORRYING ABOUT RUSSIA.

THERE ARE EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS AVAILABLE ON THE INTERNET TO TEACH KIDS, ALREADY SET UP NOW FOR THOSE WHO, DUE TO ILLNESS OR OTHER PROBLEMS, ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND SCHOOL, ETC. I DON’T KNOW THE NAMES OF THE APPS, BUT I’LL LOOK FOR SOMETHING THAT WILL WORK. A QUICK AND DIRTY GOOGLE SEARCH UNDER “EDUCATIONAL APPS” JUST NOW FOUND SEVERAL GOOD ONES –

…. www.teachthought.com/the-future-of.../the-55-best-best-free-education-apps-for-ipad..
…. www.digitaltrends.com -- “The 25 Best Educational Apps for iPhone and Android | Digital Trends,”
…. http://www.ala.org/aasl/standards/best/apps/2015


OF COURSE, VERY POOR FAMILIES MAY NOT HAVE A COMPUTER, SMARTPHONE, ETC. BUT MOST PEOPLE DO, AND WOULD VERY LIKELY BE WILLING TO ALLOW THOSE IN NEED TO USE THEIRS. COOPERATING TO SOLVE PROBLEMS CAN ONLY MAKE OUR NEIGHBORS BETTER FRIENDS, AND THE COMMUNITIES SAFER. REMEMBER, TOO, THAT UNTIL REPRESSIVE FORCES TAKE OVER TOTALLY THERE WILL BE THE GOOD OLD FASHIONED PUBLIC LIBRARY, AT LEAST ONE IN EVERY TOWN.

BUT A COMPUTER IS A VIABLE TEACHING TOOL IN LIEU OF A GOOD SCHOOL ENVIRONMENT. I WOULD ALSO RECOMMEND IT FOR THOSE WHOSE CHILD IS SMALL, GAY, MENTALLY OR EMOTIONALLY FRAGILE BECAUSE THOSE ARE THE KIDS WHO ARE MOST LIKELY TO BE BULLIED. IN AN ORDINARY SCHOOL SETTING.

CHANGING THE TREND OF AMERICAN EDUCATION --

SOME COMMONPLACE EDUCATION CENTERED ISSUES IN THE SOUTH HAVE BOTHERED ME FOR YEARS. AMONG THOSE ARE MANDATING CHRISTIANITY AS THE ONLY PHILOSOPHY IN THE PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOLS, ALLOWING BLACK SCHOOLS TO BE MORE POORLY EQUIPPED, SPONSORING BIBLE CLUBS AND BIBLE COURSES ON SCHOOL GROUNDS SOMETIMES EVEN AS REQUIRED COURSES, FAILING TO FOSTER MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE, FAVORING A LECTURE AND ROTE LEARNING METHOD OF TEACHING OVER GROUP DISCUSSION AND PROJECTS, KEEPING TEXTBOOKS FREE OF LIBERAL SOCIAL SCIENCE MATERIAL SUCH AS ETHNIC, RACIAL AND CROSS-CULTURAL COOPERATION, HISTORY THAT DOESN’T CHALLENGE POLITICALLY CONSERVATIVE IDEAS, TOO LITTLE EMPHASIS ON WRITING SKILLS AND SELF-STUDY, A FOCUS ON PATRIOTISM OVER OTHER FORMS OF GOOD CITIZENSHIP SUCH AS LEARNING TO TREAT OTHERS FAIRLY.

IN ADDITION TO THOSE WAYS OF “DUMBING THE KIDS DOWN,” THIS LEANING IS ALL THE WAY OVER TOWARD THE RIGHT, POLITICALLY SPEAKING; AND MAYBE WORSE, MOVING AWAY FROM THE DEGREE OF RIGOR THAT THE WEALTHY CHILDREN WILL BE TAUGHT IN THEIR PREP SCHOOLS. THE REPUBLICANS HAVE BEEN TRYING TO DIMINISH THE STRUCTURE OF OUR PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEMS, SUPPOSEDLY DUE TO THE COSTS, BY PROGRESSIVELY CUTTING OFF FEDERAL FUNDING. I AM NOT CONVINCED THAT THERE ISN’T MORE TO THE BLEEDING OF ALREADY STRAPPED PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

THEIR GOALS, I’M SURE, ARE TO TAKE THIS COUNTRY BACK TO THE 1920S WHEN THERE WERE ALMOST NO NON-RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS AT THE HIGH SCHOOL AND GRAMMAR SCHOOL LEVELS, AND NO LOW-COST STATE COLLEGES EITHER. THAT MEANT THAT ONLY THE WEALTHY COULD GUARANTEE THEIR CHILDREN A GOOD PROFESSIONAL LEVEL EDUCATION.

ALREADY THERE HAS BEEN A MOVEMENT TO FOR PROFIT SCHOOLS EXCLUSIVELY IN SOME CASES. THE OBVIOUS FACT THAT POOR PARENTS CAN’T PAY THE TUITION, COULD BE PARTIALLY ALLEVIATED BY GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES FOR THE NEEDY SUCH AS VOUCHERS, BUT PUBLICLY FUNDED SCHOOLS FOR ALL CHILDREN IS A BETTER WAY. WHILE I’M AT IT I WILL MENTION BERNIE’S PLAN OF FREE TUITION AT STATE SUPPORTED COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES.

I HAVE HEARD, ALSO, THAT SUCH FUNDING DOESN’T COVER ALL COSTS. BESIDES, IT IS MOST OFTEN THE CASE THAT THE SCHOOLS ARE RELIGIOUS AND NOT SECULAR. RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO RUN PRIVATE SCHOOLS, BUT THOSE SHOULDN’T BE THE ONLY CHOICES FOR STUDENTS. SECRETARY DE VOS MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO ESSENTIALLY ELIMINATE ALL FREE SECULAR EDUCATION. SO MUCH FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE IF THAT HAPPENS.

THE REALLY STARTLING PIECE OF INFORMATION ON THESE TEXAS RULES, HOWEVER, IS THAT THE PLATFORM IS SUPPOSED TO CONTINUALLY REDUCE STATE FUNDING FOR COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES AS WELL AS HIGH SCHOOLS AND ACADEMIES. WHEN WE AS A SOCIETY COME TO THE POINT THAT NO ONE CAN READ AND WRITE EXCEPT THE WEALTHY, AND PEOPLE LIKE ABRAHAM LINCOLN WILL NOT BE ABLE TO “READ THE LAW” AND GET A LICENSE TO PRACTICE, WHAT WILL WE DO THEN? OUR WHOLE PERSONAL LADDER UPWARD IS BASED ON COLLEGE EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS. WILL WE GO BACK TO INDENTURED SERVITUDE AS ONE OF THE “CONSERVATIVES” SUGGESTED IN THE LAST YEAR? HOW FAR DOWNHILL ARE THESE PEOPLE WILLING TO GO?

I DON’T THINK TRUMP IS GOING TO LAST LONG IF HE KEEPS HAVING SCANDALS AND BLUNDERS AT HIS CURRENT RATE. I PREDICT THAT THE FAR-RIGHT BRANCH OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY WILL SPLIT FROM THE MODERATES SOONER RATHER THAN LATER WITH HIM AT THE HEAD. A MAN LIKE JOHN MCCAIN HAS VERY LITTLE IN COMMON WITH THESE DANGEROUS PEOPLE, AND THOSE WHO DO ARE THE LAWLESS, MILITIAS, SOVEREIGN CITIZENS, ETC. AND WILL BE SLOUGHED OFF BY THE WEALTHIEST OF THE PARTY EVENTUALLY, I BELIEVE, AS THEIR INFERIORS. BE CAREFUL WHO YOU CHOOSE AS A FRIEND.

PAINFUL THOUGH IT IS FOR ME TO SPECULATE ABOUT THIS, THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IS LIKELY TO UNDERGO THE SAME KIND OF SPLIT, WITH THEIR BILLIONAIRES PERHAPS JOINING WITH REPUBLICAN BILLIONAIRES TO REACH SIMILAR GOALS. THEY’LL COME UP WITH A CATCHY NEW NAME, OF COURSE. WORKING CLASS PEOPLE WILL HAVE TO SCRAMBLE FOR ENOUGH EDUCATION TO DO A FACTORY JOB, OR BE A CARPENTER, A PLUMBER OR A FARM LABORER. FAILING THAT THERE IS CLEANING, RESTAURANT WORK, ETC. OH, YES, I FORGOT GARBAGE WORKERS. ANY HONEST LABOR IS ACCEPTABLE IN MY EYES, BUT I HATE TO SEE PEOPLE GO THAT ROUTE SIMPLY BECAUSE THE UPPER POWER LEVELS HAVE DECIDED TO LITERALLY ROB THEM OF THEIR INBORN INTELLIGENCE – THE ABILITY TO THINK -- AND PUT IN ITS’ PLACE POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS FERVOR AND OBEDIENCE.

I PREDICT THAT THE GOAL OF THE UPPER CLASS IS TO HAVE NO MIDDLE CLASS WHATSOEVER, EXCEPT POSSIBLY FOR THE HIGHLY TALENTED AND WELL-EDUCATED INDIVIDUALS IN AN UNEASY MERGE WITH SMALL BUSINESSPEOPLE AND HIGHLY SKILLED WORKERS SUCH AS COMPUTER PROFESSIONALS; AND AT THE BOTTOM OF THE LADDER WILL BE A POVERTY STRICKEN AND INTELLECTUALLY STARVED GROUP WHO WILL ONLY BE ABLE TO DO MANUAL LABOR.

I CAN’T HELP WONDERING WHAT THE OLIGARCHS WANT TO DO WITH THE BROWN SKINNED PEOPLES AND OTHERS WHO WILL HAVE TO BE FED, SOMEHOW, IF THEY ARE ALLOWED TO SURVIVE AT ALL. I WONDER IF TRUMP’S ARMY OF BLUE COLLAR MALE FUNDAMENTALIST FOLLOWERS WILL ACTUALLY ALLOW THEIR LIVES – BECAUSE IT WILL BE THEIRS – TO DEGENERATE TO SUCH A LEVEL. NO. I THINK IF WE DO FAIL TO DISLODGE TRUMP FROM OFFICE, BEFORE MUCH LONGER THERE WILL BE THOSE WHO WON’T BE DEMOCRATS OR REPUBLICANS OR PROGRESSIVES, BUT HIGHLY RADICALIZED ANARCHISTS; AND THE TRUMP DAYDREAM WILL FALL TO THE GROUND.

IN TRYING TO RESEARCH THIS STORY I RAN ACROSS NOT ONE, BUT SIX ALMOST IDENTICAL STORIES THAT HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM THE WEB WITH NO EXPLANATION. THEY ARE ALL MARKED WITH AN ERROR NOTICE, USUALLY A NUMBER, AND IN A FEW CASES AN APOLOGY, BUT NOT ALWAYS. FUNNY, HUH? THIS ISN’T THE FIRST “ERROR” NOTICE OF THAT KIND THAT I’VE SEEN IN THE PAST ON OTHER STORIES EITHER. ALL OF THESE EDUCATION CASES ARE WITHIN THE LAST HALF YEAR OR SO. I THINK THE STORIES STAYED UP FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS AND THEN WHEN TRUMP/KOCH DECIDED TO MOVE IN THEY DELETED THEM. I CAN’T PROVE THIS, OF COURSE, BUT IT SEEMS VERY LIKELY DUE DIRECTLY TO CENSORSHIP IN THIS INSTANCE AND CONCERNS AN ISSUE THAT IS DESTRUCTIVE OF OUR DEMOCRACY, THE INTELLECTUAL WEAKENING OF OUR SCHOOL SYSTEMS.

THE WORST OF IT IS THE BANNING OF THINKING SKILLS FROM THE CURRICULA. THAT SHOULD BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. THEY ARE TRYING TO ENGINEER A POPULATION WHO ARE UNABLE TO FEND OFF THE ADVANCES OF AN AGGRESSIVE GOVERNMENT AGAINST ITS’ PEOPLE. NO, NRA. WE DON’T NEED OUR GUNS, BUT OUR BRAINS. WHY HAVEN’T THERE BEEN A HUGE NUMBER OF TV AND WEB NEWS ARTICLES ABOUT THIS, ESPECIALLY SINCE TRUMP HAS PRAISED THE PRACTICE RECENTLY. I WISH I COULD BE SURPRISED, BUT I’M NOT. I’M JUST SAD AND ANGRY.

PLEASE READ, ESPECIALLY, THE WASHINGTON POST ARTICLE BELOW FOR THE FULLEST EXPLANATION OF WHAT IS HAPPENING. BUT FIRST, CHECK OUT THIS “BS” COURSE.

AFTER THAT THERE IS AN INTERESTING AND HUMOROUS STORY ON A COLLEGE COURSE. GO TO “http://keyetv.com/news/local/univeristy-of-washington-course-could-be-lesson-in-bs-literally.”

University of Washington could offer course in 'BS'
by Mitch Pittman, KOMO

Critical thinking is one of the most valuable skills students can learn, but starting next quarter, the University of Washington will offer a course on it, but with a much less academic name: Calling Bulls**t. (KOMO)

PKG UW BS CLASS.transfer_frame_459.jpgPKG UW BS CLASS.transfer_frame_5418.jpgPKG UW BS CLASS.transfer_frame_6575.jpg
VIEW PHOTO GALLERY
4 photos
AA

SEATTLE (KOMO) - A new course that could be offered at the University of Washington this spring is turning some heads - mostly for its name, but also for the skills it teaches.

Critical thinking is one of the most valuable skills students can learn, but starting next quarter, the UW will offer a course on it, but with a much less academic name: Calling Bulls**t.

"It's something you can use in any circumstance," said Dr. Jevin West. "You tend to find a lot of BS, I don't know if we can call it the other version on camera, so we'll just call it 'bad science.'"

West and his colleague Carl Bergstrom have been thinking about the course for years, but in this age, with so much information swirling around us.

West works in the university's data lab and said the course will mainly revolve around numbers and how data can be manipulated.

"The ability to identify BS, sift through the BS, to be able to respond to BS," said West.

But he said students will certainly be able to apply these lessons to their social media accounts - not only how to identify BS, but how to call it out.

"Being careful not to attack people's character," said West.

They hope to offer the course this upcoming spring quarter, but make it available to everyone.

They've posted a full syllabus online, complete with studies and suggested readings, so we can all improve these skills.

"We released it last week, and within a few days, we had over 100,000 users on our site," said West.

The name is provocative.

"Wow, that actually seems pretty interesting," said one student.

"We figured if we called it Critical Reasoning and Statistical Inference, the students would gloss over that in their course catalog," said West.

But, for a course about calling it like it is, perhaps it's best to start with the title.

"This kind of skill can be used anywhere and everywhere, and in a world that's so information rich nowadays, we need this skill more than ever," said West.

He said they're also looking for people to reach out with examples of good or bad BS to use in their class.

You can follow them on Twitter at @callin_bull, and they say a Facebook page will be up next week.



WASHINGTON POST

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/texas-gop-rejects-critical-thinking-skills-really/2012/07/08/gJQAHNpFXW_blog.html?utm_term=.21767df4de65

Local
Texas GOP rejects ‘critical thinking’ skills. Really.
By Valerie Strauss July 9, 2012
(Update: Stephen Colbert’s take; other details)

In the you-can’t-make-up-this-stuff department, here’s what the Republican Party of Texas wrote into its 2012 platform as part of the section on education:

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.

Yes, you read that right. The party opposes the teaching of “higher order thinking skills” because it believes the purpose is to challenge a student’s “fixed beliefs” and undermine “parental authority.”

It opposes, among other things, early childhood education, sex education, and multicultural education, but supports “school subjects with emphasis on the Judeo-Christian principles upon which America was founded.”

When taken with the other parts of the education platform (see below), it seems a fair conclusion that the GOP Party in Texas doesn’t think much of public education. Unfortunately, this notion isn’t limited to the GOP in Texas but is more commonly being seen across the country by some of the most strident of “school reformers.”

It should be noted that after the plank in the platform was ridiculed, Texas GOP Communications Director Chris Elam told TPM.com that it was all a big mistake and that opposition to “critical thinking” wasn’t supposed to be included. It can’t be easily removed, he said, because the platform had been approved by a party convention and any changes would also have to go through the same process. That clears things up.

You can see Stephen Colbert’s hilarious take on this episode by clicking here.

It also seems worth noting that there is some question as to whether critical thinking can actually be taught. University of Virginia cognitive scientist Daniel Willingham argues that it cannot be taught in this 2007 article.


First Willingham defines critical thinking this way: Critical thinking consists of seeing both sides of an issue, being open to new evidence that disconfirms your ideas, reasoning dispassionately, demanding that claims be backed by evidence, deducing and inferring conclusions from available facts, solving problems, and so forth. Then too, there are specific types of critical thinking that are characteristic of different subject matter: That’s what we mean when we refer to “thinking like a scientist” or “thinking like a historian.”

Later in the article he writes: After more than 20 years of lamentation, exhortation, and little improvement, maybe it’s time to ask a fundamental question: Can critical thinking actually be taught? Decades of cognitive research point to a disappointing answer: not really. People who have sought to teach critical thinking have assumed that it is a skill, like riding a bicycle, and that, like other skills, once you learn it, you can apply it in any situation. Research from cognitive science shows that thinking is not that sort of skill.


But of course, that isn’t what the Texas GOP is arguing. It sees “critical thinking” as something subversive. Scary stuff.

Here’s the rest of the education section of the Texas GOP’s 2012 platform:

American Identity Patriotism and Loyalty – 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. Students should pledge allegiance to the American and Texas flags daily to instill patriotism.

Basic Standards – We favor improving the quality of education for all students, including those with special needs. We support a return to the traditional basics of reading, writing, arithmetic, and citizenship with sufficient discipline to ensure learning and quality educational assessment.

Bilingual Education – We encourage non-English speaking students to transition to English within three years.

Career and Technology Education (Vocational Education) – We support reinstatement of voluntary career and technology education, including adjusting the 4x4 requirements as needed, without detracting from non-vocational program requirements.

Classroom Discipline –We recommend that local school boards and classroom teachers be given more authority to deal with disciplinary problems. Corporal punishment is effective and legal in Texas.

Classroom Expenditures for Staff – We support having 80% of school district payroll expenses of professional staff of a school district be full-time classroom teachers.

College Tuition – We recommend three levels of college tuition: In-state requiring proof of Texas legal citizenship, out-of-state requiring proof of US citizenship, and nonresident legal alien. Non-US citizens should not be eligible for state or federal grants, or loans.

Controversial Theories – We support objective teaching and equal treatment of all sides of scientific theories. We believe theories such as life origins and environmental change should be taught as challengeable scientific theories subject to change as new data is produced. Teachers and students should be able to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these theories openly and without fear of retribution or discrimination of any kind.

Early Childhood Development – We believe that parents are best suited to train their children in their early development and oppose mandatory pre-school and Kindergarten. We urge Congress to repeal government-sponsored programs that deal with early childhood development.

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.

Educational Entitlement – We encourage legislation that prohibits enrollment in free public schools of non-citizens unlawfully present in the United States.

Funding of Education – We urge the Legislature to direct expenditures to academics as the first priority.

Higher Education – We support merit-based admissions for all college and university applicants to public institutions. We further support the repeal of the 1997 Texas legislative act commonly known as the Top Ten Percent Rule. All Texas students should be given acceptance priority over out-of-state or foreign students.

Juvenile Daytime Curfew - We strongly oppose Juvenile Daytime Curfews. Additionally, we oppose any official entity from detaining, questioning and/or disciplining our children without the consent of a child’s parent.

Local Control for Education – We support school choice and believe that quality education is best achieved by encouraging parental involvement, protecting parental rights, and maximizing local independent school district control. District superintendents and their employees should be made solely accountable to their locally elected boards. We support sensible consolidation of local school districts. We encourage local ISDs to consider carefully the advantages and disadvantages of accepting federal education money.

No Taxpayer Paid Lobbyists – We support the prohibition of any paid public school employee or contractor to lobby the legislature or the SBOE, unless on an unpaid basis and in an unofficial capacity. No registered lobbyist should be allowed to run for SBOE.

Parental Rights in Education – We believe the right of parents to raise and educate their children is fundamental. Parents have the right to withdraw their child from any specialized program. We urge the Legislature to enact penalties for violation of parental rights.

Sex Education – We recognize parental responsibility and authority regarding sex education. We believe that parents must be given an opportunity to review the material prior to giving their consent. We oppose any sex education other than abstinence until marriage.

Parental School Choice – We encourage the Governor and the Texas Legislature to enact child-centered school funding options which fund the student, not schools or districts, to allow maximum freedom of choice in public, private, or parochial education for all children.

Permanent School Fund – We believe that because the Permanent School Fund is not paid by taxpayers that the principle balance should be safeguarded and not viewed as a source of additional funding for our state budget.

Political Community Organizing in Texas Schools - We believe neither Texas public schools should be used nor their students should be instructed by groups such as SEIU or other community organizers as instruments to promote political agenda during the instructional school day.

Private Education – We believe that parents and legal guardians may choose to educate their children in private schools to include, but not limited to, home schools and parochial schools without government interference, through definition, regulation, accreditation, licensing, or testing.

Religious Freedom in Public Schools – We urge school administrators and officials to inform Texas school students specifically of their First Amendment rights to pray and engage in religious speech, individually or in groups, on school property without government interference. We urge the Legislature to end censorship of discussion of religion in our founding documents and encourage discussing those documents.

School Surveys and Testing – Public schools should be required to obtain written parental consent for student participation in any test or questionnaire that surveys beliefs, feelings, or opinions. Parental rights, including viewing course materials prior to giving consent, should not be infringed.

State Board of Education (SBOE) – We believe that the SBOE should continue to be an elected body consisting of fifteen members. Their responsibilities must include:

— Appointing the Commissioner of Education

— Maintaining constitutional authority over the Permanent School Fund

— Maintaining sole authority over all curricula content and the state adoption of all educational materials. This process must include public hearings.

The SBOE should be minimally staffed out of general revenue.

Textbook Review – Until such time as all texts are required to be approved by the SBOE, each ISD that uses non-SBOE approved instructional materials must verify them as factually and historically correct. Also the ISD board must hold a public hearing on such materials, protect citizen’s right of petition and require compliance with TEC and legislative intent. Local ISD boards must maintain the same standards as the SBOE.

Supporting Military Families in Education – Existing truancy laws conflict with troop deployments. We believe that truancy laws should be amended to allow 5 day absence prior to deployments and R&R. Military dependents by definition will be Texas residents for education purposes.

Traditional Principles in Education – We support school subjects with emphasis on the Judeo-Christian principles upon which America was founded and which form the basis of America’s legal, political and economic systems. We support curricula that are heavily weighted on original founding documents, including the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, and Founders’ writings.

School Health Care – We urge legislators to prohibit reproductive health care services, including counseling, referrals, and distribution of condoms and contraception through public schools. We support the parents’ right to choose, without penalty, which medications are administered to their minor children. We oppose medical clinics on school property except higher education and health care for students without parental consent.

U.S. Department of Education – Since education is not an enumerated power of the federal government, we believe the Department of Education (DOE) should be abolished.

Local Headlines newsletter
Daily headlines about the Washington region.
Sign up
Zero Tolerance – We believe that zero tolerance policies in schools should specify those items that will not be tolerated at schools. The policy should be posted on ISD websites.

Transparency – We support legislation requiring all school districts to post their expenditures online or made readily available to the public.

Foreign Culture Charter Schools in Texas – We oppose public funding of charter schools which receive money from foreign entities. We demand that these Charter Schools have accountability and transparency to local parents, taxpayers, the State of Texas, as do current public schools, including U.S. citizenship of public school trustees.

Follow The Answer Sheet every day by bookmarking www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet.



DELETED ARTICLES:

http://www.truth-out.org/.../10144-texas-gop-declares-no-more-teaching-of-critical-thinkin...

Not Found
The requested URL /.../10144-texas-gop-declares-no-more-teaching-of-critical-thinkin... was not found on this server.

Apache Server at www.truth-out.org Port 80



Texas GOP Declares: "No More Teaching of 'Critical Thinking Skills' in ...
www.truth-out.org/.../10144-texas-gop-declares-no-more-teaching-of-critical-thinkin...
Jul 7, 2012 - (Photo: Ben Sklar / The New York Times)The Republican Party of Texas has issued their 2012 political platform and has come out and blatantly opposed critical thinking in public schools throughout the state. ... With irrationality now the norm and an election hovering over the 2012 ...



POLITIFACT --

Half True: What Politifact Got Wrong About the GOP and Critical Thinking
www.austinchronicle.com/.../half-true-what-politifact-got-wrong-about-the-gop-and-c...
Aug 18, 2012 - Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and ...


AUSTIN CHRONICLE

http://www.austinchronicle.com/.../half-true-what-politifact-got-wrong-about-the-gop-and-c...
Error: Page Not Found
The page you requested is invalid or no longer exists.
Please use our search or select from the navigation menu at the top. Thanks!


DAILY KOS

Texas Republicans express 'regret' for officially opposing critical ...
www.dailykos.com/.../-Texas-Republicans-express-regret-for-officially-opposing-criti...
Jun 29, 2012 - Texas Republicans are saying that their 2012 platform's opposition to "critical thinking skills" was a mistake—but that mistake is now the formal ...


FORBES

The Terrifying Texas GOP Platform - Forbes
www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2012/07/01/texas-gop-platform/
Jul 1, 2012 - The Terrifying Texas GOP Platform ... with the portion that opposes the “teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills” and “critical thinking skills.




THESE ARTICLES WERE NOT KILLED. I SUPPOSE THEY WERE MISSED BY THE TRUMP OR GOP TEAMS WHO WENT THROUGH AND SHORT CIRCUITED THE OTHERS. NOTE: I’LL CHECK BACK LATER TO SEE IF THIS WILL BE GONE ALSO. LMW. 3:00 PM, 2/23/2017.


PROPUBLICA

https://www.propublica.org/article/devos-education-nominees-code-words-for-creationism-offshoot-raise-concerns

DeVos’ Code Words for Creationism Offshoot Raise Concerns About ‘Junk Science’

Betsy DeVos, President Trump’s pick as secretary of education, has funded groups that champion “intelligent design,” a sophisticated outgrowth of creationism. Science educators worry that she could use her bully pulpit to undermine the teaching of evolution in public schools.

by Annie Waldman
ProPublica, Jan. 30, 2017, 11:21 a.m.

At a confirmation hearing earlier this month, Betsy DeVos, President Trump’s pick for education secretary, responded to a question about whether she would promote “junk science” by saying she supports science teaching that “allows students to exercise critical thinking.”

This seemingly innocuous statement has raised alarms among science education advocates, and buoyed the hopes of conservative Christian groups that, if confirmed, DeVos may use her bully pulpit atop the U.S. Department of Education to undermine the teaching of evolution in public schools.

DeVos and her family have poured millions of dollars into groups that champion intelligent design, the doctrine that the complexity of biological life can best be explained by the existence of a creator rather than by Darwinian evolution. Within this movement, “critical thinking” has become a code phrase to justify teaching of intelligent design.


Candi Cushman, a policy analyst for the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family, described DeVos’ nomination as a positive development for communities that want to include intelligent design in their school curricula. Both the Dick and Betsy DeVos Foundation and Betsy DeVos’ mother’s foundation have donated to Focus on the Family, which has promoted intelligent design.

“Mrs. DeVos will work toward ensuring parents and educators have a powerful voice at the local level on multiple issues, including science curriculum,” wrote Cushman in an email.

DeVos has not publicly spoken about her personal views on intelligent design. A more nuanced outgrowth of creationism, the approach lost steam after a federal court ruled a decade ago that teaching it in public schools would violate the separation of church and state. Greg McNeilly, a longtime aide to DeVos and an executive at her and her husband’s privately held investment management firm, the Windquest Group, said he knows from personal discussions with DeVos that she does not believe that intelligent design should be taught in public schools. He added that her personal beliefs on the theory, whatever they are, shouldn’t matter.

“I don’t know the answer to whether she believes in intelligent design — it’s not relevant,” McNeilly told ProPublica. “There is no debate on intelligent design or creationism being taught in schools. According to federal law, it cannot be taught.”

That assurance provides little comfort to those who worry that DeVos’ nomination could erode public schools’ commitment to teaching evolution.

Hearing DeVos refer to “critical thinking” was “like hearing old catch phrases from a nearly forgotten TV show that never made prime time,” Michigan State University professor Robert Pennock told ProPublica. Pennock has written several books and articles about creationism and intelligent design, including “The Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism” (2000), and has testified as an expert witness that intelligent design should not be studied in public school science courses.

“She evaded what should have been a simple question about not teaching junk science,” Pennock wrote in an email. “More than that, she did so in a way that signaled her willingness to open the door to intelligent design creationism.”

The Chosen: Who Trump Is Putting in Power


As President-elect Donald Trump picks his top officials, we’re laying out the best accountability reporting on each. Read the story.

How Jeff Sessions Helped Kill Equitable School Funding in Alabama

A lawsuit in the 1990’s had Alabama poised to fund poor black school districts as fairly as wealthy white schools. As state attorney general, Sessions fought the effort passionately. Read the story.

A confirmation vote in the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee is expected Tuesday on DeVos, a billionaire and longtime advocate of charter schools, voucher programs and other alternatives to traditional public education. She attended a Christian high school and college, and her four children were either home-schooled or sent to religious high school. Her husband, Amway heir Dick DeVos, publicly supported intelligent design during a failed campaign for governor of Michigan in 2006.

Many Christians who accept the Bible and its creation story as literal truth have long opposed teaching evolution as fact. Intelligent design gained traction in the 1990s and early 2000s, when Christian groups pushed for it to be taught in public schools, often alongside lessons on evolution. They distributed intelligent design textbooks and lesson plans, but faced a backlash from the scientific community and the courts. Kansas and Ohio adopted science standards, which were later rescinded, calling for teaching of “critical analysis” of evolution. While public schools are not legally allowed to teach intelligent design in science class, numerous private religious schools and some colleges do.

Advocates have contended that presenting intelligent design side-by-side with evolution, also known as “teaching the controversy,” would enhance the critical thinking skills of students and improve their scientific reasoning. Indeed, a briefing packet for educators from the leading intelligent design group, the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, walks teachers through this approach.

“In American public education today, the status quo teaches evolution in a dogmatic, pro-Darwin-only fashion which fails to help students use critical thinking on this topic,” the report states, adding that teaching “the controversy” can help students “learn the critical thinking skills they need to think like good scientists.”

John West, vice president of the Discovery Institute, said that the implication that “critical thinking” is code for intelligent design is “ludicrous.”

“Critical thinking is a pretty foundational idea supported by lots of people, not just us,” said West in an email, adding that he also thinks “critical thinking should apply to discussions of evolution.”

In one of the most high-profile legal cases on teaching evolution since the Scopes trial in 1925, civil-liberties organizations took the Dover, Pennsylvania, school district to federal district court in Harrisburg in 2005, because the school board had required ninth-grade biology students to be told that the theory of evolution was flawed and that intelligent design was an alternative. Teachers were ordered to promote the 1989 intelligent design textbook “Of Pandas and People” as a reference.

The Thomas More Law Center, a Michigan-based Christian legal group whose slogan is “The Sword and the Shield for People of Faith,” represented the school district. The center had been searching for several years for a school board that favored teaching intelligent design and was willing to defend a lawsuit. Pennock, the Michigan State professor, testified as an expert witness for the plaintiffs. The district argued that the introduction of intelligent design in the classroom was intended to encourage “critical thinking,” but Judge John E. Jones ruled against it, stating that the doctrine had “utterly no place in science curriculum.”

“The goal of the intelligent design movement is not to encourage critical thought,” Jones wrote in his opinion, “but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with intelligent design.”

The Dick and Betsy DeVos Foundation contributed $15,000 to the Thomas More Law Center between 2001 and 2002, according to tax filings. The Edgar and Elsa Prince Foundation, the foundation of DeVos’ mother and deceased father, has donated over $1 million since 2002 to Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian legal group based in Scottsdale, Arizona. The group unsuccessfully attempted to intervene in the Dover case by representing the publisher of the intelligent design textbook. The Thomas More Law Center and Alliance Defending Freedom declined to answer any questions about DeVos.

The Prince Foundation’s tax filings listed DeVos as a vice president for more than a decade. In the days leading up to her Senate hearing, forms were filed on DeVos’ behalf with Michigan’s licensing department to withdraw her name from the group. She testified at the hearing that her recorded affiliation with the organization had been a “clerical error.”

“Betsy doesn’t sit around and Google herself to find out if she’s an officer of the foundation,” McNeilly told ProPublica, adding that DeVos had no influence at the foundation.

Based in Colorado Springs, Colorado, Focus on the Family has produced a religious video series with one episode focused on intelligent design and Darwinian evolution critiques. Through their foundation, DeVos and her husband contributed $75,000 to Focus on the Family in 2001, and her mother’s foundation has since donated almost $5 million.

Even though DeVos or her family may provide financial support to these organizations, it doesn’t necessarily mean that she agrees with all their views, McNeilly said.

“She gives to all sorts of organizations that are involved in a variety of issues,” he said. “She doesn’t do a litmus test to make sure she’s in agreement with everything.”

Voucher programs, which DeVos has long championed, often provide taxpayer funding for low-income students to enroll in private and religious schools, which may legally teach creationism and intelligent design. The question of whether voucher program support of religious schools violates the separation of church and state has led to legal challenges in some states. Indeed, in 2015, Colorado’s Supreme Court struck down a school district’s voucher program because it was funneling public money to religious schools.

The Great Lakes Education Project, a group founded by DeVos and her husband, has been one of the primary vehicles for DeVos’ school-choice advocacy. Before her federal nomination, she served as a chairwoman and board member of the group. While Great Lakes has largely avoided religious rhetoric in its push for school choice, a policy paper released by the group in 2013 praised the standards initiative known as Common Core for leaving curriculum decisions in the hands of states and localities, including the option to teach intelligent design in public schools.

“State and local officials will continue to make important curriculum decisions when it comes to teaching History or specific issues such as Evolution or Intelligent Design, in line with what is right for their students and communities,” read the paper, which was printed on the group’s own letterhead and promoted on its website.

ON "COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS": (p. 2)
Selected portion of a source document hosted by DocumentCloud
"State and local officials will continue to make important curriculum decisions when it comes to teaching History or specific issues such as Evolution and Intelligent Design, in line with what is right for their students and communities."
View the entire document with DocumentCloud
“It’s one sentence, but it says a lot,” said Heather Weaver, a senior staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union, who reviewed the document at ProPublica’s request. “The fact that her foundation was putting out materials saying that local and state officials can teach intelligent design is troubling. It shows a lack of understanding about the law and science education.”

Gary Naeyaert, executive director of the Great Lakes Education Project, told ProPublica that the organization did not write the paper and that it was drafted as part of a national advocacy effort to inform educators about Common Core. The paper didn’t cite the original source, a lapse that Naeyart attributed to a “design error.” He couldn’t recall which advocacy group was the author.

Although decisions on public school curricula are largely left to local school districts and state governments, the secretary of education’s views still carry weight, said Glenn Branch, deputy director of the National Center for Science Education, a nonprofit in Oakland, California.

“The secretary of education has an important bully pulpit,” said Branch. “It would be dismaying indeed if it were used to push creationism, climate change denial, or any other junk science.”

ON "COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS": (p. 2)

"State and local officials will continue to make important curriculum decisions when it comes to teaching History or specific issues such as Evolution and Intelligent Design, in line with what is right for their students and communities."

View the entire document with DocumentCloud


Annie Waldman is a reporter covering education. She recently graduated with honors from the dual masters program at Columbia’s School of International and Public Affairs and the School of Journalism.



PROPUBLICA – JEFF SESSIONS – GO TO WEBSITE TO READ THIS. IT’S LONG, THE SINS ARE PREDICTABLE AND DISGUSTING.

https://www.propublica.org/article/how-jeff-sessions-helped-kill-equitable-school-funding-in-alabama

How Jeff Sessions Helped Kill Equitable School Funding in Alabama
A lawsuit in the 1990s had Alabama poised to fund poor black school districts as fairly as wealthy white schools. As state attorney general, Sessions fought the effort passionately.
by Ryan Gabrielson
ProPublica, Jan. 30, 2017, 8 a.m.

Support Independent Nonprofit News
Support ProPublica’s mission to expose abuses of power and corruption.



THE BRITS HAVE A GREAT DEAL OF INTEREST IN TRUMP, PARTLY BECAUSE THE SAME FASCIST GROUPS ARE ACTIVE THERE AS WELL. SEE THE FOLLOWING.


https://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2016/nov/15/in-the-age-of-trump-why-bother-teaching-students-to-argue-logically

Higher Education Network
In the age of Trump, why bother teaching students to argue logically?
Brexit and the US election showed that slogans count for more than facts, and demagogues outrank experts. For universities, it’s a vision of hell

David Tollerton
Tuesday 15 November 2016 02.00 EST


Photograph -- ‘Should footnotes and bibliographies be dismissed as elitist pedantry? Perhaps we should be training our students in the art of constructing compelling internet memes founded on fantasies?’ Photograph: Jonathan Bachman/Getty Images

Two things that happened on Wednesday morning. First, the world woke up to the reality of a Trump victory in the US presidential election. Second, a group of undergraduate humanities students handed in essays for a module I’m teaching at the University of Exeter.


What will Brexit mean for Britain’s world-class universities?
Read more

The former was, for many, the end of a long, gruelling, and uniquely unsettling political process. The latter marked the end of my own campaign, within the small sphere of my professional life. It was a campaign to see my students produce clear, structured arguments using the careful mobilisation of evidence, and adherence to the measured discourse characteristic of scholarly endeavour.

The essay was on the topic of social cohesion and religious offence – slippery and emotive subjects – so clarity of expression was of paramount importance. I answered dozens of email queries, commented on plans, and held one-to-one meetings with every student that I could.

But was there any point? If the rhetoric of Trump’s campaign is translated into some kind of reality, there may be many victims ahead: respect for women, the rights of racial and religious minorities, an entire world facing environmental degradation. The population of several nations – the Baltic states, for example – may find themselves trying to decode the implications of Trump’s opaque foreign policy utterances.

The real victim
Yet, as I sit with a stack of essays in front of me, the victim whose pain I feel for most immediately is the practice of logical, reasoned argument itself.

Statements issued by the Trump campaign saw no need to uphold any requirements to make sense or be based on evidence. Consider the assertions of widespread voter-fraud (in the case of Clinton victory), claims of Muslims celebrating 9/11 in New York, the idea to extract Middle Eastern oil as recompense for US military costs, the theory that climate change was secretly invented by the Chinese for economic gain, or that Mexico would willingly pay for a border wall.

Such statements, and an array of others, were credible within the campaign’s own inner logic because the criteria for credibility did not include a basis in reality or even coherence. Under the banner “Make America Great Again” the type of argumentation I have been demanding of my students became defunct.

In Britain, we have recently been in similar territory ourselves. The EU referendum featured false claims regarding the cost of EU membership, of the migration chaos that would follow Turkey’s supposedly inevitable and imminent EU membership, shady rumours that our unelected monarch disliked the EU, and Michael Gove’s wholesale dismissal of “experts”.

The intangible nature of what Brexit would actually entail revealed itself in conveniently vacuous slogans such as “Take Back Control” and, eventually, simply “Brexit means Brexit”. The Remain campaign did sometimes try to conjure compelling stories of apocalypse, but they ultimately failed to respect the manner in which the game was being played. Leave donor and campaigner Aaron Banks reflected: “The Remain campaign featured fact, fact, fact, fact, fact. It just doesn’t work. You have got to connect with people emotionally. It’s the Trump success”.

Fact and fantasy
As educators have we been getting things hopelessly wrong? Maybe, if one of my students writes “social cohesion means social cohesion” in this latest essay, I should put a hearty tick in the margin.

Should footnotes and bibliographies be dismissed as elitist pedantry? Perhaps we should be training our students in the art of constructing compelling internet memes founded on fantasies? Or forceful slogans that combine emotive power with a strategic absence of content?

If we aspire to educate policymakers of the future, are these not the skills demanded by our age? For £9k a year, might the subtle art of articulating effectual nonsense be preferable to the ineffectual tools of argumentation?

Play VideoPlay
Current Time 0:00/
Duration Time 2:32

What will be the first actions Trump takes as president?
For any academic this should be, of course, no less than a vision of hell. But with 2016 and its strangest of political events, such visions might drift across our consciousness.

The alternative vision is a world in which a renewed sense of cause-and-effect asserts itself. That is, a situation in which it is realised that ignoring peer-reviewed expertise, evidence, and critical arguments does have consequences.

Getting just anyone to fix your plumbing leads to leaks. Ignoring experts in international relations leads to wars. DIY dentistry leads to painful tooth-loss. Dismissing the predictions of climate scientists increases the potential for disaster. Saying simply “X means X” means nothing at all.

This vision must be clung to with determination. Even if, in the short term, holding on to these principles is actually a bit annoying – because if they didn’t need critical argument these essays would be a lot quicker to mark.

Join the higher education network for more comment, analysis and job opportunities, direct to your inbox. Follow us on Twitter @gdnhighered. And if you have an idea for a story, please read our guidelines and email your pitch to us at highereducationnetwork@theguardian.com


The Black Robe Regiment

http://reverbpress.com/politics/red-state-republicans-ban-teaching-critical-thinking-skills-because-patriotism/

Red State Republicans Ban Teaching Critical Thinking Skills Because ‘Patriotism’
February 18, 2015 Bob Rowen Politics

The Republican War On Education continued in earnest on Monday as an Oklahoma legislative committee led by Tea Party Republican, Dan Fisher voted overwhelmingly in favor of a bill that would effectively ban Advance Placement History classes in the state. The bill, HB 1380, bars state funds from being spent on courses of AP History and goes on to specify what should be taught in their stead.

Fisher, a member of The Black Robe Regiment, a right wing religious/political group with ties to Glenn Beck, said the courses,

“Fail to teach American Exceptionalism.”

Oklahoma Rep. Sally Kern (GOP) took another tack, arguing that AP courses violate last year’s state repeal of Common Core.

The move follows a resolution passed by the Republican National Committee last summer that declared the framework of the course,

“reflects a radically revisionist view of American history that emphasizes negative aspects of our nation’s history while omitting or minimizing positive aspects.” And claims it “deliberately distorts and/or edits out important historical events.”

Today, Texas jumped on the bandwagon with a similar measure moving through their Republican dominated state School board. Instead of pulling the funding, the Texas measure simply declares that Texas’ official curriculum transcends all others.

Among the criticisms of the AP History course is a list of topics no longer covered, leaving out important items as Thomas Paine’s Common Sense and other Founding Fathers. As it turns out, the list is not accurate. The new framework includes those previously taught and adds many others.

Among the purposes to AP course are to prepare students for the level of study that will be required when they get to college and, in most cases, gain college credits in the process. They offer students an opportunity to show colleges what they are capable of. All the while, AP courses challenge gifted students, raising interest for those who would be bored working within the regular curriculum.

Most importantly, though, AP courses teach students how to think on a higher level, to question the how and the why and not just the who and the when. While other students are studying the minutiae of history, AP students study the causes and consequences of actions, especially the unforeseen or unwanted ones.

AP students are the leaders of tomorrow. How can they be expected to avoid the next Viet Nam or Iraq unless they study how we got into the last one? AP courses teach critical thinking. Students learn not only how to do their own research, but to ask their own questions, probably the greatest skill a leader can have.

It’s important to note that AP History, like all AP Courses, did not come out of Common Core. In fact they are not a product of government at all. They’ve been developed by the College Board, the same organization that administers the SAT.

The new framework, they say was revised with input from thousands of teachers across the country.

“The teachers and professors participating in the AP U.S. History program expressed strong concerns that the course required a breathless race through American history, preventing teachers and students from examining topics of local interest in depth, and sacrificing opportunities for students to engage in In depth study, critical thinking, local interest. Eliminating AP courses is one more battle in the Republican War on Education. writing and research,”
In depth study, critical thinking, local interest. Eliminating AP courses is one more battle in the Republican War on Education. If the purpose of public education is merely to produce compliant workers for American businesses as some have suggested, the go ahead. Do away with AP courses. But if we want America’s next generation of leaders to represent all walks of life, and not just the elite, then courses like these are essential.

HT: Think Progress Featured Image Courtesy: IMGKID




https://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2017/01/08/trump-trudeau-and-teaching-critical-thinking-for-2017.html
UNIVERSITY OF NORTH FLORIDA

Trump, Trudeau and teaching critical thinking for 2017
It seems in this “fake news” and “post-truth” age, the need to teach critical thinking is only growing in urgent
By CATHERINE LITTLE
Sun., Jan. 8, 2017

Photograph -- Prime Minister Justin Trudeau speaks at a Conference for Toronto elementary school teachers in Toronto, on Dec. 2. (CHRIS YOUNG / THE CANADIAN PRESS)

Late in 2016, Prime Minister Trudeau spoke to elementary teachers in Toronto about the importance of education and how his experiences in the classroom shaped his thinking. As a former teacher, he should understand that for long-term impact, teachers’ lesson plans should focus on how to think rather than what to think. That’s why teachers (and parents) should renew their emphasis on teaching children critical thinking for 2017.

Individual teachers’ lesson plans don’t usually make international news but one in San Francisco calling president-elect Donald Trump a racist and sexist man who became president “by pandering to a huge racist and sexist base” did just that soon after the U.S. election.

And although it did not directly reference the results of the U.S. election, the Toronto District School Board — Canada’s largest — issued a news release entitled “Addressing the Recent Incidents of Racism and Hate in our City.” It said that school administrators had been instructed to contact the Toronto Police Service to investigate all incidents of hate.

Of course, hate crimes should be reported. School boards must ensure “fairness, equity and inclusion” and be leaders in empowering communities to “challenge bias and promote and celebrate diversity.” And the most effective way to do this is to teach students how to think — critically.

Teachers must ensure every classroom is safe and conducive to learning for all students. Lesson plans, however, are a teacher’s professional description of learning that is to take place in that classroom. According to Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe, authors of Understanding by Design, instruction should focus on big ideas and skills so students can transfer learning to other settings. While it is common for teachers to share lesson plans, it is the responsibility of each teacher to think critically about how those lessons are designed and evaluate their appropriateness for their own students.

Critical thinking might be defined as the process of analyzing and evaluating an issue in order to form a judgment. It is much more difficult to do than define and even harder to teach. However, it is an essential skill and necessary for citizens to effectively exercise their rights and responsibilities.

Teaching students to think critically often results in lively debate as they come to realize people think differently. Teachers must model how to disagree productively and empower students to defend their beliefs passionately but respectfully while working toward change.

By focusing on big ideas and skills, teachers empower students to use what they learn beyond school.

As a student, I experienced a masterful example of teaching for critical thinking when I studied the two World Wars in a high school history class. My teacher planned her lessons to enable us to respond to this final exam question: “It has been said that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Discuss using examples from this course.”

Her approach forced us to analyze and evaluate the events we had studied in order to form a judgment about the effects power might have on any leader — a skill that has come in handy on many occasions.

Recently, I wondered how the leader of a revolution to overthrow a dictator might come to be regarded as a dictator himself? I have also been contemplating how the effects of power might be influencing our own government’s attitude toward electoral reform and cash — for — access fundraisers.

When in third place, The Liberal Party campaigned on the need for electoral reform and promised that if elected, 2015 would be the last under the first-past-the-post voting system. After they were elected to a majority government under this system, they seemed to backtrack. Might a party’s preference for an electoral system be influenced by how much power it has?

When taking power, Prime Minister Trudeau promised his party would “ … uphold the highest standards of integrity and impartiality both in our public and private affairs.” Might being in power affect how a government defines integrity and impartiality?

Thankfully, my teachers believed in the importance of critical thinking and were able to find ways to use their subject matter to encourage it by asking big questions and teaching students the skills that enabled them to think about those questions critically. By doing this, they made sure I had the skills to question the words and actions of any leader — no matter how popular — and act accordingly.

It seems to me that in this “fake news” and “post-truth” age, the need to teach critical thinking is only growing in urgency. As a teacher, I hope the Prime Minister agrees.


Catherine Little is a Toronto-based educator and consultant who writes about parenting, education and diversity.




The Texas GOP's war on critical thinking | The Seattle Times
www.seattletimes.com/opinion/the-texas-gops-war-on-critical-thinking/
By Leonard Pitts Jr.
Syndicated columnist
Originally published July 22, 2012 at 3:00 am Updated July 22, 2012 at 5:01 am

The Texas GOP has set itself explicitly against teaching children to be critical thinkers, writes Miami Herald columnist Leonard Pitts Jr.

Some recent headlines from the alternate universe of modern conservatism:

• Rush Limbaugh claims the bad guy in the new Batman movie was named Bane to remind voters of Mitt Romney’s controversial tenure at Bain Capital.
• Michele Bachmann, citing zero credible evidence, accuses a Muslim-American aide to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton of conspiring with the Muslim Brotherhood.
• Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio’s crack investigators announce that President Obama’s long-form birth certificate is a fake.

In other words, it’s just an average week down there in Crazy Town. And that lends a certain context to a tidbit brought to national attention last week by Stephen Colbert of Comedy Central’s “The Colbert Report.” Meaning a plank from the 2012 platform of the Republican Party of Texas which, astonishingly enough, reads as follows: “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.”

That is, without a doubt, the most frightening sentence this side of a Stephen King novel.

The Texas GOP has set itself explicitly against teaching children to be critical thinkers. Never mind the creeping stupidization of this country, the growing dumbification of our children, our mounting rejection of, even contempt for, objective fact. Never mind educators who lament the inability of American children to think, to weigh conflicting paradigms, analyze competing arguments, to reason, ruminate, question and reach a thoughtful conclusion. Never mind that this promises the loss of our ability to compete in an ever more complex and technology-driven world.

Never mind. The Texas branch of one of our two major political parties opposes teaching critical-thinking skills or anything that might challenge a child’s “fixed beliefs.” So presumably, if a child is of the “fixed belief” that Jesus was the first president of the United States or that two plus two equals apple trees, educators ought not correct the little genius lest she change her “fixed belief,” thereby undermining mom and dad.

For what it’s worth, the Texas GOP says that language was not supposed to be in the platform. Spokesman Chris Elam says its inclusion “was an oversight on the subcommittee’s part.”

If that explanation leaves you cold, join the club. That such an asinine position was even under consideration is hardly comforting. And the fact that something so neon stupid escaped notice of both the subcommittee and the full platform committee suggests the Texas GOP could use a little critical-thinking instruction itself.

Remember when Republicans were grown-ups? Agree with them or not, you never thought of Bob Dole, George H.W. Bush, Gerald Ford, even Richard Nixon as less than serious, substantive adults, susceptible to logic and reason.

The party has since devolved. A toxic stew of faith-based politics, biased news, and echo chamber punditry has reduced it to an anti-science, anti-reason, anti-intellect caricature of itself. Thoughtful conservatives — thoughtful Americans — ought to be alarmed.

How can you have a healthy democracy when a major party not only tolerates lunacy, but elevates it to positions of power? In what sane nation does someone like Rush Limbaugh have a mass audience, Michele Bachmann an elected office, Joe Arpaio a badge?

Well, the Texas GOP just came out against critical thinking. That explains a lot.

Leonard Pitts is a columnist for the Miami Herald. His email address is: lpitts@miamiherald.com.