Texas Republican primary ballot proposal #4 [Archive]

Towlie

4th March 2010, 08:38 AM

But it also implicitly states the thing that the party, if elected, promises to try to enact. Which would be subject to judicial review and would almost certainly be b*tch-slapped into next week.Don't be so sure about that. Texas is already getting away with plenty of outrageously unconstitutional policies as it is, and our current Supreme Court is in a sad state of conservative corruption.

Upchurch

4th March 2010, 08:39 AM

Um as it is not a law, but a statement of republican principles I don't think you can have any judicial review.

My mistake. Apparently, all I saw was "ballot".

To drkitten's point, what does it say if a party's platform includes a promise to break the First Amendment?

Texas is weird.

Beerina

4th March 2010, 08:44 AM

Link (http://www.co.grayson.tx.us/Elections/Republican%20Party%20Primary%202010%20Ballot%20Pro positions.pdf)

Thoughts?

Rejected. However, the Supreme Court's own illogic that supports "In God We Trust" on money could come back to haunt it (the SC) here.

IIRC, the SC's rationale was the words were just cultural, non-religious stuff, which, of course, is exactly the opposite of what it literally means and why it was put there by politicians. Some of the best sophistry they've ever done.

drkitten

4th March 2010, 08:49 AM

My mistake. Apparently, all I saw was "ballot".

To drkitten's point, what does it say if a party's platform includes a promise to break the First Amendment?

That voters are dumb.

In other news, water remains wet, the Pope is indeed Catholic, and I seem to have misplaced the biologists' report on the defecation habits of bears....

rwguinn

4th March 2010, 08:50 AM

drkitten

4th March 2010, 09:02 AM

It's an attempt to get the prayer before football games reinstated.
I think I will insist that the weekly prayer be performed by all religious denominations (Can't wait till the Imam gets his turn, or the Rabbi)

Actually, the big fight will not be over the Imam or the Rabbi, but the Catholic priest.

Or at least, historically, that's what it's been. The SCOTUS has a much easier time disposing of "fringe" religions, but the idea that governments can pick and choose among major christian sects (which is more or less what Texas has been trying to do for decades -- Southern Baptist for the win!) is still a no-no, even with the current group.

Or perhaps especially with the current group -- the current SCOTUS is 6/9 practicing Catholic.

Upchurch

4th March 2010, 09:05 AM

the Pope is indeed Catholic

I hear he also wears a funny hat, but that is unconfirmed.

Tormac

4th March 2010, 02:43 PM

Sorry if this is a bit of topic drift, but I think # 5 is even crazier.

GreyICE

4th March 2010, 06:40 PM

Well, it's a party platform. As such, it can say anything.

But it also implicitly states the thing that the party, if elected, promises to try to enact. Which would be subject to judicial review and would almost certainly be b*tch-slapped into next week.
It's a statement that there is a party in Texas for which the constitution of the United States of America is not a well-written or well-designed document, but for which that document is based on principles designed to fail.

It's basically a statement that for that party, in that state, the constitution was poorly written and a bad idea.

The Constitution is not an immutable document, like the laws of physics. It's merely a statement of certain political beliefs, codified into law.

One party is stating, with this, that they disagree with those principles.

Puppycow

4th March 2010, 11:37 PM

Sorry if this is a bit of topic drift, but I think # 5 is even crazier.

I agree. It would require a woman getting an abortion to undergo a sonogram and be shown the sonogram.

IOW, they want the government to be more involved in healthcare decisions, coming between doctors and patients. So much for limited government.

UnrepentantSinner

5th March 2010, 01:50 AM

Conservative republicans in Texas is are weird.

ftfy

MattusMaximus

5th March 2010, 07:24 AM

I'm feeling a bit rusty on the subject of high school level civics, but this is blatantly unconstitutional, right? It wouldn't withstand any judicial review, would it?

Whether or not it will survive judicial review isn't the point, and I doubt anyone pushing seriously thinks that it will survive a court challenge.

It's just the usual election-year b.s. It's essentially a way to help Rick Perry win the governorship by getting religious conservatives to turn out to vote in November. And, sadly, I fear it will work, even though he's one of the crappiest governors Texas has ever had.

MattusMaximus

5th March 2010, 07:26 AM

I agree. It would require a woman getting an abortion to undergo a sonogram and be shown the sonogram.

IOW, they want the government to be more involved in healthcare decisions, coming between doctors and patients. So much for limited government.

They're full of crap. The bleat on and on about limited government, until they want to use the power of the government to push their religious beliefs on you, and then it's all about "doing God's work" :rolleyes:

mortimer

5th March 2010, 07:39 AM

the same way they're teaching every other subject: with a strong right-wing, revisionist, pro-Christianity, anti-science bias.
I don't suppose you have evidence of this?

drkitten

5th March 2010, 07:41 AM

It's a statement that there is a party in Texas for which the constitution of the United States of America is not a well-written or well-designed document, but for which that document is based on principles designed to fail.

It's basically a statement that for that party, in that state, the constitution was poorly written and a bad idea.

Except that it isn't.

It would take more political testicles than even the Texas Republicans have to suggest that the Constitution is not a well-designed document, or that even that it should be re-written. The party could write a plank suggesting that the Bill of Rights -- or even the First Amendment -- should be amended. But they'd lose big, precisely because the same nuts who are their primary supporters also de-facto worship "the Constitution" (in the same way they worship the Bible -- blindly and without actual knowledge of its contents).

To see this, you have only to look at the various militia groups to whom these Republicans are pandering and look at how they're talking about the "unconstitutional" acts of the current administration, or how the United States needs to "return to constitutional principles." For real fun and games, look at the Oath Keepers: (http://oathkeepers.org/oath/)

Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of currently serving military, reserves, National Guard, veterans, Peace Officers, and Fire Fighters who will fulfill the Oath we swore, with the support of like minded citizens who take an Oath to stand with us, to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help us God. Our Oath is to the Constitution

Our motto is "Not on our watch!"

Oath Keepers was founded by a former Ron Paul staffer (Paul, of course is a Texas policitian) and I believe is also headquartered in Texas; certainly Texas is one of the their larger chapters judging from the testimonial and talk distribution.

One party is stating, with this, that they disagree with those principles.

.... except that they're not.

Towlie

5th March 2010, 07:16 PM

I don't suppose you have evidence of this?Here's (http://www.baptiststandard.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=10813&Itemid=53) a news article from two days ago that you can start out with. If you're still in denial, there's plenty more out there for you to read.

mortimer

6th March 2010, 07:16 AM

Here's (http://www.baptiststandard.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=10813&Itemid=53) a news article from two days ago that you can start out with. If you're still in denial, there's plenty more out there for you to read.
Hmm, so a creationist lost in a primary race for the State Board of Education. This is evidence that Texas public schools teach every subject with a "strong right-wing, revisionist, pro-Christianity, anti-science bias"?

Try again.

ponderingturtle

6th March 2010, 09:02 AM

Hmm, so a creationist lost in a primary race for the State Board of Education. This is evidence that Texas public schools teach every subject with a "strong right-wing, revisionist, pro-Christianity, anti-science bias"?

Try again.

Um you know that he had been in charge of that for rather a long time right?

mortimer

6th March 2010, 09:09 AM

Um you know that he had been in charge of that for rather a long time right?
So it should be easy to find evidence that Texas public schools teach every subject with a "strong right-wing, revisionist, pro-Christianity, anti-science bias", right?

GreyICE

6th March 2010, 11:17 AM

So it should be easy to find evidence that Texas public schools teach every subject with a "strong right-wing, revisionist, pro-Christianity, anti-science bias", right?

And welcome to captain obvious time:
http://skepticalteacher.wordpress.com/2009/03/23/the-textbook-saga-in-texas-continues/

In other news, water is wet, ice is cold, and Texas is trying to stick Christ in textbooks.

mortimer

6th March 2010, 04:33 PM

And welcome to captain obvious time:
http://skepticalteacher.wordpress.com/2009/03/23/the-textbook-saga-in-texas-continues/

In other news, water is wet, ice is cold, and Texas is trying to stick Christ in textbooks.
Congrats. You've shown an opinion piece that claims that the creationists on the Texas Board of Education want to introduce creationism in Texas science textbooks. They likely do.

What you have completely failed to do is show even a tiny bit of evidence that Texas public schools teach every subject with a "strong right-wing, revisionist, pro-Christianity, anti-science bias". I'm not surprised.

Towlie

6th March 2010, 04:45 PM

What you have completely failed to do is show even a tiny bit of evidence that Texas public schools teach every subject with a "strong right-wing, revisionist, pro-Christianity, anti-science bias". I'm not surprised.My apologies. They probably don't teach gym class that way.

mortimer

6th March 2010, 04:50 PM

My apologies. They probably don't teach gym class that way.
Is this your way of saying that you have no evidence to back up your claim? Look, I live in Texas. I attended high school here (after attending California schools) and received a BS degree from a Texas public university. I don't recall any of the bias you claim exists. My child goes to public school here, and I'd be peeved if such bias existed in her curriculum. So I'm all for hearing evidence of the extreme bias you claim exists. So far, you've failed to provide any.

leftysergeant

6th March 2010, 05:11 PM

I don't suppose you have evidence of this?Has Texas ever attempted to insert bthe teaching of creationism uncritically into the science curiculum? If yes, then that statement is true. They are choosing sides with dogmatic religion (which I would call superstition) over science.

UnrepentantSinner

6th March 2010, 11:59 PM

My apologies. They probably don't teach gym class that way.

Take your snobbery and shove it up your panhandle.

Or do you not make it up north to see what they're teaching in their classes?

Alt+F4

7th March 2010, 05:52 AM

My apologies. They probably don't teach gym class that way.

Still no evidence that you have even the slightest idea of how and what they teach in Texas public schools.

ponderingturtle

7th March 2010, 06:12 AM

Is this your way of saying that you have no evidence to back up your claim? Look, I live in Texas. I attended high school here (after attending California schools) and received a BS degree from a Texas public university. I don't recall any of the bias you claim exists. My child goes to public school here, and I'd be peeved if such bias existed in her curriculum. So I'm all for hearing evidence of the extreme bias you claim exists. So far, you've failed to provide any.

Did you miss the whole creationists running the state board of education then ?

Alt+F4

7th March 2010, 06:29 AM

Did you miss the whole creationists running the state board of education then ?

I have yet to see any evidence that classroom teachers in Texas are no longer teaching evolution (or casting doubt on it) just because bureaucrats adopted a flawed set of state science standards.

JoeTheJuggler

7th March 2010, 08:00 AM

I hear he also wears a funny hat, but that is unconfirmed.

And dabbles in Satanism:
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/spanish_exorcist_addresses_claims_of_satanic_influ ence_in_vatican/

I wonder if the Texas Republicans have a platform position against the Roman Catholic Church (these days, that is). . .

mortimer

13th March 2010, 04:51 PM

Did you miss the whole creationists running the state board of education then ?
No. And that is evidence that, in Texas, every subject is taught "with a strong right-wing, revisionist, pro-Christianity, anti-science bias"?

Mind you, creationists have occupied the White House for over 200 years.

drkitten

13th March 2010, 04:54 PM

No. And that is evidence that, in Texas, every subject is taught "with a strong right-wing, revisionist, pro-Christianity, anti-science bias"?

Have you been following the recent news coming out of the state board of education?

They're specifically pushing for every subject to be taught with an explicitly conservative and pro-Christian bias.

I'd say that an official set of teaching standards that mandate "a strong right-wing, revisionist, pro-Christianity, anti-science bias" is pretty good evidence.

Mind you, creationists have occupied the White House for over 200 years.

Really? So, these "creationists" would include Thomas Jefferson?

UnrepentantSinner

13th March 2010, 11:44 PM

Have you been following the recent news coming out of the state board of education?{snip}

Ummm, did you miss this post:
Is this your way of saying that you have no evidence to back up your claim? Look, I live in Texas. I attended high school here (after attending California schools) and received a BS degree from a Texas public university. I don't recall any of the bias you claim exists. My child goes to public school here, and I'd be peeved if such bias existed in her curriculum. So I'm all for hearing evidence of the extreme bias you claim exists. So far, you've failed to provide any.
or fail to notice his location is Austin, Texas... you know, where the state capital is... and where this state BoE circus is likely on the nightly news, well, literally nightly?

Obviously he is utterly ignorant of what's going in with the state BoE or what's being taught currently in Texas public schools. :rolleyes:

mortimer

14th March 2010, 09:40 AM

Ummm, did you miss this post:

or fail to notice his location is Austin, Texas... you know, where the state capital is... and where this state BoE circus is likely on the nightly news, well, literally nightly?

Obviously he is utterly ignorant of what's going in with the state BoE or what's being taught currently in Texas public schools. :rolleyes:
I've been following it quite closely, and I find it abhorrent. It still isn't evidence that every subject in Texas public schools is being taught "with a strong right-wing, revisionist, pro-Christianity, anti-science bias". If that were the case, I'm sure it'd be simple to find some evidence, like a passage from a science book, an English book, and a history book currently in use in Texas that demonstrates that bias.

Wonder why nobody has done so.

Towlie

14th March 2010, 10:31 AM

Mind you, creationists have occupied the White House for over 200 years.I'm trying to figure out your point here, considering that Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species only 150 years ago.

mortimer

14th March 2010, 12:49 PM

I'm trying to figure out your point here, considering that Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species only 150 years ago.
The point is, having creationists in power doesn't necessarily mean that creationism, and other forms of anti-science, makes it into the classroom curriculum.

The day that happens is the same day I pull my daughter out of public school. But to be honest, I think the ideas, attitudes, and critical thinking skills taught at home will have a much greater effect on her than a textbook ever will.

I just have a problem with attitudes I see here that Texas is some back-water state that teaches "a strong right-wing, revisionist, pro-Christianity, anti-science bias" in every subject. If you want to provide evidence that this is the case, feel free. Or you can retract your claim.

MattusMaximus

14th March 2010, 01:21 PM

Congrats. You've shown an opinion piece that claims that the creationists on the Texas Board of Education want to introduce creationism in Texas science textbooks. They likely do.

What you have completely failed to do is show even a tiny bit of evidence that Texas public schools teach every subject with a "strong right-wing, revisionist, pro-Christianity, anti-science bias". I'm not surprised.

Have you been keeping up with how the Texas State BoEd has been messing around with the social studies & history standards? (http://www.tfn.org/site/PageServer?pagename=Social_Studies_Standards) That would see to indicate to me a "strong right-wing, revisionist, pro-Christianity" bias on their part. Btw, they recently passed those whacked out standards :rolleyes:

Now, of course, that doesn't mean that every public school in Texas is going down the rabbit hole, but it certainly gives a lot of political cover to those digging ever deeper.

ETA: I think in just about any state you can find schools that teach b.s. to kids, there are certainly more than a few in Illinois despite us having (in my opinion) standards superior to Texas. The problem in Texas is that you have a top-down mandate from the BoEd which encourages schools to spread b.s. nonsense, while simultaneously providing political cover for those schools who might otherwise run afoul of parents, students, and groups who would challenge them on pushing such nonsense.

MattusMaximus

14th March 2010, 01:23 PM

I've been following it quite closely, and I find it abhorrent. It still isn't evidence that every subject in Texas public schools is being taught "with a strong right-wing, revisionist, pro-Christianity, anti-science bias". If that were the case, I'm sure it'd be simple to find some evidence, like a passage from a science book, an English book, and a history book currently in use in Texas that demonstrates that bias.

Wonder why nobody has done so.

Probably because the BoEd has just recently passed the new textbook standards. You'll be seeing the stupidity in Texas textbooks within the next year or so.

Thunder

14th March 2010, 01:27 PM

i want the word "Allah" plastered over every single NYC govt. building.

MattusMaximus

14th March 2010, 01:29 PM

i want the word "Allah" plastered over every single NYC govt. building.

:confused:

fuelair

14th March 2010, 02:04 PM

Link (http://www.co.grayson.tx.us/Elections/Republican%20Party%20Primary%202010%20Ballot%20Pro positions.pdf)

Thoughts?

Vacuum inhales feces. IMHO.

drkitten

14th March 2010, 02:33 PM

Ummm, did you miss this post:

or fail to notice his location is Austin, Texas... you know, where the state capital is... and where this state BoE circus is likely on the nightly news, well, literally nightly?

Obviously he is utterly ignorant of what's going in with the state

Quite obviously he is, or he wouldn't be asking for evidence that the state is adjusting the teaching standards to reflect the right-wing pro-Christian bias under discussion, or asking for evidence that teachers need to teach in accordance with the standards.

Just because someone lives in Texas doesn't make them not an ill-informed idiot. I suspect quite the opposite.

Towlie

14th March 2010, 03:45 PM

I just have a problem with attitudes I see here that Texas is some back-water state that teaches "a strong right-wing, revisionist, pro-Christianity, anti-science bias" in every subject. If you want to provide evidence that this is the case, feel free. Or you can retract your claim.If you have a problem with that claim then you have a problem with reality. Here are over six million, five hundred seventy thousand bits of evidence (http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&=&q=texas+textbooks&aq=f&aqi=g10&oq=) that the situation in your state is much worse than you apparently think it is.

drkitten

14th March 2010, 04:08 PM

The point is, having creationists in power doesn't necessarily mean that creationism, and other forms of anti-science, makes it into the classroom curriculum.

No, of course not. Teachers are completely free to ignore the curriculum that is set by state law, buy their own textbooks to replace the ones that were hand-picked by the state board and shipped at state expense to the classroom, and to teach any material they want without regard to the official TAKS tests.

And no one in the school administration could possibly have any objection to that kind of roll-your-own approach to curriculum.

I just have a problem with attitudes I see here that Texas is some back-water state that teaches "a strong right-wing, revisionist, pro-Christianity, anti-science bias" in every subject.

You have a problem with attitudes. I have a problem with the reality that produces that attitude. If you want to fix the attitude, fix the underlying reality.

mortimer

15th March 2010, 07:49 AM

If you have a problem with that claim then you have a problem with reality. Here are over six million, five hundred seventy thousand bits of evidence (http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&=&q=texas+textbooks&aq=f&aqi=g10&oq=) that the situation in your state is much worse than you apparently think it is.
You're going to use the number of Google hits for "texas textbooks" as evidence? Really?

drkitten

15th March 2010, 07:59 AM

You're going to use the number of Google hits for "texas textbooks" as evidence? Really?

No. He's going to use the millions of articles that Google finds as evidence. It's not the number, it's the contents.

For example, link #4 (on my view, at least, is a HuffPo article stating that "A far-right faction of the Texas State Board of Education succeeded Friday in injecting conservative ideals into social studies, history and economics lessons that will be taught to millions of students for the next decade.

Board member Cynthia Dunbar wants to change a standard having students study the impact of Enlightenment ideas on political revolutions from 1750 to the present. She wants to drop the reference to Enlightenment ideas (replacing with “the writings of”) and to Thomas Jefferson. She adds Thomas Aquinas and others. Jefferson’s ideas, she argues, were based on other political philosophers listed in the standards. We don’t buy her argument at all. Board member Bob Craig of Lubbock points out that the curriculum writers clearly wanted to students to study Enlightenment ideas and Jefferson. Could Dunbar’s problem be that Jefferson was a Deist? The board approves the amendment, taking Thomas Jefferson OUT of the world history standards."

So, we eliminate Jefferson (a Deist) and replace him with Aquinas (a Catholic theologian). In what way is this not a "right-wing pro-Christian bias"?

To continue from the HuffPo article, "Ultraconservatives wielded their power over hundreds of subjects this week, introducing and rejecting amendments on everything from the civil rights movement to global politics."

Hundreds of subjects this week.

Let me turn it around. Can you cite a single piece of actual evidence that the recent changes are anything other than a state mandate to teach with "a strong right-wing, revisionist, pro-Christianity, anti-science bias." If that's not what it is, what is it?

Towlie

15th March 2010, 08:49 AM

You're going to use the number of Google hits for "texas textbooks" as evidence? Really?No, I'm not using the number itself as evidence, I'm pointing you to that number of individual pieces of evidence. It's precisely what you've repeatedly demanded, but now that it's been provided to you I get the impression that you intend to ignore it. Am I right?

Almo

15th March 2010, 10:59 AM

I have yet to see any evidence that classroom teachers in Texas are no longer teaching evolution (or casting doubt on it) just because bureaucrats adopted a flawed set of state science standards.

They didn't teach evolution or sex-ed in Biology when I was in high school in Texas. The teacher side-stepped it by saying he couldn't teach it but that it would be useful if we read certain chapters.

rwguinn

15th March 2010, 11:03 AM

No, I'm not using the number itself as evidence, I'm pointing you to that number of individual pieces of evidence. It's precisely what you've repeatedly demanded, but now that it's been provided to you I get the impression that you intend to ignore it. Am I right?
Well, since the text books used in Texas end up in the majority of the other States, that must mean your Boards of Education totally agree with Texas, then, huh?
What a bunch of sheeple...

ponderingturtle

15th March 2010, 11:22 AM

Well, since the text books used in Texas end up in the majority of the other States, that must mean your Boards of Education totally agree with Texas, then, huh?

No it is that no one wants to cater the BOE of some small town, they are not a large enough market to bother with. As Texas is the largest single buyer for text books, they have a strong effect on what most publishers will make.

drkitten

15th March 2010, 11:24 AM

Well, since the text books used in Texas end up in the majority of the other States, that must mean your Boards of Education totally agree with Texas, then, huh?

No, it means you can't buy what isn't for sale.

Towlie

15th March 2010, 11:38 AM

Well, since the text books used in Texas end up in the majority of the other States, that must mean your Boards of Education totally agree with Texas, then, huh?Not totally, no.

If your point is that other states are guilty in this regard as well, you're absolutely right. Texas isn't the only backward, right-wing, science-denying state in the union, just the worst.

Alferd_Packer

15th March 2010, 11:44 AM

Link (http://www.co.grayson.tx.us/Elections/Republican%20Party%20Primary%202010%20Ballot%20Pro positions.pdf)

Thoughts?

This would violate the distinction between public speach and goverment speach.

It is a waste of the taxpayers money for the effort to defend this is a court of law as this WILL get challenged.

drkitten

15th March 2010, 11:48 AM

Not totally, no.

If your point is that other states are guilty in this regard as well, you're absolutely right. Texas isn't the only backward, right-wing, science-denying state in the union, just the worst.

I'm not even sure it's the worst, just the most influential.

The first problem is that most states don't have a state Board of Education that is responsible for textbook selection; instead, they leave that up to individual districts. (For example, the Dover Pandas Trial was about the choice by the Dover, PA, school board to mandate the teaching of creationism, but that doesn't affect teaching or textbooks in Bethlehem, PA). Texas is one of a relatively substantial minority that makes decisions state-wide.

The second problem is that Texas is a huge state in terms of population, and therefore in terms of textbook purchases. While California is an even larger state, California doesn't mandate state-wide adoption of textbooks, so San Francisco can pick different texts (with different slants) than Eureka.

This makes Texas the 800-lb gorilla in the room; if you make a textbook that won't pass muster with the Texas SBOE, then you've just decided to write off the single largest customer in the industry.

There's really little that the city of San Francisco (or of Bethlehem, PA) can do to offset Texas' influence in the marketplace.

Alferd_Packer

15th March 2010, 11:51 AM

At what point are the authors of those textbooks going to put their foot(s) down and insist that the publishers not floow the Texas model?

GreyICE

15th March 2010, 11:57 AM

Well, since the text books used in Texas end up in the majority of the other States, that must mean your Boards of Education totally agree with Texas, then, huh?
What a bunch of sheeple...

The best way to show American ignorance as non-unique is to show idiotic ignorance of America.

This qualifies. Good job. Can't decide if it's a subtle parody, or actual international idiotic generalization, but either way, I think you failed at accomplishing what you wished to.

drkitten

15th March 2010, 12:05 PM

At what point are the authors of those textbooks going to put their foot(s) down and insist that the publishers not floow the Texas model?

Approximately the other side of never.

ponderingturtle

15th March 2010, 12:17 PM

This would violate the distinction between public speach and goverment speach.

It is a waste of the taxpayers money for the effort to defend this is a court of law as this WILL get challenged.

This isn't about getting a law passed, it is about getting a platform to make people vote for them. Its constitutionality is only relevant if they try to pass laws about it, but as a political platform, you can keep running on this for decades, while if ruled unconstitutional you really couldn't.

ponderingturtle

15th March 2010, 12:20 PM

At what point are the authors of those textbooks going to put their foot(s) down and insist that the publishers not floow the Texas model?

So some author does, with high school and lower texts, do the authors have the power to make the publishers do anything, or have they just put themselves out of work?

drkitten

15th March 2010, 01:00 PM

So some author does, with high school and lower texts, do the authors have the power to make the publishers do anything, or have they just put themselves out of work?

They've just put themselves out of work, of course.

Publishers generally won't even look at unsolicited high school and lower textbooks. The complexity of navigating the various state curricula is sufficiently high that the publishers generally have the books written to order by authors. Most of the time they're written by committee, because the publisher can't find a single author who has the necessary skill, and then they're painstakingly re-written by professional copy editors to give them relatively uniform style and to make sure that all the i's are dotted and t's crossed.

Essentially, the copy editor has an office filled with every relevant state curriculum standards and is going through line by line to make sure that the requirements are satisfied.

If an author refused to play this game,.... well, that would be like Boeing telling the Air Force "we know what you wanted to build and what you contracted for was a fighter jet, but we would rather build a helicopter." Or a carpenter telling the architect "Well, I know you wanted a three-story building, but I won't work on anything higher than two stories, so you're just going to have to scrap the blueprints and tell the client to scale down his project."

I.e. it won't wash.

I looked into the idea of writing an elementary school science textbook a few years back, thinking (in my naivete) that it was just like writing a college text and I simply had to have a unique slant in the proposal. I was,.... wrong. Proposing to write a textbook for the elementary school market would have been like my proposing to build a fighter jet for the Air Force.

ponderingturtle

15th March 2010, 01:03 PM

They've just put themselves out of work, of course.

Publishers generally won't even look at unsolicited high school and lower textbooks. The complexity of navigating the various state curricula is sufficiently high that the publishers generally have the books written to order by authors. Most of the time they're written by committee,

That is pretty much what I thought, I couldn't remember ever thinking of a book as being by Such and Such, until I got into college. Then I saw Halliday, Resnick and Walker and I thought about text books in terms of the authors.

drkitten

15th March 2010, 01:20 PM

That is pretty much what I thought, I couldn't remember ever thinking of a book as being by Such and Such, until I got into college. Then I saw Halliday, Resnick and Walker and I thought about text books in terms of the authors.

Actually, even Halliday, Resnick, and company provide a pretty good example of the perils of textbook publishing. That's into what, it's 6th edition? The entry level history text by Palmer and Colton (and now Kramer) is into its 10th.

I'm not entirely convinced that Halliday has ever met Walker. The "giants in the field," at this point, have achieved the status of textbook-by-committee simply because the publishers (which hold the rights) have established this particular approach as being extremely saleable.

And much of the time, they'd rather have the books edited to bring them up to date (but keep most of the same material and approach) than try something new and have to re-establish the market. Palmer has been dead for nearly ten years, and Colton has been retired for more than twenty -- but Kramer still revises the history book for them, and when Kramer is no longer available, we'll probably see the 12th edition come out as Palmer, Colton, Kramer, and Dinglefritz (or whoever).

I doubt I could make headway into the freshman physics textbook market, either. I can't go up against the ghost of David Halliday.

ETA: minor correction. Apparently the 8th edition of Halliday, et al, came out in 2008.

ponderingturtle

15th March 2010, 01:26 PM

Actually, even Halliday, Resnick, and company provide a pretty good example of the perils of textbook publishing. That's into what, it's 6th edition? The entry level history text by Palmer and Colton (and now Kramer) is into its 10th.

I'm not entirely convinced that Halliday has ever met Walker. The "giants in the field," at this point, have achieved the status of textbook-by-committee simply because the publishers (which hold the rights) have established this particular approach as being extremely saleable.

And much of the time, they'd rather have the books edited to bring them up to date (but keep most of the same material and approach) than try something new and have to re-establish the market. Palmer has been dead for nearly ten years, and Colton has been retired for more than twenty -- but Kramer still revises the history book for them, and when Kramer is no longer available, we'll probably see the 12th edition come out as Palmer, Colton, Kramer, and Dinglefritz (or whoever).

I doubt I could make headway into the freshman physics textbook market, either. I can't go up against the ghost of David Halliday.

Hmm, I wonder if the textbooks on auto mechanics my grandfather wrote still have his name on them in the current editions.(He hasn't worked on them for 25 years or more). I will have to ask him.

rwguinn

15th March 2010, 01:48 PM

Not totally, no.

If your point is that other states are guilty in this regard as well, you're absolutely right. Texas isn't the only backward, right-wing, science-denying state in the union, just the worst.
Since the Texas BOe requires these books, all Texans are guilty
My state BOe requires these books, but we are not guilty

Towlie

15th March 2010, 03:19 PM

I was just wondering about this idea that other states have to accept textbooks written the way Texas wants them. Why can't publishers print different versions for other states? What's the big deal?

fuelair

15th March 2010, 04:18 PM

At what point are the authors of those textbooks going to put their foot(s) down and insist that the publishers not floow the Texas model?
Do you mean the grad assistants who do 90% plus of the work and simply follow what the professor whose name goes on the cover tells them to do so he/she can make some semi-decent outside money?:)

drkitten

15th March 2010, 05:40 PM

I was just wondering about this idea that other states have to accept textbooks written the way Texas wants them. Why can't publishers print different versions for other states? What's the big deal?

Printing textbooks is expensive. More accurately, editing textbooks is expensive. A "different version" costs almost as much as an entirely new textbook, sometimes in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Especially when the "different states" don't select textbooks on a statewide basis, but on a city or district wide one.... the city of Baltimore can't generate enough sales to justify creating another Baltimore-centric edition. The state of Texas can generate enough sales, and if New York or California picked books on a state-wide basis, it might be worth creating a Texas edition and a California edition.

But individual cities, even in California, and less populous states in their entirety, simply don't draw enough water.....

UnrepentantSinner

18th March 2010, 11:07 PM

Quite obviously he is, or he wouldn't be asking for evidence that the state is adjusting the teaching standards to reflect the right-wing pro-Christian bias under discussion, or asking for evidence that teachers need to teach in accordance with the standards.

B.S. and selective myopia on your part. Here's specifically what he's been asking since Towlie offered his brilliant insight about every subject.

No. And that is evidence that, in Texas, every subject is taught "with a strong right-wing, revisionist, pro-Christianity, anti-science bias"?

And thus far all he's been told is that he's ignorant of the fact that every subject is taught in such a manner because of the current boards actions regarding social studies. How does repeating something he clearly already is aware of providing evidence that in Texas, every subject is taught "with a strong right-wing, revisionist, pro-Christianity, anti-science bias?

Just because someone lives in Texas doesn't make them not an ill-informed idiot. I suspect quite the opposite.

You can suspect all you want. That won't make it true though. Man, critical thinking can get thrown right out the window here when it comes to religion or politics faster than a water balloon during a fraternity hell week.

No, I'm not using the number itself as evidence, I'm pointing you to that number of individual pieces of evidence. It's precisely what you've repeatedly demanded, but now that it's been provided to you I get the impression that you intend to ignore it. Am I right?

How does Googling "texas textbooks" support your assertion that in Texas, every subject is taught "with a strong right-wing, revisionist, pro-Christianity, anti-science bias? I mean I can get almost 2 mil. hits for Morse code but that doesn't prove anything about the telecom industry.