A disturbing report concerning education policy in Texas cautions that the national textbook market may soon be flooded with products that advocate rather than educate. The Lone Star State recently approved changes to social studies, economics, and history textbooks that would drastically alter what the next generation of students learn. While the School Board has yet to finalize the changes (there is a required period of public comment), the initial 10-5 vote for approval suggests that acceptance is all but assured. Perhaps unintuitively, policy decisions concerning education in Texas -- ostensibly a local issue -- spawn potentially national ramifications because "the Texas School Board effectively spells out requirements for 80 percent of the nation's textbook market." Thus, it is important to take notice of how the materials for the nation's students might be altered.
The changes proposed by the Texas School Board have generated so much consternation because they would require that educational materials include questionable elements that impose an admittedly conservative gloss on their contents. Neither end of the political spectrum denies the somewhat flagrant manipulation at issue. While critical members of the School Board decry the move as an attempt to promote an extremist ideology, the conservative majority maintains that "academia is skewed too far to the left" and that "balance" must be restored. In all fairness, this is not an argument that should be dismissed out of hand. Education is a dynamic and vital part of our national culture and it should represent many different viewpoints fairly and accurately. An educational system that advocates only liberal ideas is as flawed and undesirable as one that stresses conservative beliefs, and it is frankly questionable to expect that liberal adherents are the best proponents of conservative aims. Tensions between political ideals and contested values are built into the American system in countless areas precisely so that oppositional ideologies will be respected and adequately represented. As such, a claim of imbalance or bias deserves -- indeed demands -- conscientious examination.
The conservative position is misleading, however, because it willfully ignores the essential natures of opposing educational philosophies -- undermining neutrality while purporting to achieve balance. Clearly, the goal of any educational system should be to produce intelligent, well-equipped students who possess the knowledge and abilities required for them to achieve success and become valuable citizens. The fundamental question in a democratic and deeply diverse society is how to most effectively and fairly achieve this goal. In point of fact, conservative critics who lament that "academia" generally embraces liberal ideals more readily could be correct. There is some evidence that universities and other centers of learning sometimes demonstrate left-leaning tendencies. There are several reasons, however, why the converse -- or even an increased focus on conservative values in the name of compensation -- is undesirable if one is to achieve legitimate educational goals.
The most salient argument is that a liberal educational philosophy generally values and seeks to expound as many differing viewpoints as possible while a conservative philosophy by definition must reject some ideas in order to preserve what are designated as vital principles. It is important to recognize that this observation is judgment neutral -- it says nothing about the actual value of the principles at issue or the importance of teaching those ideals to students. A conservative philosophy may, in fact, emphasize perfectly laudable concepts but it is dishonest not to acknowledge that a perspective focusing on conservation of values and beliefs is in tension with an appreciation for the inclusion of opposing ideas. One cannot conserve one way of thinking while expanding and incorporating novel concepts. The conservative model may be appropriate for some instances; for example, in a homogeneous society where core principles are universally shared and consistently rearticulated. It is woefully inadequate, however, for a fast-paced, dynamic, and heterogeneous nation composed of strikingly diverse citizens who hold infinitely varied views on almost every subject. Survival and success in such an environment is contingent on an ability to appreciate and understand beliefs that differ from one's own -- skills that are not gleaned from educational materials delimited by idiosyncratic perspectives.
Support for this analysis can be found in a brief review of several of the changes tentatively approved by the Texas School Board:
I. "A greater emphasis on the conservative resurgence of the 1980s and 1990s."
This directive would require more or better converage of conservative and antifeminist activisit Phyllis Schlafly, the Moral Majority, Newt Gingrich, etc. The School Board is correct that such information should be included in educational materials and given the appropriate weight. It is, after all, important that historical changes in political and social culture be accurately documented, preserved, and taught. "Greater emphasis" may be actually be required if the information from this period is not presented appropriately relative to other material. This, however, does not appear to be the case.
While pleasing to conservative persons, the 20-year span at issue is hardly an historical moment that inherently transcends other social and temporal periods. This is not the same as saying that important achievements were not made or that so-called 'liberal' eras should receive better treatment -- it is just as important to emphasize past conservative periods and to compare one brand of conservatism to another. The overall point is that students must learn to contrast and form their own conclusions, because both private and civic life will require that they do so. Designating such a brief time as especially important because some the prevailing political ideology compelling is simply misleading and irresponsible.
II. "Changes in specific terminology."
This suggestion would alter certain terms in order to introduce new connotations for traditional ideas. Examples include changing American "imperialism" to "expansionism," "capitalism" to "the free market," and "stressing favorable depictions of America's economic superiority across the board." Not only are these inventive alterations in many cases less precise, they are also patently unnecessary to serve any purpose other than blatant political manipulation. It is frankly wrong to implicitly deny points in history where American actions are accurately described by negative terminology -- especially when such labels are freely applied to similar actions by other countries. Without acknowledgment of its own errors no nation can learn, improve, and move forward.
Similarly, it is not the place of economics textbooks to extol the virtues of the American system over those of competing designs. It may be that the American economic system is superior and any commentator is certainly free to say so in articles, books, papers, blogs, etc. Textbooks, however, should strive to present information objectively and should never restrict information in an attempt to convey a "favorable impression." Obscuring legitimate criticisms of the American capitalist system is dishonest and perhaps even pointless. After all, if it truly is superior then presumably the benefits of capitalism will vastly outweigh the costs, leading students to reach the same desired conclusion without any need for deception.
III. Revision of the the legacy of the Founding Fathers.
Perhaps the most striking revision offering by the Texas School Board is the diminution of the importance of Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, as an important intellectual force behind the Revolution. Instead, textbooks would emphasize thinkers such as St. Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin, and William Blackstone. While these individuals certainly deserve consideration as important giants in philosophical and legal thought, it is hard not to take notice of the fact that preference is given to religious philosophers while more secular theorists (such as Jefferson, who was a Deist) are ignored. There are clear indications that the School Board is seeking to emphasize the "strict Christian beliefs" that guided the foundation of the country -- an assertion that serves a baldly political and religious purpose, takes great liberties with academic accuracy, and sharply divorces fact from historical context.
Moreover, that the aim of education should be restricted to secular instruction is too established to be questioned. The ultimate goal is not and cannot be religious or spiritual education; such tutelage is rightly reserved to the individual student's religious community (or in the case of a parochial school, special classes and periods that explicitly focus on religious principles). Attempting to mold students in a specific religious image violates the autonomy and rights of nearly all involved, and seeking to accomplish this end through the rewriting of textbooks and history is deplorable.
