Texas Education Agency's (TEA) 'TEKS' Board (Texas Education Knowledge and Skills) is set to vote in January on a Board recommendation to remove Neil Armstrong's name from 5th Grade Social Study textbooks.
"Too many names to remember" as reason. Besides, his was not a science feat, claims the board.
Some astonished Texans "believe there is an agenda to minimize early American conquests".
And, this is TEXAS! Can you imagine what's going on in Vermont?
Link to source?
Quote from: Wrinkle on September 24, 2009, 11:43:52 PM
And, this is TEXAS! Can you imagine what's going on in Vermont?
Getting a better education, no doubt. Vermont always does well with education ratings.
http://www.morganquitno.com/edrank.htm
Quote from: custosnox on September 25, 2009, 01:25:49 AM
Link to source?
Sorry, thought I did.
http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/2009/09/neil_armstrong_isnt_worthy_of_texas_textbooks.html (http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/2009/09/neil_armstrong_isnt_worthy_of_texas_textbooks.html)
http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/2009/09/armstrong_part_two.html (http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/2009/09/armstrong_part_two.html)
Quote from: rwarn17588 on September 25, 2009, 01:43:07 AM
Getting a better education, no doubt. Vermont always does well with education ratings.
http://www.morganquitno.com/edrank.htm
I'd question any "smartest" ratings which associate intelligence with School Revenue per $1,000 of Personal Income (#1), Average Teacher Salary as Percent of Average Pay for All Workers. (#11), Average Class Size (#17 & #18), Special Education Student-Teacher Ratio (#15) and Median Pupil-Teacher Ratio (#19-#21), among others.
http://www.morganquitno.com/edfact06.htm#FACTORS (http://www.morganquitno.com/edfact06.htm#FACTORS)
And, it says nothing about what students are actually being taught, especially with regard to Social Studies, Science and History.
Quote from: Wrinkle on September 25, 2009, 07:24:47 AM
I'd question any "smartest" ratings which associate intelligence with School Revenue per $1,000 of Personal Income (#1), Average Teacher Salary as Percent of Average Pay for All Workers. (#11), Average Class Size (#17 & #18), Special Education Student-Teacher Ratio (#15) and Median Pupil-Teacher Ratio (#19-#21), among others.
http://www.morganquitno.com/edfact06.htm#FACTORS (http://www.morganquitno.com/edfact06.htm#FACTORS)
And, it says nothing about what students are actually being taught, especially with regard to Social Studies, Science and History.
OK. Well, Vermont has an average ACT score more than two points higher than Texas -- well above 10 percent better.
http://www.act.org/news/data/09/states.html
You disparaged the quality of education in Vermont. When I showed you evidence that clearly showed the contrary, you disparage the study.
Then you fret about what the kids are being taught in Vermont, and I have a study that clearly shows that Vermont kids doing better than Texas kids.
What's so bad about the education system in Vermont (especially in comparison to Texas)? How would you know? Let's have some facts here to support your notion.
Get real. Last week it was reported Nation wide that only %23 of high schoolers from my home state know who the first president of the US was....there is a purpose behind dumbing down our students. And no, FOTD does not don a tin hat. The evidence speaks for itself. Especially in the secessionist states.
I don't like blogs as reputal sources, though he does link back to a paper (at least I think that is what it is). However, I did some digging and found this Historical Figures by Grade Level for Texashttp://www.tea.state.tx.us/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=6414 (http://www.tea.state.tx.us/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=6414) which does have Neil, along with others, crossed out. Now the interesting one is for grade 4 which has State and local government leaders cross out and put underneath it is Texans as President of the United States.
Everything I have been able to find on the subject gives the reason for removing him as either he is not a scientist, or because the room was needed in curriculim to teach about Christmas....
No. I think you miss the point. You see, we never really landed on the moon. Armstrong was a patsy. It was just a stage setup. Folks in Texas probably are aware of that. ;)
Quote from: waterboy on September 25, 2009, 02:23:09 PM
No. I think you miss the point. You see, we never really landed on the moon. Armstrong was a patsy. It was just a stage setup. Folks in Texas probably are aware of that. ;)
Oh yes, I forgot that the studio was located in Texas, which gave them the insiders knowledge on that. Are the Flatearthers relocating their headquarters there? (for the first time in my life, I'm almost ashamed to call myself a Texan, btw)
Maybe Texans brains can't remember the Alamo and all them there different Armstrong fellas. If you had to pick between Neil Armstrong, Louie Armstrong, Jack Armstrong, and Lance Armstrong, you would pick the bicycling one from Texas.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on September 25, 2009, 02:51:13 PM
Maybe Texans brains can't remember the Alamo and all them there different Armstrong fellas. If you had to pick between Neil Armstrong, Louie Armstrong, Jack Armstrong, and Lance Armstrong, you would pick the bicycling one from Texas.
Well, you know I would anyhow. ;)
Quote from: waterboy on September 25, 2009, 02:23:09 PM
No. I think you miss the point. You see, we never really landed on the moon. Armstrong was a patsy. It was just a stage setup. Folks in Texas probably are aware of that. ;)
I thought that all happened on a Hollywood sound stage. One of the James Bond movies would seem to indicate that.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on September 25, 2009, 10:05:09 AM
OK. Well, Vermont has an average ACT score more than two points higher than Texas -- well above 10 percent better.
http://www.act.org/news/data/09/states.html
You disparaged the quality of education in Vermont. When I showed you evidence that clearly showed the contrary, you disparage the study.
Then you fret about what the kids are being taught in Vermont, and I have a study that clearly shows that Vermont kids doing better than Texas kids.
What's so bad about the education system in Vermont (especially in comparison to Texas)? How would you know? Let's have some facts here to support your notion.
To start, I didn't blast Vermont's educational achievements, quality, or compare their intelligence, based upon anything, to Texas. Based upon your initial reply, I did question 'intelligence' ratings based upon the criteria used (by their own admission). That would apply to all listed schools, not just Texas or Vermont.
Since you appear to have missed it, it was about political leanings. Vermont is a liberal state, Texas a conservative state. If a conservative state is acting this way, I asked one to imagine what might be happening in a liberal state, like Vermont.
That would have little to do with test scores, or general intelligence.
Quote from: Wrinkle on September 26, 2009, 01:48:18 PM
To start, I didn't blast Vermont's educational achievements, quality, or compare their intelligence, based upon anything, to Texas. Based upon your initial reply, I did question 'intelligence' ratings based upon the criteria used (by their own admission). That would apply to all listed schools, not just Texas or Vermont.
Since you appear to have missed it, it was about political leanings. Vermont is a liberal state, Texas a conservative state. If a conservative state is acting this way, I asked one to imagine what might be happening in a liberal state, like Vermont.
That would have little to do with test scores, or general intelligence.
Glad you finally cleared that up, although the leanings argument wasn't mentioned at all in your initial post.
Although whether Vermont is conservative or whether Texas is liberal is irrelevant. The reasoning for dumping Armstrong from the books is decidedly nonpartisan. Anyone who thinks Armstrong is a scientist is the type who thinks a faith healer is a licensed physician.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on September 26, 2009, 02:59:45 PM
Glad you finally cleared that up, although the leanings argument wasn't mentioned at all in your initial post.
Although whether Vermont is conservative or whether Texas is liberal is irrelevant. The reasoning for dumping Armstrong from the books is decidedly nonpartisan.
...is it now?
Quote from: Wrinkle on September 26, 2009, 03:02:20 PM
...is it now?
Well, do you have any proof that it isn't? The explanation was made, and it's airtight reasoning.
Assumptions by you are not proof.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on September 26, 2009, 02:59:45 PM
Glad you finally cleared that up, although the leanings argument wasn't mentioned at all in your initial post.
Although whether Vermont is conservative or whether Texas is liberal is irrelevant. The reasoning for dumping Armstrong from the books is decidedly nonpartisan. Anyone who thinks Armstrong is a scientist is the type who thinks a faith healer is a licensed physician.
Ya see, I doubt a majority of people would agree with you on that.
The article did state some other achievements by Mr. Armstrong besides the ability to descend a short ladder. Offhand, being a test pilot at Dryden, in aircraft which may or may not even fly, has some scientific conotations.
He has B.S. and Master degrees in Areospace Engineering (Purdue, then USC, after being accepted to MIT) and worked at DARPA for awhile before becoming a professor of areospace engineering at Cincinnati University after his astronaut days.
He served on the boards of two NASA Investigations, that of the Apollo 13 and the Roger's Commission investigating the Challenger accident.
Did I mention that he piloted the first manned landing on the Moon?
To compare his work as faith healing vs medical doctor is insulting, to him and to the entire space program.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on September 26, 2009, 03:03:57 PM
Well, do you have any proof that it isn't? The explanation was made, and it's airtight reasoning.
Assumptions by you are not proof.
'Airtight reasoning' it wasn't. It was their ostensible justification. No motivation was given. All of it was crap, imo.
Poor little 5th graders "have too many names to remember" is not a reason, it's a justification. Poor one at that. Besides, Neil Armstrong is one of the few names I would wish kids to know about for sure.
Quote from: Wrinkle on September 26, 2009, 05:04:10 PM
Ya see, I doubt a majority of people would agree with you on that.
The article did state some other achievements by Mr. Armstrong besides the ability to descend a short ladder. Offhand, being a test pilot at Dryden, in aircraft which may or may not even fly, has some scientific conotations.
He has B.S. and Master degrees in Areospace Engineering (Purdue, then USC, after being accepted to MIT) and worked at DARPA for awhile before becoming a professor of areospace engineering at Cincinnati University after his astronaut days.
He served on the boards of two NASA Investigations, that of the Apollo 13 and the Roger's Commission investigating the Challenger accident.
Did I mention that he piloted the first manned landing on the Moon?
To compare his work as faith healing vs medical doctor is insulting, to him and to the entire space program.
All those things may look OK on a resume, but they sure don't make you a scientist -- especially when a good portion of the things you listed occurred *after* his space flight.
What scientific papers has he written? What invention or innovation did he create? He may have been the first man on the moon, but being on a space capsule that's nearly completely controlled by others sure doesn't make you a scientist. It's more of a role of guinea pig. And I've read a few accounts by former astronauts who fully admit that's what they essentially were. There were more scientific *subjects*, not scientists themselves.
With your sort of logic, Laika the dog should be described as a scientist, too.
As far as Texas' reasoning being "crap," you admit that's your opinion. That doesn't mean much. Give facts to support your contention. You haven't done a very good job with that so far, except that the proposal has hurt your po' widdle feelings.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on September 27, 2009, 10:48:43 AM
All those things may look OK on a resume, but they sure don't make you a scientist -- especially when a good portion of the things you listed occurred *after* his space flight.
What scientific papers has he written? What invention or innovation did he create? He may have been the first man on the moon, but being on a space capsule that's nearly completely controlled by others sure doesn't make you a scientist. It's more of a role of guinea pig. And I've read a few accounts by former astronauts who fully admit that's what they essentially were. There were more scientific *subjects*, not scientists themselves.
With your sort of logic, Laika the dog should be described as a scientist, too.
As far as Texas' reasoning being "crap," you admit that's your opinion. That doesn't mean much. Give facts to support your contention. You haven't done a very good job with that so far, except that the proposal has hurt your po' widdle feelings.
Your ignorance is showing here.
The 'Eagle' landing was completely controlled by the pilot. If you knew anything about our space program, you'd have known that.
And, from 1961 until the Eagle touchdown, everything the NASA team did was research, innovation, invention and technical development in very real terms. Neil Armstrong was a large part of that process.
The 'guinea pig' comment was one made early in the Mercury program, by one astronaunt, during an early 'reasearch' mission testing attributes of space flight. Some of that research centered on man's ability to physically handle the environment. Unknowns being reconciled. I think that's called research.
If you think no papers, innovation or knowledge were produced from these experiments, I suggest you go search the NASA archives.
In fact, the microprocessor your pc uses is a direct descendant of space research.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on September 27, 2009, 10:48:43 AM
All those things may look OK on a resume, but they sure don't make you a scientist -- especially when a good portion of the things you listed occurred *after* his space flight.
What scientific papers has he written? What invention or innovation did he create? He may have been the first man on the moon, but being on a space capsule that's nearly completely controlled by others sure doesn't make you a scientist. It's more of a role of guinea pig. And I've read a few accounts by former astronauts who fully admit that's what they essentially were. There were more scientific *subjects*, not scientists themselves.
With your sort of logic, Laika the dog should be described as a scientist, too.
As far as Texas' reasoning being "crap," you admit that's your opinion. That doesn't mean much. Give facts to support your contention. You haven't done a very good job with that so far, except that the proposal has hurt your po' widdle feelings.
I have to ask, in all reality, what differance does it make if he was a scientist or not? Is the future of our science class going to consist of "okay children, years ago, some guy, who wasn't a scientist so his name isn't important, took the first step on the moon"? Or are we just going to pretend that we didn't go to the moon? Should we start picking through all of history and ignore all contributions because the person making them don't meet up to some criteria?
I think it's petty to remove him, but at the same time it isn't that big of a deal. I would expect Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin to be the two astronauts school kids would know. Then again, in my world, they'd also have some clue about why Einstein was seen as a genius and who Oppenheimer was. Bah, my standards would require kids to learn.
If my 9 year old can understand, on a basic level, relativity, particle theory, and the like . . . why can't high school kids? I'm not saying they need to be able to do the math associated with it or extrapolate the theory - but they can understand that as things move faster time slows down, and know that such information is actually useful given our reliance on satellites. I'd assume the 5 seconds they need to learn the the names of a couple astronauts wouldn't infringe on such learning?
And by the way:
Science: a method of learning about the physical universe by applying the principles of the scientific method, which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways.
The whole "god snapped his fingers" theory of the origin of things wouldn't count as "science" either. Strange that in Texas a school district can teach creationism as part of a science curriculum when they care so much about making sure science class is only for science.
- - -
The real reason they had to remove Armstrong was to avoid confusion with the more important Texas Armstrong:
(http://cefromthepc.com/larmstrong/images/lance3.jpg%5Dhttp://cefromthepc.com/larmstrong/images/lance3.jpg)
Quote from: cannon_fodder on September 28, 2009, 10:08:45 AM
The whole "god snapped his fingers" theory of the origin of things wouldn't count as "science" either. Strange that in Texas a school district can teach creationism as part of a science curriculum when they care so much about making sure science class is only for science.
As far as I know, and can find, Texas has not included creatism into the science cirriculum. In fact, the state that I am aware of that has done this was Kansas, which ended after the Flying Spaghetti Monstor onslot. Earlier this year, the "Strength & Weaknesses" argument on evolution was taken out, and the creationists threw a fit and fought to get it back in. Still haven't found the outcome of this.
You're right. I thought Texas had decided TO include it during the last debate. It appears Creationism is not in the curriculum in Texas, but you can teach it by using some loopholes if you want to (per a quick Google Search).
My bad for jumping to a conclusion. But now my hypothesis has been tested and failed. So I'll change my understanding to include the new data. How very scientific. :)
As I am perceiving things today, Creationism's definition has expanded by a magnitude of power to include 'Evolution', should it be proven.
That is, if evoluton exists, then He created it, too.
But, that's a whole 'nuther thread.
QuoteThe real reason they had to remove Armstrong was to avoid confusion with the more important Texas Armstrong:
LOL, yeah, he didn't have to use any of those damn fossel fuels.
Never mind the metal parts, welding, castings of his bike, and the leathers of his wears.
The real concern here is that textbook companies don't offer multiple editions of a textbook. (Too expensive.) When large/populous states such as California, NY, or Texas require specific language/changes, they affect all the students in the nation who use that particular textbook.
(This is especially disturbing when you see states trying to eliminate evolution from science textbooks. Just b/c one state wants to live in a backwater swamp of myth and misinformation, it shouldn't be foisted upon the entire country.)
On the bright side, history books now include perspectives other than those of western, Judeo-Christian, white males. On the other hand, history is so "PC" now, that it's watered down, boring, and useless.