<p>What if the body that said it was the Texas Board of Regents? That just happened to be the group that made that statement that was relevant to the discussion.</p>
<p>Saying the Republican Party is represented by an elephant is not a political statement, or saying that The Republican Party was the party of Lincoln is not a political statement.</p>
<p>Saying that a plank of the Republican Party Platform spoke out against critical thinking is not a political statement.</p>
<p>It becomes a political statement to say vote Republican for that reason or the opposite. But a simple factual statement about an idea expressed by a group is not a political statement.</p>
<p>I agree with Mythmom that factual statements that reference a political entity are (or should not) be considered political.</p>
<p>In discussing education it would be unreasonable to exclude factual comments like “party X wishes to eliminate affirmative action”. It would be gratuitously and partisanly political to say “those stinkin’ rats in party X wish to eliminate affirmative action”.</p>
<p>Mythmom’s comment was not factual, it was inaccurate and argumentative, and clearly about politics. The platform objected to Outcome-Based Education, including when it is simply relabeled as “critical thinking skills.” There was also nothing about teaching students not to question authority. One could as easily conclude that the statement encourages students to question governmental authority over school curricula.</p>
<p>I think one of the larger problems with our public system is that we can’t seem to decide what kind of student we are trying to produce. Do we want robots that know a lot of math and science but have no ability to think outside the box? In my opinion, that’s what has made our nation unique: creativity. </p>
<p>I also HATE the way teachers are forced to do hours and hours of paperwork and assessments. They don’t have time to really teach some days.</p>
<p>I earlier made a comment about school boards that don’t want to teach evolution, though I didn’t mention party…pretty sure I mentioned a state…maybe that’s a better guideline for these discussions.</p>
<p>Walker…good question (though I’d say there is plenty of room for creative thinking in science and math…I don’t see it as either/or). Maybe it’s “robots that can spit back the info they’re given” vs “kids encouraged to think for themselves”. I believe it has to be both…even the most creative thinker needs to know the history of those who came before to build her thoughts on, I think.</p>
<p>I don’t see that our school system as a whole does much to encourage creativity beyond kindergarten. The joy of school is drummed out of most kids by third grade as institutional rules are increasingly enforced. K-12 is not all that different than institutions such as prison and the military: obey your teacher/sergeant/prison guard without question!</p>
<p>We are a nation of immigrants and those who leave their home countries to come here are clearly out-of-the-box thinkers. Creativity comes from our gene pool, as does a certain degree of orneriness to not always drink the Kool-Aid foisted upon us by the school system.</p>
<p>I paraphrased “undermining parental authority.” Undermine and rebel are not the same word, but the intent is the same. I was not inaccurate. Critical thinking is being opposed because it undermines parental authority. That is the way the platform reads, and the is the connotative meaning of what I wrote.</p>
<p>One does not need to quote word for word to communicate meaning.</p>
<p>Perhaps that’s not what the plank intended, but it’s what it says.</p>
<p>Critical thinking skills and outcome based education are not the same things, but the plank opposes them equally. Again, perhaps not the intention.</p>
<p>Perhaps indication of need for more language education.</p>
<p>And that is not a partisan comment. I’ve received atrociously written mailings from both parties.</p>
<p>So let’s talk about this. Is there any evidence that our kids are actually more creative than kids in other advanced countries (other than in the opinion of their own parents)?</p>
<p>4thfloor, the only reason you it appears that kids in this country (or adults) are more creative is they have the FREEDOM to do so. When that is stifled, for some, there is no benefit to their creating anything new other than their own personal satisfaction. If one wishes to commercialize their idea that takes capital and a free market. Hence, the U.S. probably does appear to be more creative then many other countries. Painfully, it appears that many simply don’t understand the concept of Freedom and Free Markets…</p>
<p>I think Tilghman is probably right. My kids in public k-12 took honors middle school science classes that were basically just exhortations to recycle, not litter, and then watch “An Inconvenient Truth” every Friday. It was indoctrination, not education. Don’t even get me started on the social studies or English curricula. K-12 is really about producing future non-thinking voters who will vote to preserve the teachers’s unions.</p>
<p>I accept this. I just wish our education system granted more families the freedom to choose the education they want for their kids.</p>
<p>For someone who claims to be an English expert, you seem to have a difficult time interpreting a passage that has a meaning obviously different (to me) than the one you parsed. I read the platform just once, and knew immediately what was being communicated. It is not “critical thinking” that is being opposed; it is Outcome-Based Education programs that are being opposed, including when those programs are relabeled “critical thinking skills.” It is not “critical thinking” that undermines parental authority, it is the Outcome-based Education programs that may serve to undermine parental authority. </p>
<p>When you teach reading comprehension (if you do), do you instruct your students to look for the most logical meaning of a passage in context, or to look for a convoluted, controversial interpretation of what is written, that does not make sense? My impression is that you have done the latter.</p>
<p>Part of the problem, Bay, is that, in many situations, “we are what we write.” On CC we forgive rushed errors or some incompletely thought-through ideas, because it is (or can be) a running discussion. But, when a group of folks seemingly create a goal, statement, whatever- and it can be interpreted multiple ways, that’s their dereliction of duty, not the reader’s. </p>
<p>One reason critical thinking, perspective and all the good “etceteras” should be taught, somewhere, somehow. And, freaking clear writing.</p>
<p>In some contexts, first read isn’t enough. It can be assuming. Don’t mean to sound harsh, apologies if I do.</p>
</p>