So, here's the deal: the Texas Board of Education recently passed a vote authorizing changes to what is to be taught in History classes. An example of the change: Thomas Jefferson is omitted completely, instead, he will be replaced by John Calvin, a religious figure who was involved in the protestant reformation, which in turn led to the puritan movement which was the primary religion in the colonies, which turned into the US.
The problem with much of these changes is that they claim that the textbooks are too leftist oriented as it is, and they feel that the books have become too politically correct, and they feel that religion should be put back into the school curriculum. Now, I'm a History major. All my studies tell everything from BOTH sides and don't lean in one particular direction. I am all for teaching students who John Calvin was since he was a figure that was influential in history. But omitting a founding father of the United States? The man who wrote the Declaration of Independence? Ignorant.
Essentially, this boils down to the age old story of politics. Republicans are the one who pushed this through, and are using this as an excuse to push their opinions on others and allow history to be told through one viewpoint.
I also know some of you may be thinking "Who cares what a bunch of inbred hick Texans teach their kids." Normally, you would be correct, however, many of the textbooks in the US are printed in Texas. This means that many of the schools in the US would be forced to use the Texas lesson plans.
Does anyone else think this is wrong? I know some "omit" important details from history to serve their own agenda (Japan's take on the Nanjing Massacre for starters) but this is on a much larger scale, with religion and political beliefs being forced on students as fact, whereas from my time in high school, I felt as though everything was fairly neutral.
http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=15710558

The distortion of science or history to actively retard or disrupt the growth of knowledge is the single most offensive thing there is to me.

I skipped history. I chose Economics for high school because I don't care much for history but as a principle this is a bad precedent.

Another history major? Glad to meet you. :)
I am sure we will see each other in the unemployment line :(

I wouldn't go blaming Republicans but rather the Texans themselves. Majorly idiotic, they might as well torch all existing books and say the civil war never happened, 2 generations later all Texans would believe that with all their hearts and turn into the messed up little country they always wanted to be (Texas wanted independence for a long time) but in the end I don't care. I'm up in Missouri and our schools don't restrict knowledge, let Texas slip into idiocy.

We've recently gotten a new national curriculum in my country. A lot of things are culled and changed, and nearly everything has to have a perspective from the Australian aboriginals view on the topic. There's a slow but growing push to get a religious perspective too, but these groups of course want their specific groups view.
Complaints I've heard from the teachers I work with and talk to is that it's getting a bit too much PC. But I've not read it myself, so it's all second hand info that I see/hear from teaching staff, but politics does appear to be creeping in a bit too far.

I'm hoping a minor in International Studies - Asia and my Japanese classes will back up my resume when I graduate :D
Also, to non-US people who don't know about US history: Thomas Jefferson was one of the key supporters of the separation of church and state, along with others such as James Madison.

In regards to australian history an aboriginal perspective is perfectly understandable, the european colonisation/invasion had a pretty big effect on them after all. For everything outside of history, special interest groups and their opinions can fuck off and let the facts speak for themselves.
After all education exists to give people the knowledge to find answers, not to GIVE answers. If giving answers was the goal, the entire educational process would take at most a month and you'd have 5 year old children down the mines digging coal again. Lack of a balanced education will push us all back to victorian england.

Indeed, this sort of force-fed education will ruin the people who are exposed to it and taught that as official education. Might as well be MENTAL MURDER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In regards to History, or Australian Studies, sure, it should be there. The scope is aimed much broader though. In short, I agree.

Thomas Jefferson is the embodiment of the independent, bold spirit of Texas.
Why include von Hayek and Friedman, but not Jefferson? I mean, they are acceptable additions to the curriculum (if you're going to do Smith vs. Marx, and you already teach Keynes, it would make sense to contrast Keynes with Friedman and von Hayek), but the Jefferson issue baffles me.
Also, I find the first user comment amusing and insightful:
"It hardly matters. Whatever the curriculum, it will be badly taught and soon forgotten." Amen.

Naaah, Wikipedia is full of liberal bias. Texans look into Conservapedia for their objective, unbiased knowledge. :P

I'm surprised that the great firewall of Oz doesn't block that site.

Please tell me that's a Poe's Law site, and is not meant to be taken seriously! :-/