Revenge on Texas voters?

July 17, 2006

Paul Burka, at the Texas Monthly blog, reports raw rumor that Gov. Rick Perry plans to appoint state Rep. Kent Grusendorf to head the Texas Education Agency, as Texas Commissioner of Education. Grusendorf lost his reelection bid in the primary, as Republicans in Arlington registered their discontent with his inability to resolve the funding crisis in Texas schools. After the primary, the state legislature was able to get a bill through, in a special session that ended just days before the deadline set by the Texas State Supreme Court, which had ruled the previous funding system unconstitutional.

How this would affect history books in the next round of textbook approvals is unclear at the moment.

Update, August 2, 2006:  Gov. Perry’s office denies the rumor to the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram.  


Keep Education Green: Bring money

July 17, 2006

A member of the Utah State Board of Education has started his own blog. If I understand the politics correctly, Tim Beagley’s up for reelection this year. A blog, in that case, could be quite an exercise in bravery. It could also be an exercise in stupidity — maybe both at the same time.

In his first post he laments that Utah has fallen behind in spending, but he rather stops short of calling for a lot more money: http://kcmannn.bravejournal.com/index.php.

Utah was the most highly-educated state population in the nation in the not-too-distant past. The line I used to insert into speeches was Utah had an average educational attainment of more than 12 years in school — high school graduation — and that was not only higher than most states, it was remarkable because Utah had a significantly younger population than other states.

Education funding is a key place to improve results, if the money is spent wisely. My view is that teachers’ salaries in almost all cases need to be increased, and in most cases, increased a lot. Teachers are still the front-line workers in education, the people who make all the other delivery system improvements work (or don’t make them work), and the people who really influence children.

Any attempt to improve education without raising teachers’ salaries might be compared to an attempt to improve safety in the airline industry while freezing pilot salaries. We might get the results we want, but it will be despite our gross errors in judgment, not because of them. Let me rephrase that, trying to be more clear: The quick way, and lasting way, to improve education results is to raise teacher pay; we may get better results without raising teacher pay, but it will cost a lot more money to overcome the difficulty of making the system work when the front-line workers are not the best we can get.

I spent my last years in public schools in Utah. I had a handful of great teachers who coached me to do my best. On their efforts I won a National Merit Scholarship. Certainly the administrative decisions to keep our academic day short, and to keep calculus out of the high school curriculum, did nothing to help me achieve. I suspect that is true for most people.

It would be good to see an advocate of increasing education spending declare that openly, and win.

Postscript: I am not in the business of advising candidates for profit any more, but were I , and were he to ask, I’d urge Mr. Beagley to hustle himself to a good portrait photographer right away.

Hat tip to Lavarr Webb’s Utah Policy Daily, at UtahPolicy.com.


Bubbles bursting in air: Dotcom and Housing Departments

July 17, 2006

Perhaps you, as a social studies teacher, also teach economics.  Or perhaps you’re trying to help your students understand the dotcom bubble burst, or just venture capitalism in general. 

Then go read Paul Graham’s essay on venture capitalists:  http://paulgraham.com/venturecapital.html

Tip o’ the Cyberhat to Rick Segal.


Textbook fight in Texas:Watch carefully!

July 17, 2006

Texas textbooks suffer from political wrangling by the state’s school board, which has little else to do with the texts but wrangle over what is in them and why. News suggests the board, recently fortified with primary election wins by extremely conservative, anti-public school forces, now will try to use the texts to change curricula statewide.

According to the Houston Chronicle, the Texas State Board of Education (Texas SBOE) will go after English literature in the next round of text approvals: http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/printstory.mpl/metropolitan/4024620 Reporter Jane Elliott wrote:

“Many on the board want to replace a student-centered curriculum that calls on students to use their own attitudes and ethics to interpret texts with teacher-centered instruction that emphasizes the basics of spelling, grammar and punctuation.

“It was a fight social conservatives on the board lost in 1997, when moderates and liberals adopted the curriculum for all subjects. Now, with social conservatives expected to have a majority on the board for the first time after the November elections, the plan to rewrite the English standards is viewed by some as the opening shot in an effort to put a conservative imprint on the state’s curriculum.”

English does not lend itself much to political manipulation, generally. There is a set of classic literature that Texas teachers use, basically the same set teachers in other states use. It is possible that this change in process could help English instruction. Past experience suggests this is a stalking horse issue for the board to develop voting blocs and strategies to go after the content of U.S. history courses and biology courses later. Inherent dangers in these battles include the watering down of texts to the point that they are dishwater — deadly dull for students, and deadly to the teaching of the subjects.

Dr. Diane Ravitch, now of New York University, formerly the Assistant Secretary of Education for Research in the administration of George H. W. Bush, argues that both left and right share blame for bad textbooks as a result of these fights, in her book, The Language Police. I am most familiar with the Holt Rinehart Winston (HRW) series, The American Nation, from using it for three years (we were using an earlier edition of the book shown in the link).

The books must mention a broad range of specific topics and people. All of the approved history books suffer from a resulting dullness in their addressing the topics which makes history a real foot-slogging exercise for most Texas high school students. HRW offers significant additional products to help teachers — I made heavy use of the CD-ROM accompanying the text and especially its software to help generate tests. I found it necessary to use chunks from my extensive video library to supplement, and in critical areas for the Texas exit exam for seniors, the book did not inspire students to learn the material — for Wilson’s Fourteen Points, the Japanese internment during World War II, Truman’s decision to drop atomic bombs on Japan, Vietnam and the Cold War, for example. These specific areas do not stand out in the book, not as I wish they would, and not in a way that the average kid would understand the issues.

History should sing. The study of history should inspire students, as patriots, as citizens, as parents and as humans interested in real drama. Dull books put the burden on teachers to make the history sing, and too few teachers are up to the task, especially in a world dominated by state-mandated teaching to a test (Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills, or TAKS). I have a dream. I have high hopes that the Texas SBOE will make great new standards for English, standards that will lend themselves to helping teachers make the subject sing for the students so they will happily and well learn the topic.

I have a dream that this process will lead to a similar renaissance in U.S. history, and in biology, and in other topics. But I am dulled with the understanding of past history from the Texas SBOE.

Because Texas is a huge market for publishers, they will skew their books as Texas asks, often. You have a stake in the Texas curriculum regardless where you live. Watch that space!


Buck Snort (Back from the Wilderness)

July 16, 2006

I’m back from Tennessee, and I see the world moved on nicely while I was out of electronic communication range.

Does anyone know how Buck Snort, Tennessee, got its name? (It’s at exit 152 of Interstate 40.)


Tennessee Wilderness

July 12, 2006

I am off in the wilds of Tennessee this week — as it turns out, much farther from the information superhighway than some think it is possible to get. Blogging will be greatly reduced until Sunday. (This one is being semaphored in — unless one of those links is down, and smoke signals back it up.)

My apologies, sort of. It’s nice to be able to get really away from things. And it’s a reminder that this is a big, big nation. More on that idea later.


Bad quotes = suspect scholarship (Ann Coulter . . .)

July 8, 2006

Partly because I spent so many years debating competitively in high school and college, I cringe when someone misattributes a quote (it’s rather a sin to do that in debate). Worse are those “quotes” that get passed around, often attributed to some famous person, which are complete fabrications.

Then there are quotes that are partly fabrication, and partly accurate. Most often, in my experience, this is done by people on the right of any issue, but it is occasionally a sin of someone on the left as well. The Right Honorable Ed Brayton at Dispatches from the Culture Wars shows wisdom in calling to task someone with whose point he agrees, but who quoted Thomas Jefferson incorrectly. Go see Brayton’s post here, “False Founding Father Quotes From Our Side.”

Jefferson from MemeGenerator.com

Thomas Jefferson wrote a lot, but recorded almost all of it. Easy to check whether Jefferson actually said what is attributed to him — but too often, not even a rudimentary check is done.  Jefferson didn’t say this, by the way.  Image from MemeGenerator.com

Thomas Jefferson is one of a handful of people to whom made up quotes are regularly attributed. Abraham Lincoln is a popular misattributee, too, as are Mark Twain and Albert Einstein (no, Einstein never said anything about ‘compound interest being the best invention of the 20th century’). One would be wise to refrain from repeating anything any speaker attributes to these people, at least until one checks it out to be sure it is accurately attributed.

Two circumstances make for “honest” misattributions. I confuse Dorothy Parker and Gertrude Stein comments, inexplicably, so often that I have learned to consult the books before saying who said it, if either one springs to my mind. I am sure that more than once in speaking I have misattributed something to one of these ladies, and I know other speakers do it, too. The second circumstance is when someone hears that misattribution and repeats it — the old line about some one “who hates dogs and children can’t be all bad” is often still attributed to W. C. Fields, though it was originally said by Leo Rosten, in an introduction for W. C. Fields, according to Rosten. Generally people will cheerfully correct such misattributions.

Lincoln's name gets attached to a lot of stuff he didn't say. He didn't say this, for example.

Lincoln’s name gets attached to a lot of stuff he didn’t say. He didn’t say this, for example.

Other misattributions have more larceny at heart. Novice speakers will put a quote to a name, more out of fear that their audience will believe them more if they cite an authority or celebrity than anything else.

Cottage industries built up around inventing misquotes plague two areas of public discourse. Ed Brayton is sensitive to them both, as am I. For some reason, advocates of government displays of religion (which are prohibited by 50 state constitutions and the U.S. Constitution) feel that “quotes” from “the Founders” should carry special legal and persuasive weight, if the quotes indicate that the people who established the United States thumped Bibles as hard or harder than Jerry Falwell at a rhythm-and-blues-themed revival.

For example, few weeks go by that I do not get by e-mail a diatribe against “secularism” that claims falsely that our nation’s founders were overweening Christian fundamentalists, as evidenced by the Christian images splattered all over Washington, D.C., and the Bible verses carved in all the public buildings. That is patently false, however. Christian imagery does not predominate in the public art displays in the nation’s capital, but is instead difficult to find unless one is really looking for it. Nor are Bible verses carved in many public buildings — there are perhaps a dozen verses sprinkled throughout the displays honoring knowledge at the Library of Congress, but none I know of anywhere else. These e-mails are not really new. I had heard these claims in speeches, especially at the Fourth of July and at American Legion speech contests, and when I staffed for U.S. Sen. Orrin Hatch, my office was bombarded with such offerings — often with an invective-filled letter asking why public officials refuse to speak the truth. I often took those documents out on lunch-hour excursions to try to match the claims with the monuments: The claims are false.

Nope, Albert Einstein didn't say that, either.

Nope, Albert Einstein didn’t say that, either.

Claims continue to be made, and they grow in number and earnestness whenever there is a controversy surrounding an issue of separation of church and state. No, James Madison never said the U.S. government was based on the Ten Commandments. These quotes have great vitality — that false quote from Madison has been uttered by more than one lawyer in the heat of an argument (and no doubt, at least one judge has been unduly swayed by it). Were the quotes accurate, even, they would not change the laws that the founders wrote.

Diatribes against Charles Darwin and the theory of evolution also appear to be fertile soil to grow false quotes. One hoax claims Darwin repented of his theory on his deathbed, the “Lady Hope” hoax. Despite Darwin’s children having refuted that story more than 80 years ago, it continues to circulate. Darwin wrote a lot on a variety of different topics, but almost never about religion. The one or two lines he did write about religion are repeated, and bent, numerous ways. Darwin’s assigned task on his round-the-world voyage, was to assemble the scientific data to back as accurate one of the accounts of creation in Genesis. The evidence Darwin gathered told a different story — but Darwin himself did not think that a good reason to leave the church where he had hoped to be ordained. Especially because his wife, Emma, was so devout, he was careful to avoid any confrontation with the church, and on the rolls he remained a faithful Anglican to his death. His funeral was a state occasion, and he is interred in Westminster Abbey. (We can debate whether Darwin was a “good Christian” some other time, with real evidence.) Building on his earlier belief that observing nature is one way to learn the ways of God, Darwin continued to spend his time in careful, astute and well-recorded observation. His work on the creation of coral atolls is still fundamental; his monographs on barnacles are still wonderful reads. Darwin was fascinated with insectivorous plants, and his monograph on those plants is among the first, if not the first. Darwin was patient enough to sit in his laboratory for weeks to see just how it is that vine twines its way around a pole. Darwin was the model of a truly patient scientist.

However, when any board of education starts to look at new biology books, you may expect to hear Darwin described as something of an anti-Christian monster and a terrible, sloppy, often-wrong scientist. Then to top it off, people will make rather fantastic claims that his own writings deny his case. Other testimony will make hash of the work of other scientists.

Ann Coulter manages to marry both of these worst kind of quote fabrications in her latest book (no, I won’t link to it — you shouldn’t be reading that stuff; go read Stephen Ambrose’s books on D-Day, or Lewis and Clark, instead, and get real mental nutrition.) For those of us who have been watching such things for decades, it is astounding that such slipshod work can get through an editing process and into print. It is interesting to see someone finally merge both schools of scandalous quoting, but disgusting at the same time.

As a speech writer, I felt it was important that my clients have accurate material. A politician using a bad quote can find himself quite embarrassed. As a journalist, I worked hard to assure accuracy, and we had regular processes for correcting errors we did not catch earlier. As a teacher, I think it important that we get accurate facts to determine what happened in history.

Quotations from famous people make the study of history possible, and fun. Winston Churchill said, “It is a good thing for an uneducated man to read books of quotations. Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations is an admirable work, and I studied it intently. The quotations when engraved upon the memory give you good thoughts. They also make you anxious to read the authors and look for more” (in his 1930 book, Roving Commission: My Early Life).

Be sure you get accurate quotes when you read them.


Helpful readers

July 7, 2006

Readers make the blog. In addition to several good comments, the good folks at www.frostimaging.com provided an improved version of the banner, based on the White House’s painting of Millard Fillmore. Thank you to Frost Imaging.


Ann Coulter, plagiarism, students, history

July 7, 2006

Universal Press Syndicate, the company that syndicates Ann Coulter’s opinion columns to about 100 newspapers, announced that they will investigate allegations that Coulter plagiarized material for her columns (see the story in Editor & Publisher).

Surely when higher profile people get caught plagiarizing, it calls attention to the problem. Do these reports serve as any kind of warning, as any deterrent to kids who are tempted to do the same thing? (I am writing a syllabus for a late summer term class at a local university; the school asks that we include language in the syllabus that notes plagiarism is a major academic sin, and is grounds for dismissal. I wonder whether similar standards are imposed in the contracts syndicates give opinion writers? Should not the Coulters of the world be held to standards as high as any college freshman?)

Historians who have been snagged in the plagiarism net in recent years include outstanding, Pulitzer Prize-winners like Doris Kearns Goodwin and the late Stephen Ambrose, both of whom had relied on notes from paid researchers, and both of whom quickly apologized and took steps to tighten their attribution and research methods.

Ann Coulter is not in the same league as Ambrose or Goodwin in terms of the quality of her work or the accuracy of her reporting. Were I to bet, I’d bet she will not quickly offer apologies or corrections, nor quickly mend her ways, but that is my experience from inside conservative politics (I staffed the Senate conservative side and had an appointment in the Reagan administration). Of course, I hope I am wrong.

Coulter’s tactics in writing about science do not lend foundation for that hope. Her recent book, to which I will not link, offers three chapters of grotesque inaccuracy about biology and especially evolution theory. She has lifted wholesale sections of a notoriously inaccurate book published by intelligent design harpy Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution. P. Z. Myers’ blog, Pharyngula, is a good place to start on the science inaccuracies, with his post today.

The Fillmore’s Bathtub Challenge: Can you cite any significant claim from any of Coulter’s books that are accurate and can be verified? We should all be from Missouri on this issue. Comments are open.

Coda: Goodwin’s latest book is a fine resource for college and Texas high school history classes: Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln. I recommend it.


History of Resisting Technology

July 6, 2006

techdirt has this wonderful short compilation of bad predictions about new technologies ruining entertainment industries — print the page and put it in your copy of Christopher Cerf’s and Victor Navasky’s The Experts Speak.

I attended a presentation of education guru Harry Wong two weeks ago. He had probably a dozen slides featuring quotations from the experts from this book and other sources, and each comment was met with “oohs” and “ahhs.” My first use of these wrongway predictions was in 1988 and 1989 in the “Committing to Leadership” program at AMR (American Airlines). It’s amazing to me that they still seem new to so many — but they are funny, and thought provoking, even if they are not new.


Millard Fillmore

July 6, 2006

I finally managed to edit a painting of Millard Fillmore, from the White House site, to fit the header. Fillmore is generally considered to be one of the worst presidents ever, but the capital of Utah was once named for him when the Mormons were trying to win his favor to gain statehood (Fillmore, in Millard County — the capital was moved later). It didn’t work, and Utah didn’t achieve statehood for another four decades.

I am still looking for a picture of his actual bathtub.


Day to remember: Ken Lay died, avoided jail

July 6, 2006

P. Z. Myers over at Pharyngula has some comments on the “death of corporate vision statements” and the death of Ken Lay, with links to some harsher views. Some of the commenters accuse Myers and others of gloating over Lay’s death. These are my comments at Myers’ blog:

Tom Peters used to say (may still say, for all I know) that no corporate vision neatly framed on a wall is worth a damn — the only one that counts is one that is engraved on the hearts of the people who make the company go. It was such a vision that saved Johnson & Johnson during the Tylenol tampering crisis — and perhaps a few dozen lives.

But it’s clear that, at best, Enron and Lay failed to live up to that vision. At worst, the officers cynically avoided doing anything close to the corporate vision.

High ideals are not folly by themselves. Nor are they folly when people don’t live up to them. The folly is in the hypocrisy, in the intentional frustrating of the dreams those ideals may hold.

Gloating over Ken Lay’s death? As usual, the knee-jerk conservatives (emphasis on “jerk”) miss the point. Lay will spend no time in prison; under the law, he is now clean as a whistle, and under the criminal law it is extremely unlikely his estate will pay a dime in restitution to the thousands of good people made paupers by Lay’s misdeeds. It is those knee-jerkers who are cynical, and wrong, for defending a rip-off of so many. Ken Lay was no Pretty Boy Floyd — Lay stole from little guys to give to the rich, and Lay put into foreclosure more properties than Pretty Boy Floyd saved. The contrast should give one pause to defend Lay.

Gloat? Over a bad guy avoiding justice? That’s for the Bushies, for the Cheneys, for the DeLays, who have made such gloating a way of life, a legacy to warn our grandchildren with.


Mount Timpanogos

July 4, 2006

Among many underappreciated mountain peaks in the U.S. is Mount Timpanogos, in the Wasatch Range of the Rockies. It is northeast of Provo, Utah, and it was due east of my bedroom window for the nine years I lived in Pleasant Grove, Utah, before I headed off to college.

Here is a site that offers some stunning views of the mountain: http://utahpictures.com/Timpanogos.html [update:  pictures moved to this site:  http://utahpictures.com/Timpanogos.php]. While I often hiked the “backside” of the mountain, I never made it all the way to the top. You can see what I missed.


4th of July

July 4, 2006

Independence Day is one of the best holidays of the year, especially for those of us who love fireworks. In the first few years of our marriage we lived in and very near Washington, D.C., where there is one of the grandest fireworks displays annually, against one of the most arresting set of backdrops possible. When we lived on Capitol Hill it was a short walk to the Capitol, to watch the display at the Washington Monument, with the Lincoln Memorial and Lee’s Mansion at Arlington National Cemetery in the background. Once we hiked to the Lincoln Memorial to get the opposite view.

There are other grand displays. Baltimore annually has a grand fireworks program on Baltimore Harbor, near Fort McHenry whose shelling was the inspiration to Francis Scott Key to write what is now our national anthem. In the Norfolk area there is a fine show at the Yorktown National Battlefield site. New York City has great stuff, as do Boston, Philadelphia, and Chicago.

But the best part of the holiday is the annual retelling of the story of freedom, of the Declaration of Independence, and of its chief author Thomas Jefferson, and the friendships that included Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, and especially John Adams. The story of the friendship, falling out, reconciliation and great love between Adams and Jefferson is one of the finest stories in American history. After having reconciled a few years after their great falling out during the bitter election of 1800, they continued to correspond to their deaths. The series of letters is a great explication of democracy, how to form a republic, and the duties and privileges of citizens in a free nation. To add to the poignancy, both Adams and Jefferson died on July 4, 1826, 50 years to the day that the Declaration of Independence was published. Ed Brayton of Dispatches from the Culture Wars has a fine post on the day, the Declaration, and the friendship between Adams and Jefferson, here.


Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub?

July 3, 2006

History is a study of what happened and why. Often, high school and college studies of history are ruined by rote memorization of a long list of dates with a couple of words describing an event. That is not history. Often, studies of history are ruined through unreliable sources.

H. L. Mencken, the famous newspaper columnist from Baltimore, wrote a column published December 28, 1917, about the history of the bathtub, specifically that it was rare in the U.S., and how President Millard Fillmore introduced it to the White House, thereby making bathtubs and bathing popular. The column was brilliant, and it was a complete fabrication, a hoax. Within two years, however, Mencken’s column had found its way to reference books, encyclopedias, and bad history books. Here is Mencken’s original column: “A Neglected Anniversary.”  [3/19/2009 – that link is dead; see Mencken’s column here.]  You can read a history of the hoax and its spread at this site, Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub.

It’s a great story, about a do-nothing president, the press, and errors of history. To know the story, dates are unimportant. No one cares what years Fillmore was actually in office, no one cares exactly when Mencken’s column was published. Knowing lists of dates has never stopped a bad historian from reciting the erroneous claim that Millard Fillmore introduced the concept of bathing in a bathtub to the White House.

But now you know better.

This site is dedicated to knowing history, especially U.S. history, better.

Thank you for visiting. Noodle around, see what articles are here, leave some comments if you care to. Especially, if you find errors, leave a note of correction.