It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ohio lawmakers pass bill for schools to teach historic documents

page: 1
17
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Ohio lawmakers pass bill for schools to teach historic documents


medinagazette.northcoastnow.com

COLUMBUS — A bill that would require Ohio schools to teach original texts of the state and U.S. constitutions, the Declaration of Independence and other documents is headed to the governor’s desk.

Critics of the legislation have included Democrats who say the documents are culturally narrow, failing to include texts such as the Bill of Rights, Emancipation Proclamation and Constitutional amendments that address women’s rights, and civil rights.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 09:44 AM
link   
Critics of the legislation have included Democrats who say the documents are culturally narrow, failing to include texts such as the Bill of Rights, Emancipation Proclamation and Constitutional amendments that address women’s rights, and civil rights.[

Then WHAT are they going to teach the kids? The patriot act, NDAA? Why does it say Democrats? Isn't it the republicans that are supposed to be more constitutionally leaning?

As an Ohioan who graduated 3 years ago myself we glanced over constitution and a barely the revolutionary war. But then again I went to a less than great inner-city school for more than half of my years. I do remember having to watch that schoolrock video on how a bill gets passed or whatever. But other than that we never were taught much on the contents of the constitution, just that it existed and we had freedom of speech.

medinagazette.northcoastnow.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 09:49 AM
link   
I think every state needs this. The fact that kids know who the last X number of American Idol winners are, who's dating who in Hollywierd, but don't know the first thing about the Constitution is sickening. It doesn't surprise me that the Democrats are against this. They seem to always be against anything that allows people to understand their TRUE freedom, which comes from the Constitution, and that the Constitution is a protection FROM the Government.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 09:51 AM
link   
Wow! This is really interesting and amazing. Pennsylvania is too far gone to do anything like this, unfortunately, but maybe Ohio is not that bad and deserves a second look if we ever move.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by RealSpoke
 


It's sad that it takes a law to force schools to teach the proper history of our country. There is so much that is missed and understanding the original documentation is key to understanding the foundation our of nation.

Star and Flag for you OP, great post.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 09:54 AM
link   
It's first steps in the right direction. Hopefully they can address the concerns of the Democrats and expand upon those things in the future.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by KnightFire
 


That's what I was thinking. Like why is this a law? Shouldn't it already be in the curriculum.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by RealSpoke
Shouldn't it already be in the curriculum.


Better question. How did it get out of the curriculum to begin with?
edit on 29-3-2012 by satron because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 10:14 AM
link   
The curriculum for various states is usually loosely worded. For example, it might state that "students will recognize the importance of the Constitution" or "students will demonstrate an understanding of the three branches of government.". It doesn't state that the teachers MUST use primary source documents

Remember those boring social studies books? They might have a chapter on the government. Many teachers use that text as their teaching source.

With the advent of technology. that's changing. Teachers have access to more sources, tools, and support. We can provide a more comprehensive lesson for our students.

I think this law is a great idea. Of course, some of us have been using these documents already.....



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 10:19 AM
link   
my son was taught this in highschool, he is now 24...i didn't know that this has been left out of other schools curriculum...something smells



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by RealSpoke
 



I am not sure why they are against the bill due to being "culturally narrow," nor am I understanding what 'culture' they are feeling left out of the bill, perhaps they are simply against students knowing their rights and are banking on no one learning what was actually written in the bill? Perhaps they think the American people stupid?



Section 1. That sections 3301.079, 3301.0712, 3313.60, 3313.603, 3313.61, and 3313.612 be amended and section 3319.23 of the Revised Code be enacted to read as follows:

Sec. 3301.079. (A)(1) Not later than June 30, 2010, and periodically thereafter, the state board of education shall adopt statewide academic standards with emphasis on coherence, focus, and rigor for each of grades kindergarten through twelve in English language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies.

(a) The standards shall specify the following:

(a)(i) The core academic content and skills that students are expected to know and be able to do at each grade level that will allow each student to be prepared for postsecondary instruction and the workplace for success in the twenty-first century;

(b)(ii) The development of skill sets that promote information, media, and technological literacy;

(c)(iii) Interdisciplinary, project-based, real-world learning opportunities.

(b) Not later than July 1, 2012, the state board shall incorporate into the social studies standards for grades four to twelve academic content regarding the original texts of the Declaration of Independence, the Northwest Ordinance, the Constitution of the United States and its amendments, with emphasis on the Bill of Rights, and the Ohio Constitution, and their original context. The state board shall revise the model curricula and achievement assessments adopted under divisions (B) and (C) of this section as necessary to reflect the additional American history and American government content. The state board shall make available a list of suggested grade-appropriate supplemental readings that place the documents prescribed by this division in their historical context, which teachers may use as a resource to assist students in reading the documents within that context.


www.legislature.state.oh.us...



After Edit:

*Approximately a third of all U.S. high school students did not know that the Bill of Rights guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

www.infowars.com...

I am positive that the American government would like to keep it that way!
edit on 29-3-2012 by Jameela because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 10:32 AM
link   
Sorry to be a cynic, but this is one of those glad-hand laws that no one would dare speak out against because it would seem so unpatriotic, yet the law itself is completely unnecessary. Just another piece of government bureaucracy for something that schools already have in their curriculum.

Yes, there surely are schools out there that can't get around to teaching proper American history or Civics, but let's face it, those are schools in poor districts that can barely get through the three R's, reading, 'riting, and 'rithmetic. That's 99% of the reason why the government felt compelled to create the Department of Education and the "No Child Left Behind" act, along with all that standardized testing.

The only difference with this new bill is that it would focus on 'historic documents' instead of fundamentals. How would they force schools to comply? A new round of 'standardized testing'?

It's just more government bureaucracy and it even comes across as 'unconstitutional'...



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 10:37 AM
link   
It is a shame that there has to be legislation enacted to get this material taught in public schools. These documents should be taught anyway, as they are the foundation of our country. Without them, our country stands for absolutely nothing. The importance of these documents has been detracted from more and more lately, and my guess is that it's an attempt to brainwash the masses for what is to come.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 11:20 AM
link   
I recall, and perhaps will cause some contention by stating so, that the ultimately successful large scale civil protests regarding popular disapproval of the Viet Nam 'police action' was carried out, in large part, by people who attended public educational systems which included a curriculum dedicated to an understanding of civics, as well as the expression of dissent and social activism (for example during the Civil War, the rejection of British Rule, and the public insistence on equality for race and gender.)

These were abandoned once the hybridized private/public educational paradigm took hold.

Our children do not know what it means to be a citizen. What's worse, a particularly illogical approach to "civic responsibility" is being transferred upon them by elements deeply entrenched in the social engineering that political parties proselytize ... veering incoherently between confusion of fascism for order, and freedom from any social restraint for liberalism.

This is not coincidental. Theater is served by ignorance. And all politics is theater.

At some point, someone decided that telling people they are free to protest and effect change is a bad idea.

I assume we all can imagine why.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 11:23 AM
link   
Schools are doomed, homeschooling is the only sane choice. Stick to one parent working, they are your kids dont send them off to nanny911, aka schooljail.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Lord Jules
 





Schools are doomed, homeschooling is the only sane choice. Stick to one parent working, they are your kids dont send them off to nanny911, aka schooljail.


Yeah, because that's possible for most families who barely make enough money WITH BOTH PARENTS WORKING to put food on the table.

Maybe they can eat the school books after reading them.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Lord Jules
 


Well I sure did feel like I was in prison in one of the highschools I went to. They threatened to arrest me if I didn't give up my cell phone that had fallen out of my pocket. That was the suburban school.

The ghetto school one really was more like a prison since there were guards all over and fights everyday. But you had a weird sense of personal freedom.


edit on 29-3-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 05:58 PM
link   
I cannot take the article seriously because it doesn't make any logical sense.

How can you teach the US Constitution without mentioning the "Bill of Rights"?

The "Bill of Rights" is the first 10 amendments to the US Constitution, btw.

Wiki-Bill of Rights


The Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution.



The amendments were introduced by James Madison to the 1st United States Congress as a series of legislative articles. They were adopted by the House of Representatives on August 21, 1789,[1][2] formally proposed by joint resolution of Congress on September 25, 1789, and came into effect as Constitutional Amendments on December 15, 1791, through the process of ratification by three-fourths of the States. While twelve amendments were passed by Congress, only ten were originally passed by the states. Of the remaining two, one was adopted as the Twenty-seventh Amendment and the other technically remains pending before the states.


Did the person who wrote the article realize this issue? Are they actually going to teach the "original" Constitution document before these amendments were ratified?

Or does the author actually not know what they are talking about?



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


True, the bill seems a tad 'selective', you can't cherry-pick what part of history you want to teach - teach it all, the good, the bad, and the ugly.

If legislators really want to help schools, increase their funding so they can afford better teaching materials and more teachers.

As it is, the constitution is taught about in American history, Civics, Social Studies, etc. Does it really need to given it's own separate semester-long class?

What the legislation doesn't address is how they would squeeze in another required class in a poor school system that can't even teach the basics?



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


True, the bill seems a tad 'selective', you can't cherry-pick what part of history you want to teach - teach it all, the good, the bad, and the ugly.

If legislators really want to help schools, increase their funding so they can afford better teaching materials and more teachers.

As it is, the constitution is taught about in American history, Civics, Social Studies, etc. Does it really need to given it's own separate semester-long class?

What the legislation doesn't address is how they would squeeze in another required class in a poor school system that can't even teach the basics?


You make some good points about the ground level situation and the difficulty of practical application.

I had to study the Constitution of the US and of my home state, Texas, from like 6th grade till 12th (and also more deeply in College level courses), but with "social studies" classes, civics and government, and history courses they should be exposed to these documents fairly often anyways.

In a way it's just another hollow attempt to turn things around when in reality, the toilet bowl already flushed a long time ago and we are deep within the plumbing at this point.



new topics




 
17
<<   2 >>

log in

join