That is not to dispute that LA is proceeding with a significant voucher program - it is. But I think his take on this (and other things) is pretty OTT.

then why dismiss it's author? Based on what criterion, I'm curious?

http://www.alternet.org/authors/9499/

(example: Right-Wing Crazies Who Fight Witchcraft and Demons Are Taking Over a State Near You&quot

And the title of this very piece is actually:

The Loch Ness Monster Is Real; The KKK Is Good: The Shocking Content of Publicly Paid for Christian School Textbooks

I am not dismissing him, just proceeding with caution, as his use of hyperbole seems to be for shock value and too extreme.

Also, I don't like alternet at all and tend to be skeptical about much of what is posted there.

No insult meant to you, I just think this kind of extremism can often do more harm than good because it can be too easily shot down.

The articles are frequently reprinted from elsewhere, with new badly misleading headlines. I've definitely noticed that. Hate that. Esp. when it's just a question that doesn't even relate to the article. Definitely not any worse than DUser headlines, though, which often cross the border of opaque to "Wha-a-a-t?" Doesn't necessarily reflect the content of the article, however - authors have no power over headlines.

Also, they often repackage bigoted and conspiracy based material. Overall, their editorial policy is very lax, to put it mildly.

That's why I generally approach anything from that salt with a great deal of skepticism. I'm not denying that Louisiana's decision regarding vouchers is not real and cause for concern, just this guy's take on it.

than picking apart his writing. He's clearly on the same side of the issue as us, so intend to support him, is all. I like to think of it as literary solidarity. Then maybe next year AlterNet writers will support DU, again, if it has to fight off another lawsuit.

Hopefully we will hear more about this from more legitimate sources.

Then again, he's quoting from 1995. And while somebody said "the content's the same" I don't think that rises to the assertion that no detail's been altered.

The biology blip cited is on its 3rd edition (although, oddly, I can't find the date of publication); a lot of the modules are on the 4th edition. I doubt this is the Soviet practice of reprinting a work with the same plates and nonetheless calling it a new "edition".


The poster's claim is that this is the curriculum that's approved strikes me as probably wrong. There's a difference between approving a set of standards, approving a set of textbooks that come up to those standards, and approving a school's certification.

My school is in Texas. The chemistry standards are set by the state. We must teach those--at a minimum--to be certified. Exactly how to implement them is a bit of a mystery at times, but the standardized test and released test questions are a guide.

The textbook we use is recommended, meaning that it must cover, to the minimum required extent, those standards. It exceeds those standards in some areas--environmental issues. (Because California requires more of this.) My school teaches that additional material. Neither the standards nor the textbook nor the district's curriculum mention superacids (non-aqueous acids/bases in general). But one teacher does talk about them.

In fact, the textbook is just recommended. It's not required. It's easier to show compliance with standards if we use a recommended textbook. I've heard of classes that used no textbook. Just lecture notes and team-prepared materials. I'm not sure if we could use a non-approved textbook, but if you don't need to use a textbook at all I suspect it would be okay.

In principle, it's fine to teach the Arrhenius acid/base theory and then turn around and say it's a crock. As long as you teach the theory and they know it and understand it and can apply it. You must teach the standards. Anything extra is extra. The standards aren't intended to be all-encompassing (although if you're kids aren't the greatest and the standards go on and on, they easily can take up every minute of class time plus some).

I'm guessing that the Louisiana charter schools are certified because they teach what the standards require. That they teach other stuff is beside the point. Granting certification doesn't approve their curriculum, it's just saying they make it through the gate.

(And, yes, I've seen some silly things taught in public schools.)

When you group beliefs together in books, they're remembered as equally real.

That's why it's so precious that the KJV mentions unicorns.

Also Nessie is good for Scottish tourism.