Well-reasoned article, Natalie. I taught high school English, and I was always surprised how little Bible literacy my students had acquired, even though I taught in what was considered a moderately-conservative school district. The Parable of the Prodigal Son, which you mentioned, was one that, to my surprise, almost no one seemed to know. I don't think students are getting a lot of background knowledge even in Sunday School.
Students cannot get enough cultural literacy, and the Bible should be part of that, but I always stressed that they were free to believe in the literal truth of the stories if they chose, but I was teaching the stories as literature in order to clarify the allusions. And I would remind them that one person's religion is another person's mythology.
I am an atheist. I've been an atheist since I was twelve. But when I had children, I took them to church (Unitarian Universalist to be sure, but still, a church), bought a children's bible and read it to them. I also read them fairy tales, tall tales, historical tales, etc. I wanted them to understand the shared literary language of our country that included all of that. And as a science teacher who has watched science being squeezed out of elementary classrooms for decades, replaced by unrelated and watered down science topic short reads like those on penguins and clouds, I'd be happy for kids to learn ANY real social studies and science again.
The "content" of the Amplify curriculum is aligned with Core Knowledge recommendations. It does not align to actual content standards for social studies or science. Learning about the Vikings or Ancient Rome in 3rd grade is not in Texas social studies standards. This is not a bad idea, but the revisions did nothing to promote the social studies knowledge Texas parents, teachers, and the SBOE codified in the state standards. As a result, many elementary teachers are checking the social studies box, but not actually teaching any of the right content. Same in science. But the Bible is there...though it too is not in the social studies standards in elementary. So weirdly, the Commissioner is actively undermining the teaching of the actually approved content in the TEKS (Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills) standards.
I have used Amplify, and found it reasonable. Which makes me immediately suspicious of the "Texas specific" version. I see no reason at all to give state education officials the benefit of the doubt. They often come to their positions with a stated, frequently religious, agenda. I have seen enough calls to "bring God back into the classroom" to assume that there are people at the state level who are acting in bad faith when claiming to choose unbiased curriculum.
It does seem odd that there is so much controversy about what is and isn't taught when "there’s little reliable data on what is actually taught in American classrooms". A good starting point would be for the adults to agree on guidelines differentiating indoctrination from knowledge-building.
"There are also omissions and additions, some to make the curriculum Texas-specific but others that might have been politically motivated. Ancient India and China, along with discussions of their religions, are gone, as are Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia."
Do students in Texas learn about Ancient India, China, Egypt, and Mesopotamia in their social studies classes? If not, these omissions are problematic. Another example of why many are concerned that knowledge-building ELA curricula often don't align with social studies and science curricula and can complicate instruction. These knowledge-building choices are fraught with opportunity costs: We might teach students to understand references to having a cross to bear but not what having good or bad karma refers to. No easy answers.
What does the science of learning tell us about the best ways for students to build knowledge? Through, in part, integrating concepts across topics, as you point out: "To learn the meaning of a word like dynasty, kids could learn about European dynasties, Asian dynasties, African dynasties, or indigenous American dynasties."
Back to square one: Which knowledge do we teach and how do we make those choices? My go to text for guidance is Grover and the Everything in the Whole Wide World Museum.
Separation of church and state is crucial in a democracy, any teaching of the Bible in public schools is against our constitution. We are not a Christian nation and never will be.
I agree with the first and last of your propositions, but teaching the Bible as literature to help students understand American culture is entirely appropriate. Letter from Birmingham Jail, for instance, is filled with biblical allusions which must be understood in order to grasp King's main arguments.
But since many Americans are Christians, excluding it favors a secular worldview and violates the free exercise clause. And if a person isn't aware of scripture there is some cultural illiteracy there.
Actually, the Constitution doesn't mandate a separation between church and state. It prohibits the establishment of a church religion as in a church of america like there was a church of england
The separation between church and state was taken from a letter
Well-reasoned article, Natalie. I taught high school English, and I was always surprised how little Bible literacy my students had acquired, even though I taught in what was considered a moderately-conservative school district. The Parable of the Prodigal Son, which you mentioned, was one that, to my surprise, almost no one seemed to know. I don't think students are getting a lot of background knowledge even in Sunday School.
Students cannot get enough cultural literacy, and the Bible should be part of that, but I always stressed that they were free to believe in the literal truth of the stories if they chose, but I was teaching the stories as literature in order to clarify the allusions. And I would remind them that one person's religion is another person's mythology.
I am an atheist. I've been an atheist since I was twelve. But when I had children, I took them to church (Unitarian Universalist to be sure, but still, a church), bought a children's bible and read it to them. I also read them fairy tales, tall tales, historical tales, etc. I wanted them to understand the shared literary language of our country that included all of that. And as a science teacher who has watched science being squeezed out of elementary classrooms for decades, replaced by unrelated and watered down science topic short reads like those on penguins and clouds, I'd be happy for kids to learn ANY real social studies and science again.
The "content" of the Amplify curriculum is aligned with Core Knowledge recommendations. It does not align to actual content standards for social studies or science. Learning about the Vikings or Ancient Rome in 3rd grade is not in Texas social studies standards. This is not a bad idea, but the revisions did nothing to promote the social studies knowledge Texas parents, teachers, and the SBOE codified in the state standards. As a result, many elementary teachers are checking the social studies box, but not actually teaching any of the right content. Same in science. But the Bible is there...though it too is not in the social studies standards in elementary. So weirdly, the Commissioner is actively undermining the teaching of the actually approved content in the TEKS (Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills) standards.
I have used Amplify, and found it reasonable. Which makes me immediately suspicious of the "Texas specific" version. I see no reason at all to give state education officials the benefit of the doubt. They often come to their positions with a stated, frequently religious, agenda. I have seen enough calls to "bring God back into the classroom" to assume that there are people at the state level who are acting in bad faith when claiming to choose unbiased curriculum.
Thanks for another excellent article!
It does seem odd that there is so much controversy about what is and isn't taught when "there’s little reliable data on what is actually taught in American classrooms". A good starting point would be for the adults to agree on guidelines differentiating indoctrination from knowledge-building.
Excellent. I have appreciated your Substack. Thank you.
"There are also omissions and additions, some to make the curriculum Texas-specific but others that might have been politically motivated. Ancient India and China, along with discussions of their religions, are gone, as are Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia."
Do students in Texas learn about Ancient India, China, Egypt, and Mesopotamia in their social studies classes? If not, these omissions are problematic. Another example of why many are concerned that knowledge-building ELA curricula often don't align with social studies and science curricula and can complicate instruction. These knowledge-building choices are fraught with opportunity costs: We might teach students to understand references to having a cross to bear but not what having good or bad karma refers to. No easy answers.
What does the science of learning tell us about the best ways for students to build knowledge? Through, in part, integrating concepts across topics, as you point out: "To learn the meaning of a word like dynasty, kids could learn about European dynasties, Asian dynasties, African dynasties, or indigenous American dynasties."
Back to square one: Which knowledge do we teach and how do we make those choices? My go to text for guidance is Grover and the Everything in the Whole Wide World Museum.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X04iUMDT9UE&t=81s
Overall agreed.
One niggle, though it's quite clear that western culture is superior to other cultures
To take a really easy example. Think about being a woman or gay in a place like afghanistan.
Western culture, Modernity, Liberal values, those are worse fighting for.
Separation of church and state is crucial in a democracy, any teaching of the Bible in public schools is against our constitution. We are not a Christian nation and never will be.
I agree with the first and last of your propositions, but teaching the Bible as literature to help students understand American culture is entirely appropriate. Letter from Birmingham Jail, for instance, is filled with biblical allusions which must be understood in order to grasp King's main arguments.
But since many Americans are Christians, excluding it favors a secular worldview and violates the free exercise clause. And if a person isn't aware of scripture there is some cultural illiteracy there.
Actually, the Constitution doesn't mandate a separation between church and state. It prohibits the establishment of a church religion as in a church of america like there was a church of england
The separation between church and state was taken from a letter