The scariest thing I've read in a while.

[Obsessed]

EDIT: I fucked up the title... can someone edit the word "most" out of there?

This is one of the scariest things I've read in awhile. I worry about the future of America when people like these can essentially control what will and won't be taught to your children.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2010/1001.blake.html

Let me post some choice quotes.

Don McLeroy is a balding, paunchy man with a thick broom-handle mustache who lives in a rambling two-story brick home in a suburb near Bryan, Texas. When he greeted me at the door one evening last October, he was clutching a thin paperback with the skeleton of a seahorse on its cover, a primer on natural selection penned by famed evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr. We sat down at his dining table, which was piled high with three-ring binders, and his wife, Nancy, brought us ice water in cut-crystal glasses with matching coasters. Then McLeroy cracked the book open. The margins were littered with stars, exclamation points, and hundreds of yellow Post-its that were brimming with notes scrawled in a microscopic hand. With childlike glee, McLeroy flipped through the pages and explained what he saw as the gaping holes in Darwin’s theory. “I don’t care what the educational political lobby and their allies on the left say,” he declared at one point. “Evolution is hooey.” This bled into a rant about American history. “The secular humanists may argue that we are a secular nation,” McLeroy said, jabbing his finger in the air for emphasis. “But we are a Christian nation founded on Christian principles. The way I evaluate history textbooks is first I see how they cover Christianity and Israel. Then I see how they treat Ronald Reagan—he needs to get credit for saving the world from communism and for the good economy over the last twenty years because he lowered taxes.”

But McLeroy is no ordinary citizen. The jovial creationist sits on the Texas State Board of Education, where he is one of the leaders of an activist bloc that holds enormous sway over the body’s decisions. As the state goes through the once-in-a-decade process of rewriting the standards for its textbooks, the faction is using its clout to infuse them with ultraconservative ideals. Among other things, they aim to rehabilitate Joseph McCarthy, bring global-warming denial into science class, and downplay the contributions of the civil rights movement.

Texas is the nation’s second-largest textbook market and one of the few biggies where the state picks what books schools can buy rather than leaving it up to the whims of local districts, which means publishers that get their books approved can count on millions of dollars in sales. As a result, the Lone Star State has outsized influence over the reading material used in classrooms nationwide, since publishers craft their standard textbooks based on the specs of the biggest buyers. As one senior industry executive told me, “Publishers will do whatever it takes to get on the Texas list.”

Until recently, Texas’s influence was balanced to some degree by the more-liberal pull of California, the nation’s largest textbook market. But its economy is in such shambles that California has put off buying new books until at least 2014. This means that McLeroy and his ultraconservative crew have unparalleled power to shape the textbooks that children around the country read for years to come.

It took more than a decade of fits and starts, but the strategy eventually paid off. After the 2006 election, Republicans claimed ten of fifteen board seats. Seven were held by the ultra-conservatives, and one by a close ally, giving them an effective majority. Among the new cadre were some fiery ideologues; in her self-published book, Cynthia Dunbar of Richmond rails against public education, which she dubs “tyrannical” and a “tool of perversion,” and says sending kids to public school is like “throwing them into the enemy’s flames.” (More recently, she has accused Barack Obama of being a terrorist sympathizer and suggested he wants America to be attacked so he can declare martial law.) Then in 2007 Governor Rick Perry appointed Don McLeroy, a suburban dentist and longstanding bloc member, as board chairman. This passing of the gavel gave the faction unprecedented power just as the board was gearing up for the once-in-a-decade process of rewriting standards for every subject.

Barton and Peter Marshall initially tried to purge the standards of key figures of the civil rights era, such as César Chávez and Thurgood Marshall, though they were forced to back down amid a deafening public uproar. They have since resorted to a more subtle tack; while they concede that people like Martin Luther King Jr. deserve a place in history, they argue that they shouldn’t be given credit for advancing the rights of minorities. As Barton put it, “Only majorities can expand political rights in America’s constitutional society.” Ergo, any rights people of color have were handed to them by whites—in his view, mostly white Republican men.

In late 2007, the English language arts writing teams, made up mostly of teachers and curriculum planners, turned in the drafts they had been laboring over for more than two years. The ultraconservatives argued that they were too light on basics like grammar and too heavy on reading comprehension and critical thinking. “This critical-thinking stuff is gobbledygook,” grumbled David Bradley, an insurance salesman with no college degree, who often acts as the faction’s enforcer. At the bloc’s urging, the board threw out the teams’ work and hired an outside consultant to craft new standards from scratch, but the faction still wasn’t satisfied; when the new drafts came in, one adherent dismissed them as “unreadable” and “mangled.”

Even in deeply conservative Texas, the bloc’s breathtaking hubris—coupled with allegations of vote swapping (see “Money and Power on the Texas State Board of Education”)—have spurred a backlash. In May, the Texas state legislature refused to confirm McLeroy as board chair (Governor Perry replaced him with another bloc member), and, for the first time since he took office in 1998, he is facing a primary fight. His challenger, Thomas Ratliff, a lobbyist and legislative consultant whose father was the state’s lieutenant governor, argues that under McLeroy’s leadership the board has become a “liability” to the Republican Party. Two other members of the ultraconservative bloc are also mired in heated primary battles.

But to date few bloc members have been ousted in primaries, and even if moderates manage to peel off a few seats, by that time it will probably be too late. In mid-January, the board will meet to hammer out the last details of the standards for social studies, the only remaining subject, and the final vote will be held in March, around the same time the first primary ballots are counted. This means that no matter what happens at the ballot box, the next generation of textbooks will likely bear the fingerprints of the board’s ultraconservatives—which is just fine with McLeroy. “Remember Superman?” he asked me, as we sat sipping ice water in his dining room. “The never-ending battle for truth, justice, and the American way? Well, that fight is still going on. There are people out there who want to replace truth with political correctness. Instead of the American way they want multiculturalism. We plan to fight back—and, when it comes to textbooks, we have the power to do it. Sometimes it boggles my mind the kind of power we have.”

 

[Surgo]

Yeah, the Texas Board of Education thing is absolutely fucked.

Fortunately (some of) the rest of the country aren't playing ball this time. California, which is an even bigger textbook market, is setting their own standards and buying them.

Still, I feel bad for the kids in Texas. When it comes to being competitive with the rest of the nation, they are screwed if this goes through. (There's a small chance it won't, if the next governor elected appoints a new board head they can and will revote; it would practically have to be a democrat though.)

 

[darkie]

Yeah, this is pretty much a load of bull.

All of my history teachers are totally against it, and I've failed to find a single person at my school who agrees with the restrictions on content.

 

[Game Freak201]

Who isn't aware of what's going on in Texas right now? Anyways, I'm glad I only have one more year of high school left before I graduate. Even the thought of what might be in those text books irks me to no end.

 

[Electrode]

This is a sad thing, but even sadder is the idea that this has more than likely been going on for ages, possibly even once history was first recorded. The second history gets into judging peoples importance and character, instead of just recording the hard facts, then stuff like this will happen.

I definatly don't see a problem with mentioning Ronald Reagan-when it comes to history books, all I ever see are the usuals: Wilson, Rossevelt(s), L.B.J, Kennedy, and Lincoln. Usually half a page goes to something like the arguments leading up to the civil war, and a whole chapter goes to Kennedy and his damned camelot. Personally, I think that there should be a chapter that contains bills passed (and other info) from each president. Obviously, saying that Ronald Reagan is God is silly. (Seriously though, anybody hear anything about Taft? He passed quite a few key bills, but I have never read about them in any history text book I've read.)

As far as the civil rights go, he has a small point; Kennedy and L.B.J played a huge role by actually listening to the turmoil and civil unrest. But once again, it takes it too far by ignoring everything else that was going on, and it undermines M.L King Jr.

Lol, critical thinking is gobbeldegook. How silly.

This is basically just the republicans trying to say "Nah nah, we can write history over too!" to democrats. I just wish that everyone would swallow their pride and actually write, you know, history, instead of turning it into some cheerleading chant for their side.

 

[billymills]

As far as the civil rights go, he has a small point; Kennedy and L.B.J played a huge role by actually listening to the turmoil and civil unrest. But once again, it takes it too far by ignoring everything else that was going on, and it undermines M.L King Jr.

I don't think Kennedy and L.B.J. are the people the board would point to.

This is pretty scary, especially if it spreads to other states. This reminds me of a law passed here a year ago restricting talk about religion in classes, but this is over the top.

It scares me how much average citizens have over the education of millions. If anything, the textbooks should be chosen by the colleges, teachers and professionals. Not elected car-salesmen.

 

[Electrode]

I don't think Kennedy and L.B.J. are the people the board would point to.

This is pretty scary, especially if it spreads to other states. This reminds me of a law passed here a year ago restricting talk about religion in classes, but this is over the top.

It scares me how much average citizens have over the education of millions. If anything, the textbooks should be chosen by the colleges, teachers and professionals. Not elected car-salesmen.

I wasn't supporting their action to whitewash M.L.K Jr out of importence, (or saying that they wouldn't) I just slighty, very slighty agree with the thought that it wasn't all just M.L.K.Jr who did the work in the civil rights struggle.

Also, I wouldn't hold the car-salesman thing against him. Charles Ives was a great composer who composed in his free time; his actual job was working on his insurance company. I'd just leave it at, "We shouldn't let history support one side over the other."

I don't even want "professonals" deciding what should be in books, as these people might consider themselves professionals, and even professionals can whitewash history.

 

[Phantom_IV]

I'd read a different article about the same story, but it was enough to scare me. Even if the rest of the country doesn't follow suit, there will still be a generation of ultra-conservative republicans coming out of Texas with a very, very flawed understanding of history and the sciences.

 

[Eraddd]

Is there anyone from Texas who could give us a perspective of what the people think?

I mean, I know Texas is a very conservative state, but damn, this is a bit too far.

 

[earthpeople]

Been hearing about this for a while. It's definitely ridiculous and I just don't understand why these people feel qualified to decide what books their state (and by extension a sizable portion of the country) uses. I agree with billymills that professionals are the ones who need to be making these decisions.

It irritates the hell out of me to read news about this situation. It's just so stupid. There should be a check in place so that these people can't decide the fate of the education system and subsequently, the intellectual development of future generations.

 

[Shroomisaur]

The link is broken so I was only able to read what was posted in your quotes, but... wow. I'd seen this issue on the TV news media, but I didn't think it was a big deal. I saw a couple radical comments, but at the same time I also agreed with the stance of the Texas board that was presented on a few issues.

But I'd never seen anything like this, this was juicy enough to evoke a laugh from me. A very cynical laugh... especially the “Only majorities can expand political rights in America’s constitutional society." line, that one really makes me shake my head and wonder, "What's gotten into these people...?"

I guess the moral of the story is "avoid Texans' schools"... and 10 or 20 years from now, shorten that to "avoid Texans", period!

 

[Deck Knight]

As opposed to our current educational system which ranks among the lowest among industrialized nations. I can match your Texas Schoolboard with Fuzzy Math and liberal history programs in North Carolina that find American History a rather unnecessary thing to cover until after 1880.

By the way, your link is broken. In any event the quotes given have what I will politely call editorial spin infused throughout them. Why is the lack of the "proper credentials" (by implication) for the insurance salesman mentioned? How many PhD's worked in Wall Street and in the halls of government? What did all those "credentialed" people get us? As for the "critical thinking" quote, I've been unimpressed by the "critical thinking" skills of the new generation. They're certainly good at critique - feminist, anti-heterodox, Marxist, post-modernist... but "critical thinking" isn't the same as parroting pablum, however much it tries to cloak itself as "reading between the lines."

You want scary in education? How about kids singing odes to Obama at the behest of their school? (Or Fuzzy Math, above. Or eradicating the Revolutionary and Civil Wars as topics in American History, above.)

The Texas Board of Education might be misguided. In that case, why don't we abolish the failed system of public education? It's clear it only leads to overreach and gross revisionist history. The simplest answer is to get government out of education. Start with the feds first and then work it down to the local level. Private and technical/vocational schools only with a dynamic and robust school voucher system. No more raising second-class generational welfare cases in the inner city. No more ESL bullshit: English immersion only.

History needs more Coolidge, too.

One more thing: If California's liberal-leaning education system was so great, why have they ducked out of the market? Maybe because how history and the sciences are currently taught is the factually errant/incomplete one. California-educated scholars managed to run that state into the ground.

The current curriculum is an obvious failure. The education system requires fundamental transformation. Texas is taking a step in that direction. If people don't like it, well, it's not like decorum is highly valued anymore, is it? That's one of those icky moral values issues current school systems can't get involved in.

 

[billymills]

By professionals I meant the people who set the demands for post-secondary institutions and/or job requirements. i.e.: A hospital or a medical science faculty makes decisions regarding high school biology textbooks.

"Avoid texans" is rather difficult. Seeing as there's well over 30 million of them. And the likelyhood that these textbooks are covered in a variety of states across the south-east only makes it worse. The only thing that would put any pressure on them is have schools reject anyone following a basic Texan curriculum. Yes, it's mean, but it may just be necessary. I'd rather set back students than have them in high-ranking positions.

I will not defend the current curriculum. I've always thought the math curriculum was extremely slow, unfortunately I've been the only one in my classes. No one is defending bullshit like fuzzy math. I don't know the state of the american system, but I really don't think ours is all that much better. However that's besides the point. We are not talking about how intense the program is, but rather how it is taught. There's a difference between moving at a faster pace, and selectively ignoring segments of history.

 

[vonFiedler]

Yeah, the Texas Board of Education thing is absolutely fucked.

Every Board of Education is fucked, and for scarier reasons than anything said above. Even someone too small minded to teach evolution should still be able to get their student body to a somewhat competent level in reading and math, but they fail at this regardless of their fundamentals.

 

[Electrode]

As opposed to our current educational system which ranks among the lowest among industrialized nations. I can match your Texas Schoolboard with Fuzzy Math and liberal history programs in North Carolina that find American History a rather unnecessary thing to cover until after 1880.

That is also quite upsetting. They don't even cover the revolution? Ugh.

In any event the quotes given have what I will politely call editorial spin infused throughout them. Why is the lack of the "proper credentials" (by implication) for the insurance salesman mentioned? How many PhD's worked in Wall Street and in the halls of government? What did all those "credentialed" people get us?

I agree; the article should give some more info on those who are in support of this. It kind of sends the message that they are uneducated; yet again, that just might be you and I seeing it from our point of view.

As for the "critical thinking" quote, I've been unimpressed by the "critical thinking" skills of the new generation. They're certainly good at critique - feminist, anti-heterodox, Marxist, post-modernist...

Asking questions is generally the first start to higher understanding. And although each group you listed can get out of hand, some of them have contributed something good through their thoughts; such as equality for women and fairness.

Using the radicals against the general core of the group is the exact same thing that is sadly happening to the Tea Party; I feel as if this is what you are doing to those groups that you listed.

The founding fathers had quite a bit of critique for the king, which he also found ridiculous. Just because something critiques doesn't mean that it is not looking deeper into the subject.

That's breathtaking hubris, this is a Texas Board of Education lashing out against a broken education system.

You may see it that way, but others see it as republicans trying to whitewash history. Who is right?

You want scary in education? How about kids singing odes to Obama at the behest of their school?

That's a tad odd, yes.

(Or Fuzzy Math, above. Or eradicating the Revolutionary and Civil Wars as topics in American History, above.)

This is just sad.

EDIT: I watched the fuzzy math video, and some of those problems just took too long. So, make math easier by adding a million steps? Those text books certainly seemed ridiculous.

It's clear it only leads to overreach and gross revisionist history. The simplest answer is to get government out of education.

I think that the government should be out of education as well, but I don't know if it would ultimately stop teachers from teaching sides.

History needs more Coolidge, too.

Yes. History needs more of every president, not just the "fun" ones.

One more thing: If California's liberal-leaning education system was so great, why have they ducked out of the market?

I don't think that this would have anything to do with their education system being bad or not. What if they just didn't like the new stuff Texas wanted?

The current curriculum is an obvious failure.

True. But are the ideas of Texas an improvement?

The education system requires fundamental transformation. Texas is taking a step in that direction.

They may be trying to fix it, but changing it to where it just leans the other way doesn't seem like the right answer.


EDIT: Now that I think about it, is the whole interview anywhere? The article may have just used negative sounding bits and pieces. It would be nice to read the whole discussion to see exaclty what is being thought out.

 

[cantab]

This is what the Texan people want. They elected this board. Let them suffer the consequences.

Those in Texas who don't want their children educated in such a way can and should homeschool their children. I'm sure the Texas Board of Education would see how much of a mistake they've made if large numbers of Texans are not sending their children. Nothing else would so strongly send out the message "We have no confidence in the state's educational system."

And hopefully, other states will stand up to this. The people best placed to stop these willfully-distorted textbooks from infecting the whole nation are the publishers. If they make the effort and have the guts to produce accurate science textbooks and balanced history ones, then that part of the USA that's not in thrall to the religious right will be able to educate its children properly. (It is perhaps inevitable that such textbooks will be produced - if there is the demand, and the major publishers don't meet it, someone else will enter the market. Or, of course, other schools could adopt California's lead, and not buy books rather than have to let Texas' junk into their schools).

On the other hand, those like Deck Knight who support the system - when you have kids, are you going to move to Texas and enroll them in school at the state that's "taking a step in [the] direction [of] ... fundamental transformation"?
On the other hand, you don't support federal government dictating things on the states - why do you support a state dictating what individual schools may teach?

 

[Obsessed]

I fixed the link.

 

[Wikey]

Deck Knight, why would you turn this into a left vs. right debate?

My aunt sends three of her four kids to a private school that teaches creationism. I read the youngest one's (11 years old) "science" textbook and I have a hard time even looking at my aunt anymore. Basically the textbook goes: "Supporters of Evolution theory believe this, but look at all this evidence that "doesn't fit" with a theory of Evolution." And any time it mentions anybody that disagrees with evolution it gives three or four paragraphs talking about how smart they are and how educated they are and how moral of a person they are. It's basically two lines of what they think evolution "is about" and then three to four pages half-assedly showing "the other side." Whenever I talk to religious people about science and they get all uppity about the whole, "BUT GOD DID IT" thing I use the disclaimer, "Yes, God did it. That's great, here's how God did it." I think our schools should adopt this to appease the stupid radicals.

As far as the history / social studies aspect of it. Just more proof that politics should be left out of education.

 

[Ferrouswheel]

This is what the Texan people want. They elected this board. Let them suffer the consequences.

^False^

If you read the articles on the subject, you'll see that the conservative Republicans tend to dislike these TBoE people, and that they were elected primarily because no one ran against them, and people don't tend to pay much attention to the elections.

Also, the qualifications aside, some of the more extreme members of the TBoE not only don't have their children in the public school system, they have openly stated that they are trying to destroy Texas public education. :(

Also, something not mentioned is that they want to whitewash Joe McCarthy, and say that at least he managed to get the communists.

 

[Deck Knight]

Deck Knight, why would you turn this into a left vs. right debate?

Because this is the first time the right decides to challenge the left's stranglehold on public education. The teacher's unions and their bosses all vote Democratic. Democrats have had control over the educational apparatus for decades. In college, the overwhelming majority of professors have liberal political views and voting patterns. The worst schools are in the inner city, which itself has been run by Democrats at all levels of government.

You cannot talk about fixing education until you can identify characteristics of the educators (and administrators). The educators are the ones who decide the curriculum and implement it. The day teachers unionized is the day that teacher benefits became more important than student education. The only time the students get mentioned in public discourse is when the teacher's union finally gets reprimanded for underperforming schools. The argument that teachers need more pay and more materials never abates, even as grades slip further and further away every time the community caves into their demands.

Now I grant this is a flaw in the political right's interest in becoming teachers generally over the last few decades. Letting that drop to the wayside has created one-sided school boards in most of the country that actively look at political ideology before selecting educators or administrators. Schools have already become a political football. To deny this is to avoid the harsh reality that government schools are inherently politicized by their public nature.

My aunt sends three of her four kids to a private school that teaches creationism. I read the youngest one's (11 years old) "science" textbook and I have a hard time even looking at my aunt anymore. Basically the textbook goes: "Supporters of Evolution theory believe this, but look at all this evidence that "doesn't fit" with a theory of Evolution." And any time it mentions anybody that disagrees with evolution it gives three or four paragraphs talking about how smart they are and how educated they are and how moral of a person they are. It's basically two lines of what they think evolution "is about" and then three to four pages half-assedly showing "the other side." Whenever I talk to religious people about science and they get all uppity about the whole, "BUT GOD DID IT" thing I use the disclaimer, "Yes, God did it. That's great, here's how God did it." I think our schools should adopt this to appease the stupid radicals.

As far as the history / social studies aspect of it. Just more proof that politics should be left out of education.

Politics will never be out of education as long as their is a federal Department of Education. Unionization of teacher's does not help this one bit. Whatever problems surely arise from this new curriculum, they will be balanced against other changes.

Now, your aunt sends her children to a school that teaches creationism, which you find to be radical and repugnant. However, since it is a private school none of your tax dollars went to pay for it. Your aunt is thus responsible for the (mis)education of her own children and she will have to deal with the consequences. I support her right to educate her children in the manner she deems appropriate.

But what do you do when the public schools are broken, radical, and educationally worthless? They are primarily funded by property taxes and you pay into them regardless of whether you have children or not. You pay into them even if your children go to private schools. And you aren't getting a result that justifies your mandated investment.

 

[darkie]

Is there anyone from Texas who could give us a perspective of what the people think?

I mean, I know Texas is a very conservative state, but damn, this is a bit too far.

Yeah, no one likes it.

 

[Ferrouswheel]

Because this is the first time the right decides to challenge the left's stranglehold on public education. The teacher's unions and their bosses all vote Democratic. Democrats have had control over the educational apparatus for decades. In college, the overwhelming majority of professors have liberal political views and voting patterns. The worst schools are in the inner city, which itself has been run by Democrats at all levels of government.

As an FYI, teachers are not allowed to unionize in Texas.

Also, after re-reading the quotes in the beginning, I will say that although I disagree with the guy on the subject of reading analysis, I would agree with the idea that not enough time is spent on grammar.

 

[UncleSam]

As an FYI, teachers are not allowed to unionize in Texas.

Also, after re-reading the quotes in the beginning, I will say that although I disagree with the guy on the subject of reading analysis, I would agree with the idea that not enough time is spent on grammar.

Have you considered that teachers unionizing is not necessarily a good thing? My aunt is a public school teacher, and when the 2008 elections came around she was FORCED(yes, forced, at the risk of her job) to wear an Obama/Biden button on her shirt.

The above example is the cause of the problem, although not the problem itself. The fact is, both right and left are to blame for this, because it was the left driving public education way over the edge, and now the right wants to "strike back" and so goes over the edge in the other direction. I don't know how many of you have taken the United States History AP exam recently, but there are five times as many questions on radical extremists like Marcus Garvey (a convicted criminal) than there are questions about legitimate military history and the impact of such figures as Ulysses S. Grant or General Patton. In fact, Patton is not even mentioned in my AP History textbook. Not once. There was no question about World War I battles, World War II battles, the War of 1812, or the Revolutionary War. There were about 9 questions on random extremists who advocated Women's Rights/Civil Rights, many of whom never made any noticeable impact (see: William Lloyd Garrison).

Of course, as misleading as this style of history is, it is no more misleading than the Republican equivalent being forced through in Texas. The real problem, the thing that is actually wrong, is that everyone immediately assumes a side. It doesn't occur to anyone that, you know, both sides could be wrong.

Maybe if we all stopped fighting for about two minutes' time and actually considered the causes of this problem rather than just the problem at hand, we could fix both the causes and the problem at once.

At the same time, I admit, there is no easy solution. Everyone believes something, and everyone also fights for that belief as the only truth. I am not naive enough to think that the Republicans and Democrats can just kiss and make up and so on and so forth. But there has to be a better solution than the current system. At least everyone is right about that.

 

[mtr]

Well, the ETS doesn't test on military history, and the "criminals" you mention were important and influential voices in their respective movements. Who cares that Thoreau went to jail for tax evasion? What's important is that his opposition to the Mexican War was one of the first recorded cases of civil disobedience in US history.

Anyways, the evolution thing is pretty bad, but I don't expect any better from Texas.

 

[cantab]

The worst schools are in the inner city, which itself has been run by Democrats at all levels of government.

Lol logical fallacy right there.
The worst schools are in inner cities because those inner city areas are typically impoverished, crime-ridden, and have many families and even cultures that place little importance on former schooling. These places vote Democrat because the Democrats promise to help them.

Now I grant this is a flaw in the political right's interest in becoming teachers generally over the last few decades.

Well that stands to reason. Conservatives like to criticise government taxation and spending - working for the government would not sit well with that.

To deny this is to avoid the harsh reality that government schools are inherently politicized by their public nature.

We don't have these kinds of issues in the UK. I'm not sure when the National Curriculum was last updated, and there's not an awful lot of debate about it. The debate there is tends to be when changes are criticised as "dumbing down". There certainly isn't a credible movement to criticise the theory of evolution by natural selection explaining the origin of all species, which is probably the strongest theory in biology. Most of the government focus seems to have been on the exam system, which frankly I think they should stop meddling with. IIRC the Tories do want to significantly 'reduce' the National Curriculum to delegate more authority to schools and Local Education Authorities.

But what do you do when the public schools are broken, radical, and educationally worthless? They are primarily funded by property taxes and you pay into them regardless of whether you have children or not. You pay into them even if your children go to private schools. And you aren't getting a result that justifies your mandated investment.

In which case the solution is to delegate the decisions to a more local level. As indeed the majority of states (but NOT Texas) do. Not for the Christian right to ram their views down everyone's throats.

Have you considered that teachers unionizing is not necessarily a good thing? My aunt is a public school teacher, and when the 2008 elections came around she was FORCED(yes, forced, at the risk of her job) to wear an Obama/Biden button on her shirt.

Well that's a fucking broken union. That's the principle of unions being utterly subverted and thrown away. Something like that could never happen in the UK.