Why Do I Have to Take This Class?

GOVT 2305

If you followed the proper sequence for this class – and took it with me - you also covered a similar issue in

GOVT 2305.

In that set of slides I tried to convince you that you are taking this class as part of a deliberate plot to turn you

into a rational, thinking citizen.

Resistance is futile.

Ok, who am I kidding?

This

Not this

A republic – the argument goes – must rest on an educated rational

population if it is to survive.

Some quotes:

"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society

but the people themselves, (A)nd if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control

with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from

them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of

constitutional power.“

- Thomas Jefferson

"It is an object of vast magnitude that systems of education should be

adopted and pursued which may not only diffuse a knowledge of the sciences but may implant in the

minds of the American youth the principles of virtue and of liberty and

inspire them with just and liberal ideas of government and with an

inviolable attachment to their own country.“

- Noah Webster, On the Education of Youth in America

Note the relationship drawn between education and

citizenship.

The founders of both the United States and Texas noted the

importance of the relationship.

“Cultivated mind is the guardian genius of Democracy, and while

guided and controlled by virtue, the noblest attribute of man. It is the

only dictator that freemen acknowledge, and the only security

which freemen desire.”

– Mirabeau Lamar.

This observation has led to a series of decisions which has ultimately culminated in the State of Texas deciding that you need to take a couple classes in government in order to graduate with a degree

from a public college or university.

One focused on American government: GOVT 2305.

The other focused on state and local government, with an

emphasis on Texas and the local area – that’s this one: GOVT 2306.

Wonder why? Background: Recommendation: Rationale:

Why split it this way?

There’s a substantive reason: not enough time is spent looking specifically at Texas and local

government.

There’s also a practical reason: A class on strictly U.S. Government is more likely to transfer in and out

of a private or out-of-state institution.

And they are to be taught by people like me who have fancy

degrees.

Specifically, people who have at least a masters degree and at least

18 graduate hours in the field.

This is a decision that the state revisits from time to time and was recently

reaffirmed.

In other words, a deliberate decision has been made – and remade - that two

classes of government are necessary in order to ensure that you will be able to participate effectively in our democratic

political system.

That’s the broad goal of this class.

The more narrow goal of this set of slides is to justify you’re having to

take this class a bit more thoroughly.

In GOVT 2305 we discussed why the founders of the US thought

that an educated public was necessary especially in a

democratic republic where sovereignty rested with the

general population.

I’d suggest a quick review of the introductory slides for GOVT 2305 to remind you of the argument.

In a nutshell:

The founders of the US were concerned that in establishing a republic, they were

dooming the nation to an unstable governing system.

Why?

Because republics had failed repeatedly in the past, most notably when the Roman Republic became an empire under the

Augustus Caesar.

This was a big deal to educated elites of that time.

Allusions to Rome were very common around that time.

For a review of this episode, you

might want to watch this video

from BBC History.

The Fall of the Roman Republic

The Roman Republic fell to a large degree because the general population lost faith in it and allowed for the development of

a tyranny under Augustus Caesar.

The founders bought into the idea that governments had life cycles. One was likely to devolve into the

next – here’s a look at Plato’s analysis of political regimes.

Before we go to far, what is a republic by the way?

“a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their

elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated

president rather than a monarch.”

These were replaced with “empires” which were organized as

tyrannies largely because power was concentrated in the hands of

one person.

So while we’re at it – here’s James Madison’s preferred definition of

“tyranny:”

The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary,

in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether

hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced

the very definition of tyranny.

– Federalist 47.

Preserving a republic means preserving a system of government controlled to some degree by the

general population which separates powers and places limits on the

executive.

But it also means having a governing system that can be volatile.

Another point hit repeatedly in GOVT 2305 was that a free society

– one where people can speak their minds and the media is free

to publish much of what it chooses - is inevitably in conflict.

It’s a consequence of living in a free society.

Despite the uncertainty regarding republics, the US founders had committed

themselves to a nation based on the consent of the governed in the Declaration of Independence, so they were stuck with

a republican government of some sort.

The only question was how that nation would be organized and whether such a

system could survive.

Here’s a review of a key part of the document:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they

are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their

just powers from the consent of the governed.”

In a governing system where people are equal, the only proper basis of authority is the consent of

the governed.

Meaning that there has to be a direct link between the

government and the general population.

That’s what a democratic republic establishes.

A link between the governed and the government.

For this reason, republics had a special status in the minds of many

of the framers.

As we will see soon enough, the US Constitution guarantees that each

state in the union have a republican government.

But this is theory.

It’s easy to make this argument in the abstract. The difficult thing is to establish a governing system

that both rests on the people and provides stability.

The founders argued that there was little evidence in history that

republics survive very long.

Here’s a Wikipedia page that lists the republics that have existed

over history. The brevity of those in antiquity and the Middle Ages

worried the constitution’s framers.

Here is the question posed: Is self government really possible?

That is the American Experiment.

The founders of the US had no illusions that the process would be easy. They knew success was not

guaranteed. Here’s a famous back and forth following the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention

Mrs. Powel: "Well Doctor, what

have we got, a republic or a monarchy?"

Benjamin Franklin: "A

republic if you can keep it“

As we know, the nation faced many challenges over its history.

The Civil War being the most serious.

Notice how Abraham Lincoln addressed the question posed by

the war:

“Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a

new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in

a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so

dedicated, can long endure. …”

Abraham LincolnThe opening of the Gettysburg Address

He hits the same theme as Franklin.

This leads to an important question:

Is the general public up to the task of self government? Do polls demonstrate that the general population has the knowledge

necessary to rule competently?

The founders did not think so. They had a low opinion of the

capabilities of the general population. The one’s they referred to as “the mob.”

Click here for an extensive essay on the founder’s attitude towards

democracy.

The very existence of government is a consequence of human

deficiency.

“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If

angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal

controls on government would be necessary.” – James Madison,

Federalist #51

“The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils, have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under

which popular Governments have everywhere perished”

- James Madison, Federalist #10.

And here is an extended quote from Alexander Hamilton reflecting his view of the general population

and their capacity to govern:

“For my part, I am not much attached to the majesty of the multitude, and therefore waive all pretensions (founded on such conduct), to

their countenance. I consider them in general as very ill qualified to judge for themselves what

government will best suit their peculiar situations; nor is this to be wondered at. The

science of government is not easily understood. Cato will admit, I presume, that men of good

education and deep reflection, only, are judges of the form of a government” - Caesar #2

As with Hamilton, many founders expected that the mass public would be incapable of self-government and purposely limited participation to a

ruling class that would have the ability to govern effectively.

Cato Institute: Why Policymakers Should Ignore Public Opinion Polls.

This was one of the reasons why participation was limited to

property owners for much of American history. Here’s an

instructive quote:

Those who own America ought to govern it. - John Jay

But as the nation was heading westward – as it developed – it

was anticipated that participation (suffrage) would expand.

This made it imperative that the nation be prepared for that

expansion.

So the question was: how can a governing system be both stable

and tied into the general population?

There are two ways to do so.

1 – design the governing system so that the possibility of instability is

minimized.

2 – educate the general population so they are more likely to have a

rational, knowledgeable approach to governing.

The purpose of the US Constitution was to address the first issue.

The authors of the Federalist Papers argued that Constitution established a system of government that addressed – to some degree – many of the problems

that had vexed previous republics and made it less likely that the US republic would fall due to the same

reasons as previous republics.

This meant coming to terms with human nature

The Constitution’s framers were students – of a sort – of human nature. They assumed that

people were not always inclined to behave in ways that promoted the common good and the

general welfare.

They saw a well designed governing system as necessary for ensuring that the negative aspects

of human nature were accounted for.

In 2305 we spent time detailing how the U.S.

Constitution was designed to compensate for human

nature. We specifically looked at the points James

Madison made in Federalist #10 and #51.

Let’s review the general points.

The authors of the Constitution were generally dissatisfied with the

governing system established by the Articles of Confederation.

They believed the democratic majorities within each state were leading to instability and conflict

that could undermine the republic.

They thought democracy allowed people without property to

challenge the property rights of the elites.

The states at that time were effectively separate nations.

There was no central authority that could balance the powers of

the states and compel them to cooperate with each other.

The traditional problems that republics faced could not be

addressed as a consequence of the government’s design.

The Federalists argued that a system with a stronger national

government could do so.

It could compel cooperation between the states.

Special attention was paid to these two problems with human nature:

Self Interest Ambition

The general population is motivated primarily by self

interest.

The leadership is motivated primarily by ambition.

The assumption was that neither of these could be changed – they are permanent parts of our nature – so

they must be compensated for.

This continues to be a controversial issue: can people be changed

substantively? Or are we are what we are?

Self Interest

This is the subject of Federalist #10

People tend to be oriented primarily towards their own self interest rather than

the overall good of the nation.

Moreover, people have strong tendencies to come into conflict with each other for

any variety of reasons. Some are substantive, some not so.

These lead to the formation of groups – factions – which seek to influence what governments do.

In a pure democracy – as opposed to an indirect democracy such as a republic – a majority can form and

use its power to dominate the minority.

The solution was to accept the fact that self interest is an innate

aspect of human nature and that in a free society it would lead to the

formation of factions, but to ensure that a large number of

interests in society would make it difficult for a majority faction to

form.

It states that the primary problem in a democracy is the creation of

tyrannical majorities.

They can rule as broadly as any dictator or king. They can

determine the rights and liberties of minorities in the community.

Ensuring that a large number of interests would exist in the

governing system makes the creation of a majority – if not

impossible – very difficult.

No one group would be able to permanently dominate the political

process.

This guarantees ongoing political conflict – but it is a better

guarantee of individual freedom.

He’s not telling us that the Constitution makes people orient themselves to the common good.

It just makes it more difficult for majorities to control the entire

process and ensure that only their self interests will be served.

Ambition

This is the subject of Federalist #51

This focuses on the problems posed by the ambitious politicians or governing official.

One does not hold high office without being ambitious. It takes a lot of work to get elected or

appointed. There is little expectation that they would be satisfied with those positions. They would want more. At least that’s what history

tells us about ambitious leaders.

Remember this guy?

The purpose of the separated powers was to ensure that

ambition could be contained.

Not eliminated, contained.

It was fully expected that those who hold office would seek to expand it, and further

that this compulsion was inevitable.

The systems of checks and balances is designed to ensure that ambitious office

holders would check each other. The constitutional system ensures that conflict between the branches would occur. This

conflict was considered necessary

“ . . . the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same

department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary

constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of

the others.”

“Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.”

- Federalist #51

Again, human nature is seen to be unchangeable, and the

Constitution compensates for it by incorporating it into its design.

This doesn’t mean that there was no attempt to improve the

capability of the general population to govern.

That was the second part of the strategy for securing the

maintenance of the republic.

Civic Education

(1) the structure of the governing system must compensate for these

deficiencies

(2) the general population must be educated in order to make them

more capable to rule themselves.

As we just saw briefly outlined, the structure of the constitution is

meant to provide the first method to preserve the republic.

Public education – civic education - is meant to handle the second.

Public virtue was considered essential to the founders.

"Public virtue cannot exist in a nation without

private, and public virtue is the only

foundation of republics." - John

Adams

Public Virtue

What is Public Virtue?

In the eighteenth century, public virtue commonly denoted the willingness of

individuals to sacrifice private interest for the common good or for the good of the community in the name of patriotism or

out of love of country.

- Source: The Constitution and Public Virtue: Silence by Design

A good way to ensure public virtue was to make sure the general

public was educated.

But here’s a complicating factor: education is not one of the

delegated powers granted to the national government in the U.S.

Constitution.

Its is one of the many – open ended - powers reserved to the

states.

This puts limitations on the ability of the national government to use educational institutions to impact

the capability of the general population to govern themselves.

There efforts to do so nevertheless.

One of the more forceful advocates of civic education

was Thomas Jefferson.

He was a driving force behind two pieces of legislation that promoted

education.

1- A Bill for the More General Diffusion of Knowledge

2 – The Northwest Ordinance

The first was legislation introduced by Jefferson to the Virginia Legislature to

establish a system of public schools in the state. This was done a few years after he wrote the Declaration of Independence,

It failed to pass several times before finally being passed in 1796.

For a good description of the benefits of education, read thePreamble to a Bill for the More General Diffusion of Knowledge

Here is a link to the entire bill.

And here is a key part of the preamble:

“Whereas it appeareth that however certain forms of government are better calculated than others to protect

individuals in the free exercise of their natural rights, and are at the same time themselves better guarded against degeneracy,

yet experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms, those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow

operations, perverted it into tyranny; and it is believed that the most effectual means of preventing this would be, to illuminate, as far as practicable, the minds of the people at large, and more especially to give them knowledge of those facts, which history exhibiteth, that, possessed thereby of the experience of other ages and countries, they may be enabled to know ambition

under all its shapes, and prompt to exert their natural powers to defeat its purposes.”

If you read carefully, you’ll notice that Jefferson’s vision concerned educating the cream of the crop only – finding the most capable

children from any level of society.

The idea that all children should be educated emerged later.

Jefferson’s principal point:

An educated republic is supposed to be able to recognize attempts to

establish tyranny, and how to adequately respond to it.

Also:

Educational institutions are supposed to be civic-centered.

The goal is to enhance the capacity for self government.

This is a controversial point to this day.

Who and/or what should dominate the educational process? The

state? Religious organizations? The family?

This conflict is common in Texas politics. We will try to interject some of this as the semester

continues.

For additional information and commentary on Jefferson’s bill, among other related items, click

here:

Education for Civitas: The Lessons Americans Must Learn

From the Article:

A Few Lessons from History: Remember that the very idea of a liberal education was originally linked with the practice and preparation for free citizenship--in the polis of democratic

Athens and in the civitas of republican Rome. Each generation was to acquire the civic knowledge and commitments of

"civitas." This was also the view of discerning founders of the American Republic and of their successors who decided that the

responsibilities and the rights of American citizenship in a democratic republic should be defined by law and nourished by

a common civic education and civic culture rather than by kinship, ethnicity, race, religion, class, or hereditary status.

But saying that education is beneficial and establishing

educational institutions that can accomplish this are two separate

things.

And, again, here’s a complicating factor:

Education falls under the reserved powers of the states.

Nevertheless, Jefferson pushed efforts to promote education in

the new territories.

This was part of the intent of the Northwest Ordinance, as well as

other laws related to how the territories to the west would be

developed.

The Northwest Ordinance (1787) established the rules regarding the development of the territory that

would become Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois and Wisconsin (click

here for background from the Library of Congress).

It encouraged the development of schools.

The Northwest Ordinance was an early attempt to guarantee that as

the nation began to move westward means were established

to enhance the capacity of the settlers in those areas to govern

themselves.

Here’s a key component of the bill:

Art. 3. Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to

good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and

the means of education shall forever be encouraged.

This is one of the reasons why, coast to coast, there is compulsory

K-12 education as well as a comprehensive state sponsored

system of colleges and universities.

Prior to the US Constitution, the Land Ordinance of 1785 – which helped

determine how land to the west would be divided up – established that land would be set aside for the development of cities that would include portions set aside for

educational purposes.

This was the basic layout for cities as projected by the ordinance.

You can see some evidence of this structure in the early design of

Houston.

And in how the town evolved initially.

The plots in the middle of the

town - 15, 16, 21 and 22 – were set

aside for public functions.

Plot 16 was to be for public schools.

The entire design was meant to enhance the ability of the

population to govern themselves be ensuring that educational

institutions would be available for the general population.

Again – that’s the intent not necessarily the realization.

Here are key parts of the Wikipedia entry on the Land

Ordinance of 1785.

It points out the intent to establish public schools and their

relationship with civic education and duty.

“The systematic and highly organized westward settlements, with their local governments and

central square dedicated towards public education were a concerted effort to inspire civic duty and participation in the democratic process. Usher relates this initiative to “the Supreme Court in Cooper v. Roberts (1855),

‘plant in the heart of every community the same sentiments of grateful reverence for the

wisdom, forecast, and magnanimous statesmanship of those who framed the

institutions of these new States.”

]The westward expansion therefore was not only a tool for raising much needed funds, but also a

tool in a grand socializing experiment to inoculate the settlers to democratic ideals. The

hope was that the unique planning of each township with a public school centrally located, coupled with the obligation of each township’s local citizens to take part in the civic process of governing the township, teaching and building

the schools, and maintaining order, would instill the democratic ideals crucial to the nation’s

success.

The point:

The design and funding mechanisms established early on – at least at the national level – were

intended to facilitate the education of the citizenry.

There is a relationship between urban design, education, civic

virtue and the development and viability of democracy.

As with other things though, the question is implementation.

Did the early cities established after this system was put in place

follow this model?

There was also – early on – regional disagreement over the whether the

development of newer states and cities should incorporate educational

institutions.

This exhibits a tension we will explore soon enough between the various political

cultures that exist in the US. In this case between that prevalent in New England

and in the South.

A bit more from the Wikipedia on the Land Ordinance of 1785.

“The highly planned and surveyed western townships established in the Land Ordinance of

1785, were heavily influenced by the New England settlements of the colonial era,

particularly the land grant provisions of the Ordinances which dedicated land towards public

education and other government uses. In colonial times, New England settlements

contained dedicated public space for schools and churches, which often held a central role in

the community.

Two geographically and ideologically distinct colonial land systems were competing at such time in history – the New England system and

the Southern system. While the primary influence on the Land Ordinance of 1785 was the New England land system of the colonial era, marked by its emphasis on community development and systematic planning, the

exceedingly individualistic Southern land system also played a role.

The New England land system, while the primary influence on the great land ordinances of the 1780s,

was not the only land system influence. The Southern land system, marked by individualism and personal

initiative, also helped shape the ordinance. While the New England land system was premised on

community-based development, the Southern land system was premised on individual frontiersman

appropriating undeveloped land to call their own. The Southern pioneer claimed property and the local

surveyor would demarcate it for him. - Land Ordinance 1785

New England settlements were oriented towards the community.

Southern settlements were oriented towards the individual –

notable the large scale landowners.

This also suggests that different parts of the country have different

orientations towards education.

New England settlements see educational institutions as

necessary parts of the public landscape. Southern settlements,

not so much.

We will discuss this further when we talk about political culture in

the states in an upcoming lecture.

Not all states sought to educate the population and enhance the ability of the

general population to participate.

In some states efforts were made to retain the power structure in place when the state was established. Restrictions on

education would help do so.

This will be a major point in our discussion of political culture.

Texas

For background on education in the state, click on this site on

education in the Texas Almanac, as well as the education page on the

website of the Texas State Historical Association.

An Overview of the History of

Public Education in Texas

While Texas was settled by southerners who did not share New England’s ideas about the central role of education within

the community, access to education was mentioned

prominently in key documents in early Texas history.

So its an open question whether education is something best

handled by the public or private sector.

This battle is commonly fought in the state and has been especially heated in recent years – but more

one that later.

This debate aside, public education – which we will investigate more

fully later this semester – is a huge component of government both on

the state and local level.

For example, The Texas Declaration of Independence contains a grievance against the

Mexican Government that:

It has failed to establish any public system of education, although possessed of almost

boundless resources, (the public domain,) and although it is an axiom in political science, that

unless a people are educated and enlightened, it is idle to expect the continuance of civil liberty,

or the capacity for self government.

Note the point they made. If people are not educated, they cannot govern

themselves, not can they preserve their liberties.

There was a general belief that minimizing access to education was one of the ways

the Mexican government could subdue the Texans.

Notice also the mention of the “public domain.”

Generally tuition free public education is funded by some mechanism tied into

public lands. We will discuss this further when we talk about education more thoroughly towards the end of the

semester.

Educational institutions under the Republic of Texas

As a republic, bills establishing a public education system were

passed in 1839 and 1840 under the presidency of Mirabeau

Buonoparte Lamar.

Here’s a well know quote from him, one we saw earlier in these

slides:

“A cultivated mind is the guardian genius of Democracy, and while guided and controlled by virtue, the noblest attribute of man. It is

the only dictator that freemen acknowledge, and the only security

which freemen desire.”

Lamar is known as the Father of Texas Education.

But so was Ezekiel Cullen, and A.M. Aikin.

Here’s a quote about Lamar which emphasized his role in establishing public education in the state, both

K-12 and higher ed.

“When a public school was a novelty and the Republic’s treasury

and credit were at their lowest, only a daring mind and a champion of enlightened liberty could have

conceived the idea for insuring the education of the future Texas

generations.”

For what its worth, here’s a quote from Sam Houston regarding

education:

“The benefits of education and of useful knowledge, generally

diffused through a community, are essential to the preservation of a

free government.”

Sam Houston also had this to say:

“I would not be gotten into a schoolhouse until I was eight years

old. Nor did I accomplish much after I started. I doubt if I had gone

to school six months in all when my father died. I was fourteen at

the time.”

The Republic of Texas would establish public schooling for

Anglo-Americans (it was illegal to educate slaves and schooling was

restricted to Latino children).

17.712 acres of land in each county was set aside to support

the schools.

While the Constitution of the Republic of Texas did not establish an educational system, the 1845 Constitution – which was written

after statehood was granted – did: Article Ten.

Note the wording of the opening section:

“A general diffusion of knowledge being essential to the preservation

of the rights and liberties of the people, it shall be the duty of the legislature of this State to make

suitable provision for the support and maintenance of public

schools.”

Sounds a lot like Jefferson’s language.

And it has read like this in every Texas Constitution since.

At least one-tenth of the annual revenue of the state was to be

used to create a perpetual fund to support free public schools.

Article 7 of the Texas Constitution of 1876 also provides for free public

schools:

SECTION 1. A general diffusion of knowledge being essential to the preservation of the liberties and rights of the people, it shall be the duty of the Legislature of the State to establish and make suitable provision for the support and maintenance of an efficient system of

public free schools.

There are periodic complaints made that the state of Texas has

violated this part of the Constitution.

What does it mean to “make suitable provision for the support and maintenance of an efficient system of public free schools?”

There is still a court case regarding the drastic cuts – over $5 billion -

made in the 82nd Legislature.

Did that violate the suitable provision requirement?

Article 7 also contains text establishing institutions of higher

education.

The laws that provide the detail for K-12 and Higher Ed can be found in

the Education Code.

All laws related to Higher Education can be found in Title 3.

You’ll find sections that authorize the creation of all universities in

the state.

Junior Colleges are authorized in Title 3, Subtitle G, Chapter 130.

Click here to check it out.

Alvin Community College is mentioned far down the page.

Look for Sec. 130.163.

Here is the text:

Sec. 130.163. ALVIN COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT SERVICE AREA. The service area of the Alvin Community College District includes the territory within:

(1) the Alvin, Danbury, and Pearland independent school districts; and

(2) the part of the Angleton Independent School District annexed by the community college district before September 1, 1995.

Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 971, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

Not much to it.

The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board

Title 3 also contains information related to the Texas Higher

Education Coordinating Board. This can be found in Subtitle B, Chapter 61, which you can find by clicking

here.

From the TSHA: “The Texas College and University System Coordinating Board was

established by the Fifty-ninth Texas Legislature in 1965 to provide unified

planning and development of a comprehensive system of higher

education. In 1987 the name was changed to Texas Higher Education Coordinating

Board.”

This is the institution which, among many other things, establishes the core

curriculum for all colleges and universities in the state.

They determine what basic classes need to be taken in order to graduate with a

degree from a public institution in Texas.

They are the people who determine what you need to take,

and decided that this includes a couple of classes in government.

For some detail about them, here is the Sunset Advisory Commission

staff report for the THECB.

We will discuss these more fully later, but all state agencies are subject to review every twelve

years. This is the product of their most recent review.

Interesting detail: Area representative Dennis Bonnen

chaired the Sunset Advisory Committee.

More interesting detail: “To qualify for board service, no member may

be professionally employed in education or serving on the board

of a junior college.”

I don’t believe this is true for most other regulatory agencies in the

state.

Curriculum

The THECB establishes higher education curriculum, which

means that they are responsible for you being here.

As you can imagine, setting the government curriculum can be

very controversial.

Ideological groups weigh in on how government should be taught and

which events and personalities should be emphasized.

The controversy flares up mostly for K-12 education – primary and

secondary schools.

Not so much for higher education – though it has in the past.

A major related controversy is the content of the high school

curriculum.

Texas State Board of Education reviews the K-12 curriculum for each required subject every few

years.

In 2010 it reviewed the history and government curriculum. It was

highly controversial and received nation wide media coverage.

Some stories from that time detailing the conflict:

- Ignoring Experts' Pleas, Texas Board Approves Controversial Curriculum Standards

- Politics of Education: New Texas Social Sciences Curriculum Standards Fraught with Ideology, Critics Say

- Texas Conservatives Win Curriculum Change- SBOE Conservatives Rewrite American History Books

From the Texas Tribune: “ . . . beneath such spats lie far deeper ideological tussles, over

disputed Biblical underpinnings of the nation’s founding; the notion of America as uniquely superior, even divinely ordained;

and the proper context and credit in exploring the struggles of oppressed

minority groups.”

Political groups believe that dominating the curriculum helps their cause. Schools are argued to be “agents of socialization” which help people form political opinions.

Actual proof that this matters is lacking, but it is assumed that schools determine

how people are likely to be oriented towards political questions, so fights are

ongoing attempting to do so.

To look at the current content of social science education in K-12 in Texas click here for the TEKS Social

Studies Standards.

An additional controversy: Should there be a national standard or should leach state have its own

requirements.

If states teach government as they see fit, is there enough in common among the people of the nation to have a national

dialogue on public matters?

From the Center for Civic Education: National Standards for

Civics and Government.

From the Atlantic: Should States Let the Federal Government Set

Education Standards for Schools?

Again, these controversies are far less prominent in higher

education, partially due to the idea that older students are more

mature and less subject to indoctrination.

But the requirement remains.

And in case you’re wondering, Texas is only one of a handful of

states that have this requirement.

Lucky You

This overview should explain why the Texas legislature wants you to

takes this class.

If you want to file a grievance about it – that’s where you should take it. . . . Just sayin’

Now comes an important question

With all this attention to public education, we should expect that the American public is very civic

oriented, participatory and knowledgeable.

Not really.

Has a focus on education made the population capable of self

government?

The answer depends on who you ask.

A great deal of evidence is presented that challenges the

ability of the general population to provide the basis for governing the

founders thought necessary.

The media regularly highlights stories that demonstrate the

inattentiveness and ignorance of the general public.

Some links to some disturbing poll results:

- PEW Research- How Dumb Are We?

- Is voter ignorance killing democracy?

And here is a link to a variety of blog posts I’ve compiled on the

subject:

Is the American Public Rational?

Here’s just one recent (10/6/13) article on the subject:

You will be shocked at how ignorant Americans are:

What Americans don't know and don't understand is an obstacle to

progress

And another from 10/11/13:

Democracy and Political Ignorance

People do not know basic facts about public issues.

Examples:

People underestimate how much inequality exists in the US.

Click here for a You Tube video: Wealth Inequality in America.

People have little knowledge of the actual levels of spending by the

federal government.

CQ: What They Don’t Know About the Deficit.Political Ignorance and Federal Spending.

“A 2010 World Public Opinion survey found that Americans want to tackle deficits by cutting foreign aid from what they believe is the current level (27 percent of the budget) to a more prudent 13

percent. The real number is under 1 percent.”

Here’s an author who argues that the “childish, ignorant” American public is more responsible for the

current political crisis than politicians.

Down with the People.How Ignorant Are Americans?

Take this News IQ Quiz to determine your level of knowledge

about politics.

(I got them all right, but you’d probably hope that’s the case)

We will add more detail to this topic as the semester progresses.

This completes my take on why you are made to take this class.

Look on the wiki for hints about what kinds of questions you should

be prepared to answer on the assessment.

In the next section we will look at terminology useful for us to go

forward fruitfully.