High School AP History Book Rewrites 2nd Amendment

[parksd70]

This is a textbook. Who is to say this is what is actually being taught? I'm a teacher, and I don't rely on any one textbook. I rely on sound, researched, best practice strategies. If you just told a kid "here, read this text, learn," you'll get nowhere. A common application/interpretation (whether anyone agrees or not) of 2A is that it applies for the purpose of militias, from an era when they were necessary and established. Don't act as though a student is going to believe every word of a text. Don't act as though they won't be exposed to different viewpoints and challenged by different opinions. I learned this the hard way when I had juniors in a Catholic school back in Pa not know about religions such as Islam, Hinduism, etc. Students need to know what others believe (again, even if it's contrary to someone else). For example, when beginning my discussion of the Constitution, I like to point out that knowing and understanding it is important, however it has its limits. At one time, slavery was a-ok according to the Constitution.

Yes, this textbook doesn't list the exact amendment. None of them are exact. Does that mean it's an attempt by the great textbook company or education conspiracy to indoctrinate students to not trust in the Constitution or BoR? No. It simply does not. As stated before as well, who's to say the teacher doesn't POINT OUT the inaccuracy and better inform his/her students? I know I would.

 

[Fishguy]

I don't think it's that big of a deal. The book appears to be prep for an exam. Main ideas are likely to be more important than accurate wording. The main goal of AP classes tend to be to get you ready to take an exam. The history of the U.S., its formation, and how its government works should have been taught in 10th grade, long before any AP classes. AP is going to focus on drilling in the things you need to know to get college credit for a high school course.

Except in this case the main idea they are teaching is flat wrong.

Sent from my C811 4G using Tapatalk 2

 

[parksd70]

It's not fair to say from that one line of text "the main idea" of a teacher's lesson is an incorrect interpretation of 2A. You clearly don't know how teaching works. There are days when I teach from a textbook, and days I don't. NEVER, do I simply take what a text says and reiterate every single word. Again, who knows what the individual teachers are teaching. People are acting as though teachers are dumb, mindless, uneducated zombies who only learn what they teach from their texts. We're better informed than that, trust me.

 

[Blacksmith101]

It's not fair to say from that one line of text "the main idea" of a teacher's lesson is an incorrect interpretation of 2A. You clearly don't know how teaching works. There are days when I teach from a textbook, and days I don't. NEVER, do I simply take what a text says and reiterate every single word. Again, who knows what the individual teachers are teaching. People are acting as though teachers are dumb, mindless, uneducated zombies who only learn what they teach from their texts. We're better informed than that, trust me.

This is not a lesson plan it is prep for an exam. It is a review point for a question on the exam. If you don't answer the exam question this way it probably will be marked WRONG. No matter what the teacher actually taught.

If this is the answer to the exam question the exam is incorrect and a correct answer will be improperly marked wrong.

 

[pilotguy299]

For the amount of money a school book costs, it should be accurate. If they had placed a "." after arms and did not add anything further, it would be more accurate.

"Does that mean it's an attempt by the great textbook company or education conspiracy to indoctrinate students to not trust in the Constitution or BoR?"​

No, but is does provide impressionable young people with an inaccurate meaning of the 2nd amendment.

 

[parksd70]

Again, regardless of the books purpose, if the teacher has taught it correctly, these "impressionable young people" you speak of will be just fine. You speak as though high school children believe everything that is in every textbook they read.

I would argue putting a period after "arms" would not make it more accurate, as you're leaving out an entire idea from the amendment.

Blacksmith101, without knowing the actual source, we can't know if this is an APPROVED prep book. If it is, then there's a problem. Not an "end of the world our children are being fed Hitler-like propaganda lies!" problem, but a problem nonetheless. However, to say that reading this one inaccurate line from a test prep book is going to brainwash the mass of dumb young people in our schools is just crazy.

People so far have been speaking as though this text is being used to indoctrinate the youth of American, and that's simply not true. I find it very frustrating that parents today seem to have all the answers for teachers, yet are not at all familiar with the teaching/learning process. This isn't a cut at anyone on here, just a general observation. So often to parents try to tell us how to do our jobs. Teachers don't tell them how to parent, nor do they tell doctors, lawyers, etc., how to do their jobs (well, none that I know, at least).

Many have said that this incorrect writing is being used to teach and indoctrinate students. I'm just saying from experience (including teaching AP) that this simply isn't true. I taught an honors level government class for a year with no textbook because I didn't think the one my school had was accurate and fact based. We are trained in more than just teaching from a textbook. Folks, trust your teachers, unless they give you a good reason not to.

EDIT: oh, and Blacksmith101....students will never see which questions they miss on the AP Exam, so don't worry

 

[Bel Air Guy]

It appears to me that we have indoctrination as opposed to education. I understand teachers don't tell people how to raise their children. They enforce the removal of religion and god from anything associated with schools. They expel children for eating pop tarts into a shape that resembles a gun, for using their finger as a gun (bang, bang) and for wearing any clothing referencing Constitutional rights. They in my opinion, many enforce the collectives objectives and expect everyone to simply let them do that. I was lucky enough to have parents and teachers that made me read the documents that form the backbone of this great nation. I implore you to spend time with your kids and make them read the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the federalist papers just to mention a few. Make it family time followed by an activity based in fun. Help keep this country as we know it for future generations.

 

[pilotguy299]

I disagree. There are two separate ideas in 2A. By adding the period it would only mention one of the ideas, and a correct meaning for the one idea. By wording it the way they did, it mixes ideas and provides an inaccurate meaning.

Kids are sponges, and will regurgitate things that they read. Even if it isn't something that you have discussed with them in class.

And to go further, there are more than a few examples of school textbooks being slanted. There was such an issue here in FredNeck county just last year:

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/...rvative-commentator-glenn-beck-public-service

“Social Studies Alive! Our Community and Beyond” — is unmistakably slanted to the left in numerous places.

....
It suggests that health care and child care should be free community services, without noting that the public must pay taxes to support those benefits....​

Not biased?

The public education system is making a concerted effort to mold and sway our children's beliefs, instead of teaching the basics they need to succeed. A significant percentage of kids graduating high school need remedial math instruction when they enter college. But by 5th grade they sure know everything about LGBT issues.

How about fixing math first?

 

[parksd70]

Bel Air Guy...Teachers may enforce the removal of God and religion (rightly) in that they don't teach any one faith. Religion is often taught in public schools, which surprises many, however it is taught usually in world history courses that present the basics of all major faiths.

Teachers DO NOT, however, expel students for any of the above reasons you list. No teacher in any school has the power to expel a student from school, regardless of the circumstances. I will be the first to say that teachers have, at times, reacted very poorly to students who dress in ways they don't approve of. However, for the few articles we see every year that display this, there are thousands of great teachers out there encouraging students to be open-minded and mature thinkers.

All I'm trying to say is there's no reason to get bent out of shape over small things like this when so many other things factor into a child's education. Parents not being the least of these.

 

[pilotguy299]

...

Teachers DO NOT, however, expel students for any of the above reasons you list. No teacher in any school has the power to expel a student from school, regardless of the circumstances. I will be the first to say that teachers have, at times, reacted very poorly to students who dress in ways they don't approve of.

....

I think he meant the system, not individual teachers. There was that issue with a teacher telling a student she had to cover up a romney t-shirt, but that weird all over.

I think the bigger issue is the zero-tolerance policy and heavy handedness used in instances like the "pop-tart gun" debacle.

Or look at the thing down south recently, where a student was told that they couldn't write about god. Now I may not be a believer, but I can't see where the harm is in letting the child write about god. It is not a separation of church and state issue.

Very often it seems that our school systems lack the ability to use good discretion.

 

[parksd70]

I agree the school system doesn't always exercise the best discretion. Absolutely. But what professional community does? Regardless of political/social/economic beliefs, etc., no profession is free from those who overbearingly exert their will/status.

Moreover, there are plenty of examples where schools lean the other way, and exhibit overtly conservative ideals on their students, such as not allowing gay and lesbian couples attend prom.

Either way, he didn't say the system. He said teachers. That's all I take issue with.

 

[pilotguy299]

I agree the school system doesn't always exercise the best discretion. Absolutely. But what professional community does? Regardless of political/social/economic beliefs, etc., no profession is free from those who overbearingly exert their will/status.

Moreover, there are plenty of examples where schools lean the other way, and exhibit overtly conservative ideals on their students, such as not allowing gay and lesbian couples attend prom.

Either way, he didn't say the system. He said teachers. That's all I take issue with.

I agree that there are other professions that have issues with the proper use of discretion. But it seems to be an overwhelming problem in our public education system. And given that it involves young and very impressionable children, the improper use (or lack thereof) of discretion can have a devastation effect on who that child grows up to be.

I am 100% with you on the lack of proper discretion by those with overly conservative beliefs. Really, who cares if a gay/lesbian couple wants to go to a prom together? It's hard enough to find someone who really loves you in this world, if they happen to be the same gender why should it matter?

The problem with being a libertarian, ...
is all of you liberals and conservatives! LOL

All you do is want to control people and lack tolerance for anything that doesn't fit your mindset! As if disappointing our parents isn't enough for the two groups... ROFL.

And I am refining my statement. All of the principals and vice-principals in our system are teachers. So they are the people suspending kids over trivial matters. It is their fault!

Back to the topic...

The book needs to be pulled.

 

[parksd70]

If that book needs pulled, then so does every other one out there. No textbook is 100% free of mistakes and bias. Sorry, that's just how it is. Lets pull every Texas textbook that doesn't present evolution as well!

 

[6-Pack]

2A isn't the only change:

1A - Congress can make laws that restrict speech (look at false advertising - it restricts speech).

3A - In wartime, private citizens can be forced to house soldiers if a law requires. In peacetime, private citizens aren't required to house soldiers.

4A - This "rewrite" left out "person" or "property" (the finger is in the way).

5A - Completely left out the takings clause (gubment can't take private property without "just compensation." Also, you can be required to give information that incriminates you, but you aren't required to testify against yourself (big difference).

6A - Left out that you have a right to be tried in the state where the crime was committed. Also left out "you have the right to an attorney, if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you.

7A - You have a right to a jury of 6 people in a civil case.


It wasn't just the 2A that was "upgraded" - it was the entire Bill of Rights!

 

[parksd70]

They're summaries.

Regardless...being quite familiar with APUSH, I can guarantee the exam is not based on memorization of the BoR...for those worried about memorizing for the test. It's analytical in nature, not factual.

 

[parksd70]

Also...where in the 7A does it say you have the right to a trial by 6 people?

And for 6A, why are you quoting Miranda Rights? No where does it say you'll be appointed an attorney. It says you have the benefit of the "Assistance of Counsel" for your defense.

If you're going to quote, at least quote right! Zero points for citing sources!

 

[Blacksmith101]

I find it curious that as a teacher you are not troubled that students might lose test points on an AP exam for a correct answer that could be improperly marked as wrong because the test compiler was either incorrect or biased. Or on the other hand be penalized because the student relied on incorrect answers in the preparation study materials he was given assuming the test question has the correct interpretation.

 

[Publius]

This interpretation that the 2A is about arming only the militia is classic lib. I love a response to it that Claire Wolfe describes in one of her books. Goes like this:

Let's suppose part of the 1st amendment dealing with freedom of speech was written in the same format as the 2nd:

"A well-educated electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear books shall not be infringed".

Would anyone interpret the above as meaning that only the well-educated shall keep and bear books? Or does it mean that the right to keep and bear books shall not be infringed in order to promote a well-educated electorate? In other words, is the 2A preamble restrictive or a reminder of one goal of the freedom being protected? Of course it's the latter interpretation. The 2A preamble is a "justification clause" and justification clauses were actually quite common back then:

http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/common.htm

I find this argument excellent and I tell it to people whenever I hear the BS lie that "it's about arming the state militia". In general that brings the debate to a halt.

 

[Blacksmith101]

"A well-educated electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear books shall not be infringed".

That obviously means only voters can have books and that they must be printed on a printing press with lead based moveable type.

 

[Brooklyn]

This is a textbook. Who is to say this is what is actually being taught? I'm a teacher, and I don't rely on any one textbook. I rely on sound, researched, best practice strategies. If you just told a kid "here, read this text, learn," you'll get nowhere. A common application/interpretation (whether anyone agrees or not) of 2A is that it applies for the purpose of militias, from an era when they were necessary and established. Don't act as though a student is going to believe every word of a text. Don't act as though they won't be exposed to different viewpoints and challenged by different opinions. I learned this the hard way when I had juniors in a Catholic school back in Pa not know about religions such as Islam, Hinduism, etc. Students need to know what others believe (again, even if it's contrary to someone else). For example, when beginning my discussion of the Constitution, I like to point out that knowing and understanding it is important, however it has its limits. At one time, slavery was a-ok according to the Constitution.

Yes, this textbook doesn't list the exact amendment. None of them are exact. Does that mean it's an attempt by the great textbook company or education conspiracy to indoctrinate students to not trust in the Constitution or BoR? No. It simply does not. As stated before as well, who's to say the teacher doesn't POINT OUT the inaccuracy and better inform his/her students? I know I would.

Hey sep 2013.. welcome and thanks for the input.

There are NO constitutional Scholars, living or dead who ever claimed that the 2 a rights had anything to do with militias.. let alone state sponsored ones.. Of course there are a lot of political hacks that do...

But no matter.

and as for the nonsense that slavery was a-ok, please ... read the debates at the convention--- it was never a-ok it just could not be resolved.




And since you are a teacher you know or should know all this....