[jimster]

A new law in Texas (HB 3979) requires educators to present “diverse and contending perspectives” on topics that are debated or controversial. Legally, TX has to let FEs present their case in science class. TX FEs should go to their school boards and demand they "teach the controversy". Perhaps print out hard copy of the faq and demand they use it as a textbook. Or maybe Rowbotham? After all, per the faq, there are 10s of millions of FE believers.

Plus, thousands of TX science teachers will learn the true shape of the earth. Perhaps their students can learn critical thinking skills by working out these controversies/unknown equations.

I would love to see TX school board meetings discussing the presentation of FET in TX schools. I think, by law, they have to.

Can't wait to see the final exam.

I may get in trouble, complete nonsense? Seems to me if FE is true, this is not nonsense at all, but a very good idea.

[Dr David Thork]

A new law in Texas (HB 3979) requires educators to present “diverse and contending perspectives” on topics that are debated or controversial. Legally, TX has to let FEs present their case in science class. TX FEs should go to their school boards and demand they "teach the controversy". Perhaps print out hard copy of the faq and demand they use it as a textbook. Or maybe Rowbotham? After all, per the faq, there are 10s of millions of FE believers.

Plus, thousands of TX science teachers will learn the true shape of the earth. Perhaps their students can learn critical thinking skills by working out these controversies/unknown equations.

I would love to see TX school board meetings discussing the presentation of FET in TX schools. I think, by law, they have to.

Can't wait to see the final exam.

I may get in trouble, complete nonsense? Seems to me if FE is true, this is not nonsense at all, but a very good idea.

Flat earth theory should absolutely be on the curriculum. Its not important that you come away thinking the earth is flat. Its important that your world view is challenged, that you engage in thinking for yourself, forming a coherent argument and not just parroting whatever your teacher tells you. If learning is parroting then geography is the exact same subject as history which is the same as biology which is the same as mathematics. They are all exercises in regurgitating things you stored in your memory. There is little to no point in them.
Literature should be you creative writing, pulling from your own mind. Maths should be problem solving ... not plugging numbers into a solution you already got shown how to solve but applying the basics to things you have never seen. And flat earth theory offers the opportunity to really challenge where you got your info from. How much standing on the shoulders of giants do you do from day to day? How many things do you just accept, having never really thought about it? Is it possible things you take for granted aren't true? That's a rounded education ... pun intended.

[AATW]

Flat earth theory should absolutely be on the curriculum. Its not important that you come away thinking the earth is flat. Its important that your world view is challenged, that you engage in thinking for yourself, forming a coherent argument and not just parroting whatever your teacher tells you.

I don't agree, any more than I think young earth creationism should be taught alongside evolution.
There are some things which are settled science and alternative fringe views which have been shown wrong should not be taught alongside them. But I do agree that it's important to teach kids to think and problem solve. How do we know the shape of the earth? How do we know about evolution? How do we know that the alternatives are wrong?
While we are here, teach kids how to tell fact from fiction online and analyse data. It's increasingly difficult to do that when anyone can find a source which panders to their particular biases these days.

I think some of this already happens though. I remember when we were taught about refraction, for example, we did an experiment with a glass block and pins where we lined up the pins in an apparent straight line and from that you could see the way the light had been bent through the glass block. We weren't just told to accept it blindly.

[Edit from Tom: I accidentally hit the modify button on this post instead of reply and cleared it out, but was able to restore the content.]

[Pete Svarrior]

Personally, I'm not sure what value this law brings to anyone. We already work with schools and other educational groups to help them discuss FE and better understand the world around them through critical inquiry. Over-regulating this through laws is only likely to result in a more forced, and ultimately worse, approach.

[jimster]

The value of the law is very specific. Conservatives in Texas don't want schools teaching very specific things.

1. Slavery was really terrible and white people did terrible things.
2. The earth is more than 10,000 years old.

I think those are the main two things, maybe I will think of more. The basic idea of the law is that when experts and scientists determine truth that is not compatible with their beliefs, they should get their side presented as equal. The goal is to keep the Bible on equal footing with science and history from secular sources, ditto science.

Similarly, FE wants to be considered equal or superior to basically the same people. The idea is to dismiss experts in favor of one's belief. Just like FE.

Don't you think it would be a huge step forward to have FE in public schools?

Imagine day one, chapter one: maps. The textbook would say "Here are several maps, none are actually right or have a scale, because no one has ever been able to make a map with constant scale and accurate directions and distances. Perhaps one of you kids can be inspired to finally draw the one true FE map."

Day 2 chapter 2, north star and sextant: Electromagnetic acceleration, it bends the light down to make the north star appear to be at angle equal to your latitude. Perhaps one of you kids will figure out what the TFES wiki says are "unknown forces with unknown equations" that the wiki "hopes" someone will figure out.

[Pete Svarrior]

Similarly, FE wants to be considered equal or superior to basically the same people. The idea is to dismiss experts in favor of one's belief. Just like FE.

Do not shitpost in the upper. If you cannot discuss your disagreements like an adult, then do not discuss them at all. "Boo-hoo, FE is so terrible and I am so very smart" posts go in AR/CN.

Don't you think it would be a huge step forward to have FE in public schools?

As I just finished explaining, while you were too busy rambling about your perceived superiority to read, we're already "in public schools". I also just finished explaining how this may be a net negative. Perhaps once you've found it in your heart to read the post you're arguing against, we can continue?

[ichoosereality]

A new law in Texas (HB 3979) requires educators to present “diverse and contending perspectives” on topics that are debated or controversial.

I do not think that this is correct.  The only use of "controversial" that I find in Texas 3979 is (emphasis mine) page 4:

      (1)a teacher may not be compelled to discuss a particular current event or widely debated and currently controversial issue of public policy or social affairs;

So a teacher can NOT be forced to teach a controversial subject and further more this entire bill references only social studies.  I find no mention of science.

[ichoosereality]

Personally, I'm not sure what value this law brings to anyone. We already work with schools and other educational groups to help them discuss FE and better understand the world around them through critical inquiry. Over-regulating this through laws is only likely to result in a more forced, and ultimately worse, approach.

Do you have a reference or link etc for this work?

[existoid]

The value of the law is very specific. Conservatives in Texas don't want schools teaching very specific things.

1. Slavery was really terrible and white people did terrible things.

Is that really something anyone doesn't want "taught" in Texas?  Genuinely curious, as I was a high school teacher (English, ninth and tenth grades) from 2010 through 2014, and from my experience (admittedly a few years old), this ain't even close to accurate.

Let me post my bona fides regarding this topic real quickly:

I taught at two different high schools in two different cities. One of the schools I taught at was in Dallas, which is a lot more liberal than other places in Texas, but my school, Sunset HS, was 96% Hispanic and thus a lot more conservative (Catholics) than typical. The other school I taught at was in a generally conservative part of Garland, and the neighborhood I personally lived in likewise had a lot more folks who I would guess voted Republican as a rule. (Let me put it this way: every Fourth of July, there was enough gun fire in my neighborhood that you could begin to tell which was a gun and which a firework).

In any case, my experience from those years is that Texans, as a rule, were happy that Juneteenth was a state holiday in Texas long before it has (recently) become a federal holiday and that "conservative" parents and folks were unanimously in favor of their school's history courses covering actual, accurate history, which certainly meant covering slavery and plenty of "terrible things" that white people did. In fact, more often than not discussions about history curriculum would more likely allude to things like that NOT being taught enough. (Edit: as an aside, while I taught English, we certainly taught literature and stories from the days of colonialism and slavery, so these topics certainly came up; plus I obviously had plenty of social studies teacher friends and acquaintances).

Anyway, wanted to add my two cents.

Edit: Thought of one more comment regarding this. A trope I recall several people mentioning when I lived in Texas from those on the right was to repeat that it was the two Democrat parties of 1860 whose platforms either implicitly or explicitly condoned and/or supported slavery, and the brand new Republican party and its candidate Lincoln whose platform was explicitly anti-slavery.*  The idea that modern Texas conservatives want to hide stuff like this is rather silly...

*Yes, we all know it's more complicated than this, but as a succinct "gotcha" from modern Texas conservatives, it's isn't too far off the mark, and represents a reason why they were totally keen on real history, including slavery, be actually taught. As I'm personally fond of pointing out, Lincoln's 1860 Republican platform expressly states that a proper interpretation of the Constitution forbids slavery (because of course it did: the institution of slavery was a complete logical contradiction to the American founding documents), and the platform expressly stated that the government cannot give “legal existence to slavery in any Territory of the United States.”
https://www.americanyawp.com/reader/the-sectional-crisis/1860-republican-party-platform/