New Textbook Re-Writes the Second Amendment

Maybe if we had a little more choice and competition in the education industry this type of misinformation wouldn’t be tolerated. Currently most people have no other option than to send their kids to the designated school and hope for the best.

http://www.edchoice.org/
 
Which makes it even more critical for us to be actively engaged in teaching our children the value of our freedoms, as well as, an obligation to defend those freedoms.
 
My parents were heavily involved in PTA, and my dad did a stint on our local school board when I was a kid.

My wife and I will be heavily involved when our son starts school. (Actually, before he starts.)

Things like this textbook are but one of the reasons why parental involvement is a big deal, but this textbook is still a big deal in itself.
 
I read about that on Facebook. The 2A is not the only amendment which is incorrectly summarized. It's hard to see in the picture in the linked article, but the summary of the A6 utterly omits the right to counsel.
 
Note how they never cite the actual text of the Constitution and BOR. Or The Federalist, which is considered the definitive commentary on the Constitution. My Junior Year history teacher always emphasized "Read the original sources".
 
One of my criteria for deciding if an instructor is any good, is whether the instructor recommends fact-checking or asking questions of other instructors.

The ones who think their version is the only true one are the ones I do not give repeat business.

(Edit: Of course, that does not apply when the issue is something like "how does the Second Amendment literally read?")
 
If it makes anyone feel better, the author took liberties with 1A as well. There is no mention whatsoever of "separation of church and state" in the Constitution. Yet because Jefferson once used this phrase in a piece of correspondence, it has been deliberately and deceitfully substituted in place of the actual meaning of the amendment, which was that Congress was not to establish a national religion - NOT to stamp out every last vestige of religious observation from our public institutions.
 
There is something even more concerning than the textbook itself. Did anyone notice that the name of the book is United States History: Preparing for the Advanced Placement Examination (emphasis added)? I would very much like to know who exactly administers the Advanced Placement Examination, what its contents are, to whom it is administered, and who is responsible for the contents of said examination.
 
College Board for the AP tests:

http://apcentral.collegeboard.com/apc/public/exam/index.html

Written by teams of high school and college teachers. Marked by teams of the same.

They are marked with a rubric for the correct answers for essays. The teams then have to go through the essays for the exact answer. There is no leeway in marketing. If they decide that the 2nd Amend is XYZ - you say that or no AP credit for you.
 
Last edited:
TopMCTWS said:
Which makes it even more critical for us to be actively engaged in teaching our children the value of our freedoms, as well as, an obligation to defend those freedoms.
Click to expand...
It also makes it critical for those of us with school-age children to read all history and social studies texts from cover to cover, either along with the children as they progress through them, or before the children, so we can put Post-Its on the lessons that are wrong and tell the kids to come see the parental unit about that lesson.
 
Originally posted by Glenn E. Meyer
College Board for the AP tests:

http://apcentral.collegeboard.com/ap...xam/index.html

Written by teams of high school and colleage teachers. Marked by teams of the same.

They are marked with a rubric for the correct answers for essays. The teams then have to go through the essays for the exact answer. There is no leeway in marketing. If they decide that the 2nd Amend is XYZ - you say that or no AP credit for you.
Click to expand...

That's what I was afraid of. That brings up the question of whether or not the contents of the textbook are indeed consistent with the AP exam and, if so, how and why did this incorrect interpretation of the Second Amendment make its way into the exam and what other inaccuracies might there also be in the textbook and/or exam.
 
SIGSHR said:
Note how they never cite the actual text of the Constitution and BOR. Or The Federalist, which is considered the definitive commentary on the Constitution. My Junior Year history teacher always emphasized "Read the original sources".
Click to expand...

The Federalist? Are you referring to The Federalist Papers perchance? Good read (and I would probably say that even if I weren't descended from one of the authors), but one should not read The Federalist papers without also reading The Anti-Federalist Papers.

The federalists pretty much won the argument, but looking at the way things have evolved (or devolved) a couple of hundred years later I have to wonder if the anti-federalists didn't have the right of it.
 
The Federalist? Are you referring to The Federalist Papers perchance? Good read (and I would probably say that even if I weren't descended from one of the authors), but one should not read The Federalist papers without also reading The Anti-Federalist Papers.

The federalists pretty much won the argument, but looking at the way things have evolved (or devolved) a couple of hundred years later I have to wonder if the anti-federalists didn't have the right of it.
Click to expand...
Ahhhh...the Federalist Papers. Not to poke fun at your ancestor, but as it happens, all the things that the Federalist Papers promised could never, ever happen, pretty much all wound up becoming today's status quo.
 
The federalists pretty much won the argument, but looking at the way things have evolved (or devolved) a couple of hundred years later I have to wonder if the anti-federalists didn't have the right of it.
Click to expand...

They were both right, and they were also both wrong. :)
 
csmsss said:
Not to poke fun at your ancestor, but as it happens, all the things that the Federalist Papers promised could never, ever happen, pretty much all wound up becoming today's status quo.
Click to expand...
I never said he was right ...

I happen to agree with you. I think the anti-federalists were generally much closer to the mark.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top