http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,584758,00.html

Quote :

" He may be the president who governed during the Civil War, freeing the slaves, but under a new curriculum proposal for North Carolina high schools, U.S. history would begin years after President Lincoln, with the presidency of Rutherford B. Hayes in 1877. State education leaders say this may help students learn about more recent history in greater depth. "We are certainly not trying to go away from American history," Rebecca Garland, the chief academic officer for North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, told Fox News. "What we are trying to do is figure out a way to teach it where students are connected to it, where they see the big idea, where they are able to make connections and draw relationships between parts of our history and the present day." As the North Carolina curriculum stands now, ninth-grade students take world history, 10th-graders study civics and economics and 11th-graders take U.S. history going back to the country's founding. Under the proposed change, the ninth-graders would take a course called global studies, focusing in part on issues such as the environment. The 10th grade still would study civics and economics, but 11th-graders would take U.S. history only from 1877 onward. Math, science and English classes are also getting an update. Critics say the state's decade-old high school curriculum may need an update — but not like this. "The answer isn't to throw out fundamental portions of U.S. history," said Mike Belter, a U.S. history teacher and social studies director. "This is not preparing our kids to have a deep historical perspective that can be used to analyze modern events for themselves." Educational policy analyst Terry Stoops agrees. "I'm all for a global outlook, but it should not be at the expense of American history and learning about American institutions and ideas," he told Fox News. But those considering the proposal say kids will still learn the basics. "The students are in school for 13 years," said Garland. "They certainly are taught U.S. and North Carolina history in middle school." Garland says they're making this curriculum revision process very public to get as much feedback as possible. "

Ummm...

2/5/2010 11:00:20 PM

I saw that and contacted one of my previous history professors here at NCSU about it, she said she'd been doing everything she could to try and get the word out.

DPI is 'listening' to people until the 15th of this month.

2/5/2010 11:19:19 PM

Quote :

""The students are in school for 13 years," said Garland. "They certainly are taught U.S. and North Carolina history in middle school.""

2/5/2010 11:24:33 PM

I've always felt that too much emphasis was placed on "modern" history (WWII+). Personally, I didn't even begin to appreciate history until high school and I find it hard to imagine that a sixth grader could possibly understand and appreciate the totality and importance of the birth of our country. Also, middle school kiddies don't have the option of taking something like an AP US History class where they can learn a ridiculous amount of information down to George Washington's shoe size!

But I am sure those on the right will howl about this being some kind of attempt at revisionist history by the liberal education elites all while totally ignoring the fact that they have no credibility when it comes to knowledge about the founding of our country.

2/5/2010 11:32:50 PM

when i took AP US history in high school we barely even made it to modern post-war history. none of the regular history classes did either. personally i think it would be better to go more in depth on major topics and modern history than to speed over everything. there has to be some kind of compromise somewhere, the year just isnt that long. that being said though i don't think the proposed plan is really the way to tackle it. instead, i think teachers and schools should be given a little more flexibility to develop a curriculum that makes sense.

2/5/2010 11:58:50 PM

i agree with it. teach history that best applies to today. all those shenanigans with the british were important but learning them doesn't help our population. They do however need to know about the civil rights movement, great depression, civil war, cold war and modern politics in much great detail.

There should be a review chapter at the beggining summarizing the first part of american history into like a unit though. don't just totally leave it off.

2/6/2010 12:09:48 AM

^The civil war ended in 1865. If we started teaching history from 1877, the the civil war never happened.

Besides, why do we need to learn about those silly things called the Constitution and Bill of Rights?

[Edited on February 6, 2010 at 12:28 AM. Reason : .]

2/6/2010 12:28:14 AM

Maybe the coloreds would be less angsty if they didn’t learn about the civil war?

^ last time I checked (which was about 21 days ago), the Constitution and Bill of Rights still exist.

[Edited on February 6, 2010 at 12:41 AM. Reason : ]

2/6/2010 12:40:19 AM

you don't need to focus onthe creation of the constitution and worship the creators. Bill of rights and constitution comes up quite often in the 20th century. Its such a vague document and quite outdated that its almost useless without real life, recent examples of when it coems into play.

2/6/2010 12:42:11 AM

^^Sure they still exist, but if we are starting after their creation we don't cover why they were created. That is one of the reasons of why they are so important. I doubt any detail would be given to them, since they fall before the date that students would learn about.


^Please. Really? Are you serious or just trolling? If you are serious, then I feel really sorry for you.

2/6/2010 12:53:27 AM

Quote :

"Its such a vague document and quite outdated"

Wow..that's all the more reason for teaching the founding of the country.

Quote :

""What we are trying to do is figure out a way to teach it where students are connected to it, where they see the big idea, where they are able to make connections and draw relationships between parts of our history and the present day.""

The big idea? What could be bigger than liberty and individual rights. That was a radical idea back then in the times of kings and queens. It's still a radical idea today, constantly being attacked by socialists and dictators.

Perhaps we just start teaching U.S. history from November 2008.

2/6/2010 12:57:29 AM

you are the one that has to be kidding. what do you think is going to be explained when protests, marches with guns, universal suffrage, and any kind of trial.

who cares if they don't learn the military can't use their home as a barrack. thats ancient and useless.

2/6/2010 12:58:14 AM

Marches with guns? Ohh, the second amendment. Who needs that anymore. The police will protect us....

Speedy trial, ohh, that works so well in our society...

No military quartering, ohh, right that won't matter ever again....

No unreasonable search and seizure, ohh, that hasn't happened repeatedly in the last couple of years....

Right, it is so old and out dated that nothing is important anymore.

2/6/2010 1:08:45 AM

I don't know if it's the same in NC, but when I was in school in NY it seemed like we spent an inordinate amount of time on pre-colonial and colonial america, and a lot of it seemed to be focused on the details rather than the big picture. This resulted as others have mentioned with history pretty much stopping at WW I, and being glanced over past that. Perhaps the compromise would be to give pre-colonial and colonial american history the same sort of high level overview that we give medieval europe and then when you hit highschool, start with the revolution and go through WW II in detail, including world politics at the time. There's only so much time in the school year, but I don't think we're serve by cutting more recent history when there is plenty of older fluff we could probably cut or glance over.

Though perhaps we should redefine what we seek to teach with the history courses. Is it world history, international politics or american civics?

2/6/2010 1:23:56 AM

I calmed down a bit after I read the curriculum, but the rather radical changes they're proposing in teaching US history makes me uneasy. In an attempt to cover gaps in history education and make it more "relevant" to students, they are leaving even bigger gaps behind.

The State Board of Education wants to teach only post-reconstruction US history in high school and push everything before 1877 back into 7th grade. However, when you read the curriculum, it appears that they're covering full North Carolina and US history in the 7th grade. This makes no sense to me: they claim that not enough time is being spent on teaching the latter half of American history because we're cramming everything into one year. Fair enough, it's a legitimate observation. HOWEVER, if that's the case, then why are they trying to teach not just US history but NC history as well from 1600 - 1970s in the 7th grade? It feels like they're de-emphasizing the first half of American history which makes no sense given that the events of those formative years are still major themes in play: state vs. federal tensions, race relations, regional clashes, industrial development, etc.

What REALLY concerns me though is that they've completely gutted world history. They're going to try and cover select parts in the 6th grade through the age of exploration, but after that, they're teaching the rest of history in several broad "themes". This makes no sense to me however because most of the issues that we're struggling with on the global level are a result of the last four hundred years: colonization, industrialization, revolutions of the turn of the last century, the world wars, and then finally the Cold War. You need to tell a comprehensive story of these events to understand where we are today.

2/6/2010 2:28:31 AM

Vintage North Carolina. You guys have shitty public schools, hahaha (and private, for that matter).

2/6/2010 2:28:52 AM

If kids don't learn and develop an appreciation for how this country came to be then they will all too easily become complacent and take it for granted. Who here was raised in NC in the 6th and 11th grades? Which history course do you remember more from? Yes, I realize this is highly subjective but I wouldn't be surprised if the results are similar between us.

2/6/2010 2:57:19 AM

Quote :

"I don't know if it's the same in NC, but when I was in school in NY it seemed like we spent an inordinate amount of time on pre-colonial and colonial america, and a lot of it seemed to be focused on the details rather than the big picture."

My experience in NC was very much the same. You'd come out of the gate strong in US history, learning all about day-to-day colonial life and historical events that have little if anything to do with modern life. You learn about obscure representatives that NC sent to the Continental Congress and the habits of a dozen native American tribes that are now either extinct or living very different lives very far away. Before you know it, you're through a quarter of the school year and you're just now getting to the American Revolution.

Then the teacher starts glossing over everything before the Civil War to make up time, only to dwell forever on that (admittedly important) conflict for a bit too long. Then there's usually an entire segment on black history, which would be fine except they've been prominently discussing black history in context throughout the year anyway. Then you get a tiny bit on WWI, maybe a little more on WWII, a little bit on the Cold War, and when all is said and done you're lucky to make it past Ronald Reagan.

I think the farthest I ever made it was a one page sheet of notes that tried to cover everything from about 1995 to the invasion of Afghanistan, given on the last day of class with the promise that we wouldn't be tested on it because we wouldn't be going over it.

2/6/2010 3:12:48 AM

Excellent. It's a whole new way for NC natives to look dumb when they visit national historic landmarks.

2/6/2010 6:16:12 AM

isnt the obvious solution to this problem of a lack of in depth modern US history in the public school the requirement of an additional history course?
for instance,
9th grade could remain world history
10th remain as civics
11th US history up through reconstruction
12th post reconstruction US history

I dont see why this would not work. From what i remember of highschool I had a shit-ton of electives my senior year. take one of those and make it a required history course. poof! problem solved

2/6/2010 7:04:06 AM

History and literature are the most over-studied classes in high school. They should replace a few of the history courses with something in basic finance.

2/6/2010 8:58:10 AM

This is a terrible, terrible plan.

1. The rationale behind this is that they already get all of US History in 5th grade. As a teacher of 11th grade US History, it's fairly obvious that students' time in 5th grade is worthless. But the politicians would never concede that fact.

They also get all of World History in 6th and 7th grades, but the same problem applies. I don't know where to cast blame, but students don't learn anything in middle school.

2. Any sort of "global studies" type class for freshmen is a terrible idea. In a non-honors/AP freshman class, probably a third of the students will never advance to the next grade. Let's get a class like that to discuss heady political issues. Wonderful idea. If the state wants us to have an issue class, then then great-- but have students take it during their senior year. In practice though, good teachers turn Civics and Economics into a "global studies" class, anyway.

3. Why would we start a one-part US history class at the end of Reconstruction? Colleges start at 1877, but that's because it's the second part of a two part class. It's like they're not even trying. "Welcome to US History everyone. Let's start talking about the guy who ended that thing you last learned about six years ago."

I'm all for condensing US History, but instead of arbitrarily chopping it in half, the state should revamp the standard course of study with greater emphasis on the important stuff and less emphasis on other stuff (and there's plenty of stuff that could be cut).


My ideal plan:

9th: World History
10th: Early US History (including nat'l gov't structure-- so much of Civics and US is already redundant)
11th: Late US History, (incorporating a new emphasis on global issues at the end of the class)

Then have the gym teachers teach personal finance in life skills.

No extra classes, and the only thing we'd be leaving out is state and local government, and maybe some aspects of economics. I don't think it would be that hard to apply most economic principles to events in US History, though.

[Edited on February 6, 2010 at 10:08 AM. Reason : ]

[Edited on February 6, 2010 at 10:10 AM. Reason : ]

2/6/2010 10:03:36 AM

I would argue that its more important they get a better grasp on personal finance than history boone.

But yes, this plan is stupid. Just keep dumbing them down.

2/6/2010 10:38:51 AM

Quote :

"My ideal plan:"

Interesting POV coming from an actual teacher. History is a vital part of a kid's education.
But I fear that the curriculum is being set to produce obedient worker bees instead of thinking citizens who have a good foundation in the principles of the country and a respect of individual rights.

Do you agree?

2/6/2010 10:48:49 AM

I don't teach history but my main focus is to convince the kids the importance of being individual thinkers. Thats completely lost in America and frankly, our only hope.

Quote :

"Marches with guns? Ohh, the second amendment. Who needs that anymore. The police will protect us.... Speedy trial, ohh, that works so well in our society... No military quartering, ohh, right that won't matter ever again.... No unreasonable search and seizure, ohh, that hasn't happened repeatedly in the last couple of years.... Right, it is so old and out dated that nothing is important anymore."

You clearly misunderstood me, when it comes up in modern history that someone was marching down the street with guns and signs the teacher can ask why were they able to do that and important rights will be covered. The only thing that won't be covered t hat way is military barracks which is completly obsolete anyway. Hell, the only reason for keeping the 2nd ammendment anymore is to not put the gun market into the hands of already popular gangs and cartels.

Quote :

"If kids don't learn and develop an appreciation for how this country came to be then they will all too easily become complacent and take it for granted. "

It almost becomes a religion class when teachers glorify the "founding fathers" and act as if they were perfect, God sent and came up with utopian ideals thats would last forever.

The last thing we need to do is shelter our children and make them think that the US is perfect, created by God like "fathers". We need to expose them to how the world works now, how its worked in the last 100 years and how other countries in the world do things instead of a RAWR RAWR RAWR USA#1 USA #1 approach.

Quote :

"and a respect of individual rights."

so go ahead and say it. you want them taught to be libertarians...

Quote :

"But yes, this plan is stupid. Just keep dumbing them down."

teaching someone useful information instead of a bunch of things that are long irrelevant is not dumbing them down.

2/6/2010 11:09:27 AM

If some of the people in this thread are teaching history, I have absolutely no faith in our school system. We'd be better off giving them a list of names and events and pointing them to Wikipedia.

Quote :

"I would argue that its more important they get a better grasp on personal finance than history boone."

I'd say it's hard to rank one over the other. Personal finance means nothing to a teenager that has everything paid for by their parents. Only by being thrust into the real world, where they are forced to make decisions about what to buy and how to buy it, can they become financially responsible. You don't learn that kind of thing in a high school class.

Ultimately, we need a better educated population (in terms of history) if we want any lasting political change in this country. The government is only going to approve the curriculum that makes them look like the heroes, of course. For instance, I was always taught that Abraham Lincoln was an American hero, a protector of freedom, and a champion for equality. None of that is true; he was a racist that engaged in unprecedented power grabs which set the stage for an ongoing expansion of federal power that is coming to a head now, and caused the needless deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans. There may be proof in this very thread that our history programs have failed when college graduates come to Lincoln's aid and insist that he was the greatest president.

[Edited on February 6, 2010 at 11:39 AM. Reason : ]

2/6/2010 11:30:37 AM

Quote :

"9th: World History 10th: Early US History (including nat'l gov't structure-- so much of Civics and US is already redundant) 11th: Late US History, (incorporating a new emphasis on global issues at the end of the class) Then have the gym teachers teach personal finance in life skills."

So you're going to have three classes in something that has no use in day to day life and zero classes on something that is pretty much the most important thing in any grown person's life?


History is fun and all, I too enjoy it. I think people would be happy to learn it in their own time, I don't think we really get our tax dollars worth teaching it, now if everyone knew personal finance imagine the changes we might have.

2/6/2010 11:31:51 AM

I can think of a lot more useless crap that history. Gym was pretty useless. It didn't cause anyone to develop good habits or not be fat. Literature...what a waste of time. I wish I could have the hours I was forced to piss away reading poetry back.

The problem with teaching history is that political influence keeps it from being effective. If we're going to teach kids that FDR saved us from the Great Depression, and what I mentioned about Lincoln, and all the other misconceptions that are frequently taught, we might as well just scrap the whole program. No history is better than biased history.

2/6/2010 11:36:48 AM

Quote :

"Gym was pretty useless. It didn't cause anyone to develop good habits or not be fat."

It at least caused kids to be active for a little while.

Quote :

"Literature...what a waste of time. I wish I could have the hours I was forced to piss away reading poetry back."

Agreed.

Quote :

"The problem with teaching history is that political influence keeps it from being effective. If we're going to teach kids that FDR saved us from the Great Depression, and what I mentioned about Lincoln, and all the other misconceptions that are frequently taught, we might as well just scrap the whole program. No history is better than biased history."

While I'm sure your argument would change if they taught your biases, I agree. I think history is something that has far too much political influence, and should be saved for the college level.

2/6/2010 11:43:51 AM

Quote :

"We need to expose them to how the world works now, how its worked in the last 100 years and how other countries in the world do things instead of a RAWR RAWR RAWR USA#1 USA #1 approach. "

The world works the way it does now, and in the last 100 years because of the way the world worked in the 100 years prior to that. That of course was influenced by the previous 100 years, which was influenced by the previous 100 years and so on and so forth. That you are a teacher in and of it self speaks poorly for our schools. That you are a teacher who does not grasp this fundamental concept and its importance speaks worse. History and events do not happen in a vacuum, to dismiss earlier history as irrelevant because of its age or lack of recent significance is to doom yourself and those you teach to repeat the mistakes of their fathers and their grandfathers.

Further, to dismiss one of the most important and influential documents of the last 500 years and the situations surrounding it as outdated and not worth learning would be negligent. History stands upon itself and you can no more cut out the founding events of our country any more than you could cut addition out of mathematics.

Quote :

"History is fun and all, I too enjoy it. I think people would be happy to learn it in their own time, I don't think we really get our tax dollars worth teaching it, now if everyone knew personal finance imagine the changes we might have."

While I agree we badly need personal finance classes as part of our curriculum, I don't think that replacing history classes with them is necessarily the answer. There does however need to be a change in how we teach it. Too much I think focuses on the individuals and the details rather than the why and the how. That this or that person what at this or that place is less important than knowing that this or that event influenced and caused this or that conflict or other event. We need to focus less on who got us here, and more on how and why we are here.

2/6/2010 11:50:50 AM

well you see, its a lot easier to make students memorize names and dates. not many teachers are intelligent enough or dedicated enough to get into discussions about cause and effect.

2/6/2010 11:56:51 AM

^then we might as well teach biblical history



I'm not saying its not important and would be nice if you could teach all history but you can't. If you have to cut something off cut off the old stuff and teach the relavent history.

The original documents had so many things left out that are important in todays world. The constitution changes as we change.

I teach science and most classes spend a lot of time onthe timeline of what was the most accepted theory. With atoms, for instance, I skip most of that timeline because its not an efficient use of time to teach kids what people used to think the atom looked like and about the lives of the people that made the false theories. I start with the bohr model.

You can look at history the same way. Why focus on the original constitution that didn't include so mnay important things when you can start at today and explain why all the important things were created with recent events (despite when they were created)

You could show a 3 minute schoolhouse rock clip to get kids to understand the significance of something as simple as the declaration and revolutionary war. Its a waste of time to dwell on the details of old history. They just need to know the "lessons learned" which is why i suggested one unit on history leading up to the 20th century.

old history took the world into the 20th century but WW1 WW2 and the cold war forever changed the world. The world is now a product of those 3 wars and 9/11 not things that happened before that. Sure this nation is a product of a combination of recent things and old things but this isn't the only nation on the planet and most kids learn history and leave school thinking the us is the center of the world and the only place where people are "free" and have rights.

That kind of arrogance is why we're in trouble and i can blame it directly on being taught early american history in a religious way.

2/6/2010 12:09:32 PM

Quote :

"You can look at history the same way. Why focus on the original constitution that didn't include so mnay important things when you can start at today and explain why all the important things were created with recent events (despite when they were created)"

Because the ORIGINAL reasons are just as important, if not more, than how we also still need them today.

2/6/2010 1:31:54 PM

I agree that a personal finance course (or series of courses) is something we absolutely need. I disagree that completely axing history is the way to go about it.

To be sure, the way we teach history needs refining to make it more useful and practical than what I described above. A week on native americans and then another on pre-colonial life is not productive. However, analyzing the historical context of why the Constitution is the way it is and why/how many other policies came about might do some good. Without history, civics is just a course in "Because I said so."

Quote :

"It at least caused kids to be active for a little while."

That's fine and dandy for elementary, maybe even middle school. In high school it was a waste of my time and nothing else but. I had classes relevant to my interests that I wanted to take. Instead I was stuck in a locker room for fifteen minutes a day with maybe twenty left over for some inane game that wasn't even a sport.

Maybe, maybe if the class was focused on some practical calisthenics -- things designed to make you more fit, rather than to occupy time with a physical activity -- I could get behind it. But as things were, I rolled my eyes every day we played some dodgeball variant or had explained to us, for the fifth or sixth time, what a penis and a vagina were.

Quote :

"Literature...what a waste of time. I wish I could have the hours I was forced to piss away reading poetry back."

We should require less literature, certainly, but not no literature. There's literacy issues here, but literally and culturally.

2/6/2010 1:44:45 PM

Quote :

"But I fear that the curriculum is being set to produce obedient worker bees instead of thinking citizens who have a good foundation in the principles of the country and a respect of individual rights."

What, exactly, do you think the point of public education was in the first place?

2/6/2010 3:28:18 PM

Quote :

"It almost becomes a religion class when teachers glorify the "founding fathers" and act as if they were perfect, God sent and came up with utopian ideals thats would last forever."

Are these classes being taught by Glen Beck or something? From the abundance of history courses that I have taken this has never been the case. Granted there was a glossing over of the Puritans and their landing here but that myth is perpetuated enough due to Thanksgiving culture.

2/6/2010 5:13:44 PM

Quote :

"I disagree that completely axing history is the way to go about it."

Then maybe we disagree about what public education should do. I believe public education should ready children to enter the working world or prepare them for further education. There are no jobs in "History" that aren't solely for history's sake, the same goes for art or religion. You either become a history teacher or a historian, which is basically just a history teacher that writes books or works at a museum.

Much more useful skills would be basic courses in finance, computer literacy and programming, carpentry, mechanics, business, law, accounting, taxes, medicine, interpersonal skills, etc. Skills that can actually be used in day to day life. Imagine if kids came out knowing the basics of law, being able to do their own taxes, being able to do basic car, computer, and home repairs. The only useful thing that history, literature, or any of those subjects teach are a bit of reading writing and internet research, which could just as well be learned by teaching them how to look up legal documents or writing business proposals.

Quote :

"In high school it was a waste of my time and nothing else but."

Well I don't know anything about other schools, I was only required to have one credit in gym in high school. But everything else I agree with, it should be more about how to exercise, good diet, and basic medical info.

2/6/2010 7:34:29 PM

I love curriculum planning! It is fascinating and hilarious.

I believe cultural literacy (GrumpyGOP) is a myth designed to put people down. Dude talks about Plato at a party, I nod my head. I'm actually thinking, "Wait. Did Plato teach Socrates or did Socrates teach Plato? Oh shit, was that Aristotle?" But since I'm nodding, and my accent isn't too heavy, and I occasionally use unnecessarily large words in conversation, it's assumed that I know about Plato and that I'm "culturally literate." It's bullshit.

I think the idea that some students/families value education and some do not is also a myth designed to put people down. In reality, some students think they're going to college, and some do not. The ones with college plans will study. The others will need their classes to be relevant to them and interesting if you intend to hold their attention. Teaching esoteric, boring bullshit and claiming that kids who fail just don't value education is self-serving nonsense. Very, very few people actually value education in this country.

So the curriculum should be relevant (Kris) and interesting. Then, empowering: it should develop self-motivation, critical thinking skills, rational thought patterns (cause/effect, 1337 b4k4), and independent thought (mambagrl).

And I love skills. Truth is we already offer instruction in practically every basic skill mentioned in this thread. The big problem is that 1) only some kids end up in those classes and 2) the classes are weak as shit. Think about how lame shit like health and civics was...now imagine that for personal finance, computer literacy, accounting, business marketing, mechanics, law, etc... If we're going to teach basic skills (and I think we should), we need to actually fucking teach basic skills. Same goes for all electives...so many electives might as well be called Half Drunk Teacher Shows Movie while Students Get High in Parking Lot. That's not to say weed smoking is a waste...I'm just saying we need to stop pretending like we're doing something great by offering Fashion Design and Comic Book Publishing...

[Edited on February 6, 2010 at 8:29 PM. Reason : ]

2/6/2010 8:28:50 PM

Quote :

"But I fear that the curriculum is being set to produce obedient worker bees instead of thinking citizens who have a good foundation in the principles of the country and a respect of individual rights."

Totally-- for lower-level kids.

Not at all for honors/AP kids. They're forced to look critically at issues (especially AP kids).

But let's face it-- simply exposing Beavis and Butthead to the fact that natural rights exist is leaps and bounds beyond where they'd be otherwise.

2/6/2010 10:17:03 PM

My anecdote:

One of my best friends is engaged to a very cute lawyer. She was born in Dublin, then moved to Toronta when she was 12, then moved to Seattle when she was 16. Basically she entered the US school system once they were largely done with US history. Now she's intelligent and very successful, but is completely uninformed about american history. On a recent trip to Boston we were discussing historical landmarks and she would chime in asking who people like Paul Revere were. I told her that he owned a chain of Boston sandwich shops in the 1970s and was made famous by the Beastie Boys. I forget where I was going with this story. O'Doyle rules.

2/6/2010 11:06:52 PM

Quote :

"I've always felt that too much emphasis was placed on "modern" history (WWII+)."

For me it was always the opposite. We spent half of the year going over the revolutionary war through civil war. WW2 was 4th quarter
and modern history was all shit we crammed into the last 2 weeks of school. This 1877-present though is a little extreme. Part
of the benefit of 11th grade US history was going more in depth and getting a more dark version of the propaganda candy coated
history students get in elementary school.

Quote :

"Besides, why do we need to learn about those silly things called the Constitution and Bill of Rights?"

lol good call. i knew there was a hidden motive. the constitution is "silly stuff"

When i was in school

7th was world history

8th i don't remember

9th civics and economics

10th world history

11 us history

12 whatever

2/7/2010 1:08:23 AM

In NC 8th grade was NC history
12th grade - no history class was required

For you ELP (Economics, Law and Politics) advocates who want a personal finance course, why not retool the Economics semester of this ELP class to include that?

Maybe I have a different take on the importance of US History since going into it I thought it would be dreadfully boring but taking the honors course we covered the material significantly more in depth and did more activities that got us involved in what we were learning. Or perhaps I was just lucky and had a kick ass teacher.

2/7/2010 1:27:39 AM

Quote :

"Dude talks about Plato at a party, I nod my head. I'm actually thinking, "Wait. Did Plato teach Socrates or did Socrates teach Plato? Oh shit, was that Aristotle?" But since I'm nodding, and my accent isn't too heavy, and I occasionally use unnecessarily large words in conversation, it's assumed that I know about Plato and that I'm "culturally literate." It's bullshit."

haha

sounds like you hang out with a bunch of pretentious pricks

2/7/2010 2:01:56 AM

high school US History books are full of lies anyhow. it's all about promoting the American hegemony perpetuated by upper class white men..

So fuck it. just start with the moon landing and end where Reaganomics defeated the Soviet Union.

2/7/2010 3:42:26 AM

Quote :

"There are no jobs in "History" that aren't solely for history's sake, the same goes for art or religion."

At the very least history gives people a context for their civics, as taught in classes or as encountered elsewhere. I tend to hold that there is also some value in knowing why the world today is the way it is. It gives you some basic ability to interpret the news that gets thrown your way.

Quote :

"Much more useful skills would be basic courses in finance, computer literacy and programming, carpentry, mechanics, business, law, accounting, taxes, medicine, interpersonal skills, etc."

Ignoring for the moment the entertainment I get from a socialist demanding business courses, I will say the following:

1) I already said finance should be required.
2) Basic computer literacy is, in some places, required, and I will agree should be required elsewhere.
3) Basic programming is not likely to be useful to many people.
4) Carpentry and mechanics? What are we, China? We don't make shit in this country anymore.
5) Business is a specialized profession, just like history. Let them take electives (not that anything at the high school level would be useful anyway)
6) The level of law that a person must know should be taught in civics.
7) "Accounting" falls under "finance"
8) "Taxes" falls under "civics" or "finance"
9) "Medicine," to what extent it can be taught in high school, is covered in our mandated health course. Nobody paid attention then, I don't know why they would pay more attention in a year-long class.
10) I would argue that the best way to learn interpersonal skills is the same way we've learned them for the past 100,000 years, which is by interacting with people, which is what school forces people to do every day.

Quote :

"Well I don't know anything about other schools, I was only required to have one credit in gym in high school."

Yeah, it was the same for me. It was still a credit that taught me nothing that hadn't already been taught, ad nauseum, all through middle and most of elementary school.

Quote :

"I believe cultural literacy (GrumpyGOP) is a myth designed to put people down. "

First of all, you're going to the wrong parties. Second of all, you clearly know who Plato was, so be grateful that you had a vaguely effective education. "Cultural literacy," at this sad point in history, doesn't mean being able to quote his works or detail his history. It's just being able to associate him with other thinkers in a general era.

Quote :

"In reality, some students think they're going to college, and some do not."

Yeah. And that's largely because of their backgrounds, which prominently feature their families.

If your parents say, "Your ass is going to college and I'm going to make sure of it," that seems to have a big effect. Even as a substitute teacher this was obvious. With some kids, threats involving parents had no effect whatsoever. With others, those same threats might as well have been a promise to execute them on the spot.

2/7/2010 4:11:12 AM

Quote :

"high school US History books are full of lies anyhow. it's all about promoting the American hegemony perpetuated by upper class white men.."

That must be why more 18 year old high school seniors and college freshman don't say things like that. OH WAIT...

2/7/2010 4:47:52 AM

Quote :

"I tend to hold that there is also some value in knowing why the world today is the way it is. It gives you some basic ability to interpret the news that gets thrown your way."

Sure there is some value, just not the money kind, and that's what school should prepare kids for. I love history, there's just no money in it.

Quote :

"Basic programming is not likely to be useful to many people."

You'd be surprised how much it can simplify time consuming tasks on the computer.

Quote :

"Carpentry and mechanics? What are we, China? We don't make shit in this country anymore."

But we still drive cars and live in houses, so fixing them is very helpful, it prevents broken windows.

Quote :

"Business is a specialized profession"

Business is every profession. It doesn't matter what you do, your boss or your boss's boss, somewhere up the line has an MBA. He knows way less about what your company does, and instead focuses on how it's run.

Quote :

""Accounting" falls under "finance""

They're different.

2/7/2010 11:19:48 AM

Quote :

"Sure there is some value, just not the money kind, and that's what school should prepare kids for."

There's no money to speak of in voting, jury duty, or knowing your rights in the event of a police search, either. School should prepare people to be functional citizens. A big part of that is learning useful vocational skills, sure. But part of that is knowing about the world and being able to operate in it competently.

Quote :

"You'd be surprised how much it can simplify time consuming tasks on the computer."

And I think you'd be surprised how many time-loss fuckups would take place all over the country if people who thought they knew enough about computers from high school started trying to fix their own problems.

Quote :

"But we still drive cars and live in houses, so fixing them is very helpful, it prevents broken windows."

Yeah it's helpful, I'm just not convinced that it's helpful enough to require a mandatory place in the school curriculum. There are enough people scattered around competent in these fields that pretty much everybody has a friend who can help them with most problems.

Quote :

"They're different."

How? Especially in the context of what could usefully be taught to high school students.

2/7/2010 1:41:36 PM

History is important because it defines who we are as a people, what it means to be a citizen of the United States. What are the themes and events that created the modern cleavages in our society? What are our triumphs and our sins? What were the processes that led us to make the decisions we did, and how can we improve upon it or at very least prevent making the same mistakes? History establishes a baseline from which we start. You don't have to be an expert on history, being able to recite speeches about liberating slaves or being crucified on crosses of gold, but you have to have a basic understanding for why things are the way they are. Whether one embraces it or rebels against it is another matter, but at least you have a point to start from.

I guess I find the whole debate particularly humorous because I don't think any other nation would really question the value of teaching national history. Again, it forges their national, their tribal identities.

Yes, I agree that our curriculum needs work. Too much emphasis is being placed on early history and rote memorization. Yet I would argue that learning history teaches causality: it shows us how decisions we make can come back to haunt us or our decedents down the road.

I disagree that it should be punted to college because primary school is probably the last chance that many individuals will have to study national and international history. Even for those going to college, many may not ever take another history course again, or even if they do, they'll take something specialized. I know that as a graduate of the College of Engineering, the only history class I took in college was a history of technology. My little sister who did her BFA and MFA was only exposed to art history once she graduated from high school. If high school is supposed to establish a baseline of knowledge for students, then history should be taught then.

2/7/2010 8:44:37 PM

Quote :

"School should prepare people to be functional citizens. A big part of that is learning useful vocational skills, sure. But part of that is knowing about the world and being able to operate in it competently."

How does history contribute to that?

Quote :

"And I think you'd be surprised how many time-loss fuckups would take place all over the country if people who thought they knew enough about computers from high school started trying to fix their own problems."

Well first, those would be learning experiences, those would be valuable in virtually any job today. Secondly, they could learn enough to fix their own problems, take for example the 8 year old who become an MS certified engineer. It doesn't take a lot. Computers are made to be easy to use.

Quote :

"I'm just not convinced that it's helpful enough to require a mandatory place in the school curriculum."

I've had several times where I have been financially benefited from being able to do small repairs, I've never had any where my history knowledge has helped.

Quote :

"How? Especially in the context of what could usefully be taught to high school students."

One focuses on investments and such, the other focuses on bookkeeping. Both can be used in everyday life, and both can lead to careers for any company in existence.

Quote :

"History is important because it defines who we are as a people, what it means to be a citizen of the United States."

And what use is that? What the point in teaching students something that, most likely, they will forget because they never need to use it? I'd be willing to bet far less people know who the second president is over the freezing point of water, or what a transmission does, or what the tax form they get from their employer is called, or can name an operating system of a computer. You use the other things quite frequently, thus they are very easy to remember, and far more useful. I think that if you gave students a curriculum that was useful to real life, you would have far more interest from them academically.

2/7/2010 10:55:39 PM