PDA

View Full Version : Schools: U.S. History Out, Environment In



yuuppers
02-24-2010, 12:57 AM
Any comments?

Change often leads to controversy and that is certainly the case in North Carolina where an effort to revamp the state's education system has some people outraged that high school students will not learn enough American history.

The formula for teaching American history has been pretty simple. Start at the beginning and go forward. But a new proposal under review in North Carolina threatens to disrupt that standard teaching philosophy.

"If our students don't know what happened in world history, and if they don't know what happened in U.S. history from George Washington's presidency all the way up through the Civil War, then they will not be able to grasp the big picture," said Mike Belter, a Social Studies teacher in North Carolina.

The state's on-going curriculum review hits all subjects but it's the proposed changes for high school students learning social studies that have provoked fears. Under the new guidelines, students will graduate without learning enough about world history and key parts of American history including Abraham Lincoln, westward expansion or much else that happened before 1877 when Reconstruction ended, critics say.

"We are certainly not trying to go away from American history. 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 so the students who see it as relevant," said Rebecca Garland of the N.C. Department of Public Instruction.

Right now, high school students learn world history in the ninth grade, civics and economics in the tenth and the entirety of U.S. history in the eleventh grade. Under the proposed change, all ninth graders wouldn't study world history. Instead, they''ll have to take a course called Global Studies focusing on the modern issues like the environment.

Tenth graders will still get Civics and Economics, while the junior year U.S. history class would start in 1877. State officials say events prior to that year will be taught before high school and also incorporated into the sophomore year Civics class.

Education officials acknowledge this is a big change but believe it will allow them to connect with a standard of teaching based on a new national initiative called called Common Core which emphasizes standards to help prepare students with the knowledge and skills they need to succeed in college and careers and to be prepared to compete globally.

"The whole notion of the common core is fewer, clearer and more in depth standards. So that our students remember what's important," Garland said.

" 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. And unfortunately this curriculum does just that," said Terry Stoops, an Education Expert and member of the John Locke Foundation.

North Carolina officials are quick to emphasize that the proposal is just that--a proposal. And they are encouraging feedback from teachers and the public about the plan.

http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews...e-2/?action=late-new (http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/02/03/schools-u-s-history-out-environment-in/comment-page-2/?action=late-new)

yuuppers
02-24-2010, 12:57 AM
Any comments?

Change often leads to controversy and that is certainly the case in North Carolina where an effort to revamp the state's education system has some people outraged that high school students will not learn enough American history.

The formula for teaching American history has been pretty simple. Start at the beginning and go forward. But a new proposal under review in North Carolina threatens to disrupt that standard teaching philosophy.

"If our students don't know what happened in world history, and if they don't know what happened in U.S. history from George Washington's presidency all the way up through the Civil War, then they will not be able to grasp the big picture," said Mike Belter, a Social Studies teacher in North Carolina.

The state's on-going curriculum review hits all subjects but it's the proposed changes for high school students learning social studies that have provoked fears. Under the new guidelines, students will graduate without learning enough about world history and key parts of American history including Abraham Lincoln, westward expansion or much else that happened before 1877 when Reconstruction ended, critics say.

"We are certainly not trying to go away from American history. 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 so the students who see it as relevant," said Rebecca Garland of the N.C. Department of Public Instruction.

Right now, high school students learn world history in the ninth grade, civics and economics in the tenth and the entirety of U.S. history in the eleventh grade. Under the proposed change, all ninth graders wouldn't study world history. Instead, they''ll have to take a course called Global Studies focusing on the modern issues like the environment.

Tenth graders will still get Civics and Economics, while the junior year U.S. history class would start in 1877. State officials say events prior to that year will be taught before high school and also incorporated into the sophomore year Civics class.

Education officials acknowledge this is a big change but believe it will allow them to connect with a standard of teaching based on a new national initiative called called Common Core which emphasizes standards to help prepare students with the knowledge and skills they need to succeed in college and careers and to be prepared to compete globally.

"The whole notion of the common core is fewer, clearer and more in depth standards. So that our students remember what's important," Garland said.

" 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. And unfortunately this curriculum does just that," said Terry Stoops, an Education Expert and member of the John Locke Foundation.

North Carolina officials are quick to emphasize that the proposal is just that--a proposal. And they are encouraging feedback from teachers and the public about the plan.

http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews...e-2/?action=late-new (http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/02/03/schools-u-s-history-out-environment-in/comment-page-2/?action=late-new)

GoToAway
02-24-2010, 01:24 AM
I don't see how it really matters. Ask a random person on the street who Hamilton was or who fought in the War of 1812 (and why) and you'll get blank looks. Ask half of them to find Britain on a map and the same thing will happen.

Esel1964
02-24-2010, 02:50 AM
It does matter.Knowing the past gives one insight as to when/where/how it may be repeating itself.

I'm just glad I don't have kids,I'd end up banned from the school,because the liberal NEA has a nasty agenda all neatly laid out for the 'nothing' generation(which includes anyone still of school age).
I remember seeing a blurp on the news on the first anniversary of 9-11-2001,that the NEA was basically ordering teachers to do nothing Patriotic or even mention what had transpired a year before-lest they "offend" someone.

So,not to offend the VAST minority,they don't teach anyone about it.
There were people from 80+ countries killed that day,of every race,creed and color and religion.So,they choose to ignore it completely,rather than have a class discussion as to why the lunatics that pulled it off,might have done it,they stick their heads in the sand,because there might be some punk raised by these mongrels,who might be offended.

DISGUSTING,absolutely disgusting !!!

Choctaw111
02-24-2010, 05:51 AM
@Esel and GoToAway

Completely agree and yes, I am very bothered by this.
Finding Britain on a map aside, most Americans can't point to Washington DC on a map either.
When you do not learn about your country and its history, you will not have the true meaning or vision or pride of what it is to be a citizen of that country.

OysterShot
02-24-2010, 06:17 AM
<span class="ev_code_RED">modern issues like the environment</span>

Thats not history. Its a whole other subject. I have no problem educating students on that but if its time taken away from learning American History then its a loss for them.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

OysterShot
02-24-2010, 06:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Choctaw111:
@Esel and GoToAway

Completely agree and yes, I am very bothered by this.
Finding Britain on a map aside, most Americans can't point to Washington DC on a map either.
When you do not learn about your country and its history, you will not have the true meaning or vision or pride of what it is to be a citizen of that country. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<span class="ev_code_RED">most Americans can't point to Washington DC on a map either.</span>

Thats a load of horsehockey , where did you read that fairy tale?

LEBillfish
02-24-2010, 06:19 AM
Have to say I DO disagree with their current course scheduling AND the proposed, and it does need a change.

9th Graders are trying to get settled into High School...They need to be taught the all encompassing U.S. History course hitting upon all of it, yet none of it in precise detail.

10th could be Civics/Government, Economics and Global Studies (current events) over the year.

11th World History as there is so much more to take in yet past them being at the age of really chasing tail, driving, etc., they'll be a bit more focussed and can take it all in a bit easier (having by then hopefully having learned to study).

12th could offer advanced/detailed U.S. or World history....Even a course where for a semester each student pics their own specific subject, even say something like "Air Combat History", to as Narrow as WWI Air combat, or perhaps "The major events of 1950-1959", etc. (naturally could be anything, Egypt, Rome, whatever just using an example close to home)....and let them wring that tiny aspect out as best they can to learn about not only history (an aspect they have interest in), yet also doing research in detail.

K2

ytareh
02-24-2010, 07:42 AM
Simply disgraceful.

foxyboy1964
02-24-2010, 07:51 AM
U.S. history? Let's see, 2010-1776=234 years. 234 years? That's not history, that's a lunch break http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Blood_Splat
02-24-2010, 08:03 AM
I wonder what song George Washington was listening to on his ipod at Valley Forge?http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Airmail109
02-24-2010, 08:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by foxyboy1964:
U.S. history? Let's see, 2010-1776=234 years. 234 years? That's not history, that's a lunch break http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL I spent 4 years studying 1920-39 Europe. If you thought history classes were bad in the US, the UK's history curriculum is much more narrow. It has the capability to be broad but teachers can choose just about any time period under the sun for various modules.....they always choose Nazi's/Fascists/Inter-war Britain.

Get's boring fast. To make it even more boring they then skip out the war and post-war part altogether, so the average student never truly understands how it shaped Europe and relates to them.

thefruitbat
02-24-2010, 08:15 AM
yep, 1919-1939 sounds very familiar to me too, plus a little bit of cold war, but not much, for GCSE. Learn't more history before then, obviously not deemed worthy for the exams though http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

GoToAway
02-24-2010, 08:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Esel1964:
It does matter.Knowing the past gives one insight as to when/where/how it may be repeating itself. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I have a degree in history. I'm well aware of history's value.

But the bottom line is that the general population does not care about it and has no real use for it. Forget American history. Ask an American when World War I began (and why) and you will get a blank look. The average American also does not know when WW2 began and is pretty ignorant of anything that happened before 12/7/41.

People here are obviously an exception because they have an interest in history. But try to have a discussion about history with somebody with no post-secondary education and you will find that they know very little about a lot of important things.

Public education is partially to blame, but so is our culture. No emphasis is put on the actual importance of these things. And the fact that most people can coast through life without knowing a thing about the Punic Wars or Munich Agreement reinforces this belief.

So no, I really don't think it matters what they're teaching at the high school level. Little is retained and less is judged as important by the general populace.

GoToAway
02-24-2010, 08:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OysterShot:
Thats a load of horsehockey , where did you read that fairy tale? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>It's actually much worse than that.

For example:
50% of Americans can't find Ohio on a map of the US
43% can't find New York
33% could not find Louisiana immediately after Katrina
63% can't find Iraq on a map
88% can't find Afghanistan
75% can't find Indonesia
11% can't even find the US

http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/05/02/geog.test/
http://www.nationalgeographic....006GeogLitsurvey.pdf (http://www.nationalgeographic.com/roper2006/pdf/FINALReport2006GeogLitsurvey.pdf)


And that is just one study--I've seen half a dozen over the past 10 years that actually get more dismal as the sample size goes up.

The American populace is very ignorant about the world.

Hell, in a college course, I was the only one in the entire class that was able to label all of the countries in Europe in an informal survey given in the first week. Some girl was absolutely amazed that I knew of such "obscure" countries as Finland, Estonia, or the Netherlands.

horseback
02-24-2010, 01:35 PM
I am often shocked at the ignorance of people who seem otherwise bright and well informed when the subjects of geography and history come up.

Our educational system has failed badly with its constant reinterpretation and trivialization of what we used to call the 'social Sciences'.

TBH, though I'm not positive that I could pick Estonia out on the map; I know that it's north of Poland on the Baltic Sea, but I couldn't tell you in which order Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia lie on that coast from north to south. When I was attending school, they were part of the Soviet Union, and knowing that was considered enough.

Damn that Ronald Reagan; if he'd left well enough alone, it might still have been enough.

cheers

horseback

LEBillfish
02-24-2010, 01:38 PM
Rgr that Horseback....I have to think hard after the breakup. My learning from a cold war time with cold war names.

K2