Lack of History in Public Schooling

Status
Not open for further replies.
You asked for cold, hard evidence and I am giving it to you. Textbooks are usually not used in social studies classrooms anymore, especially in high schools. In addition, only 3 years of history have been mandated in Indiana as being required to be taught. We need more history/social studies classes.
Again, this is false and saying it over and over again does not make it true. There are some changes, however, some schools are opting for digital textbooks, but check out how much textbook companies are bringing in. If what you say is true, shouldn't these companies be shuttering by now? :O o:

And the key part of your second point is REQUIRED. Yes, only required. That doesn't mean there are not other classes one can take for a fourth year of social sciences.
 
Again, this is false and saying it over and over again does not make it true. There are some changes, however, some schools are opting for digital textbooks, but check out how much textbook companies are bringing in. If what you say is true, shouldn't these companies be shuttering by now? :O o:

And the key part of your second point is REQUIRED. Yes, only required. That doesn't mean there are not other classes one can take for a fourth year of social sciences.
This is not false, I have been in numerous social studies classes where no textbooks have been used.
And secondly, yes, but this evidence still stands because most schools only offer the three required social studies classes.
 
. I think students should have a course on civics.
New York once did. I went through elementary school on Long Island at a time when a year's civics class was required. Or maybe that was a local requirement.

When I was in high school, it was required for everyone to have a year of state history (except Virginia and Massachusetts); because I was a student in Massachusetts then, I missed out. Students in Maine know about Maine's history and, since this is Maine's 200th birthday, there are items on the media, in schools, in museums and in the state house. All very healthy!
 
History has always seemed rather unique as a subject to me.....One can take college math or sciences classes, and take a textbook and your pretty much good to go wherever you go.....

However wherever you go has its own unique local and regional history, thats what will catch the interest of many students, but that requires a teacher to continue a effort to learn and not rest on their laurels from college. Some make the effort, some dont

For example its rather odd to only hear of a teacher talk of battles or UGR in Virginia, 1000 miles away, when theres battles/massacres/ and surviving UGR houses within 20 miles of the school..........
 
Last edited:
This is not false, I have been in numerous social studies classes where no textbooks have been used.
And secondly, yes, but this evidence still stands because most schools only offer the three required social studies classes.
How many is that? Two? Four? And what exactly is your role when you're 'in' those classes?

Evidence. Most schools. Your evidence is the phrase 'most schools'? That's nonsense.
 
Strictly speaking, the earliest education in what became the United States was reading taught by the Pilgrims/Puritans for the purpose of understanding the Bible. Prior to that, most commoners were illiterate and simply took the clergy's word for what was there, but teaching by these separatists stressed that individuals should be able to read and understand - but not interpret! - scripture for themselves. Voting had little to do with it because as a Pilgrim/Puritan you were supposed to follow the lead of those in charge. Of course that devolved into the wider purpose you describe, but not for a generation and more.
Not really, Education (of men) mattered. All towns were required to have public schools (I believe that it was the first area of the country with this requirement) and they wanted people to be able to read the Bible and not simply follow the ministers. They wanted to imbue their children with "social moral rights" and the background to become involved citizens. Depending on the criteria used, Boston has either the oldest or 2nd oldest college in the nation. I used to work for a college in a neighboring town which was the 13th oldest in the nation and Bowdoin is even older--not bad for a pokely little places in the williwacks.
 
Not really, Education (of men) mattered. All towns were required to have public schools (I believe that it was the first area of the country with this requirement) and they wanted people to be able to read the Bible and not simply follow the ministers. They wanted to imbue their children with "social moral rights" and the background to become involved citizens. Depending on the criteria used, Boston has either the oldest or 2nd oldest college in the nation. I used to work for a college in a neighboring town which was the 13th oldest in the nation and Bowdoin is even older--not bad for a pokely little places in the williwacks.
Horace Mann: making citizens fit for a free republic!
 
I'm not an expert on the 1619 Project.
In addition to the New York Times announcement, I suggest that you read the critiques of Guelzo, McPherson, Gordon Wood and others.
The NY Times described the Project as:
a major initiative from The New York Times observing the 400th anniversary of the beginning of American slavery. It aims to reframe the country’s history, understanding 1619 as our true founding, and placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of the story we tell ourselves about who we are.​
The Project maintains that the United States was founded as a "slaveocracy".
Historians respond:
1619, the year that the first African slaves were brought to America, marked “the beginning of the system of slavery on which the country was built.” But there were already slaves and various other forms of indentured labor in the Americas as there were all over the world. To say that there were slaves in America is not to say that “the country was built” on slavery. Moreover, the African slaves were not “kidnapped” by American or British slavers, as Hannah-Jones asserts, but were sold by other black Africans who were happy to profit by selling people they had enslaved to the colonists.​
These excerpts are from an article summarizing some of the criticism. After the author's venting on partisan politics (worth skipping, regardless of your political affiliation), it describes the Project and reaction.
<"1619 and All That: on the New York Times's Recent Disinformation Campaign", The New Criterion, Volume 38 Number 5, page 1.(Includes audio report)>
Also see
Nikole Hannah-Jones, "The 1619 Project", New York Times Magazine, August 14, 2019.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/08/14/magazine/1619-america-slavery.html
Elliott Kaufman, The 1619 Project gets schooled, Wall Street Journal, December 16, 2019. https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-1619-project-gets-schooled-11576540494
 
That's not evidence, it's anecdotal. Especially since I know other Indiana teachers (I'm originally from Indiana) and they are saying otherwise, even indicating what book they are using (Prentice Hall and Glencoe).
There IS such a thing as anecdotal evidence. But, if you do not prefer this type of evidence, what other kind would you accept for this discussion?
 
Extremely interesting discussion here. I want to beat the drum again (briefly and gently) for parental involvement in their own kids' learning. But I also want to share something about our experience with homeschooling and teaching about Civil War history.

Our youngest kid started having trouble in public school in fifth grade -- a combination of things, including a hostile teacher, but mostly that he was not able to keep up with the classwork the way it was being managed.

We evaluated our situation and determined that we had the capabilities and resources to teach him at home, so we did for several years.

We purchased a curriculum designed for homeschooling, but tailored it quite a bit to the interests of our family and our child. One of the great things we did was to include a unit on Civil War history. We studied the conflict together. We watched "Gettysburg" together (not a perfect film, but engaging and understandable for a young person). Then we followed this up with the best thing of all: field trips to Gettysburg and Petersburg!

Homeschooling allowed us to do a deep dive like this, but I'm convinced that such things are possible even for kids in regular school. At least, most parents are capable of taking the time and effort to help their kids learn.

I wish that kids had access to better learning in history and social studies, and I think schools should do more to provide that. I do recognize, though, that time and resources are tight, and educators have to respond to all kinds of pressures and dilemmas. This means that public education will have limitations, and that parents need to be proactive and take responsibility for their own kids' education.

By the way, a few years later we returned or youngest son to public school, where he enrolled in a tech school and got a good STEM education. He has a great job now as a software developer, but also knows something about the history of the world and this country!

Roy B.
 
It's my observation that people who complain about political correctness are often complaining that their notions no longer meet with general approval.
History should not be appropriated by "general approval," this is where the political correctness comes in. Some history is not going to be pretty or unoffensive, that does not mean it should not be taught. Future voters need to be aware of the past and how not to repeat it, the past events they need to know the most about are the most offensive because they need to avoid repeating them. Facts should be taught in the classroom disregarding political correctness completely. However, I do understand that teachers have their hands tied because of fear of lawsuits, so political correctness, in this day in age, will win out overall until something is done about this issue and protecting teachers, so they can teach properly.
 
B
History should not be appropriated by "general approval," this is where the political correctness comes in. Some history is not going to be pretty or unoffensive, that does not mean it should not be taught. Future voters need to be aware of the past and how not to repeat it, the past events they need to know the most about are the most offensive because they need to avoid repeating them. Facts should be taught in the classroom disregarding political correctness completely. However, I do understand that teachers have their hands tied because of fear of lawsuits, so political correctness, in this day in age, will win out overall until something is done about this issue and protecting teachers, so they can teach properly.
Bravo, this is exactly correct.
 
Yet the settlers did have male suffrage, starting with the Mayflower Compact, which was approved by the male settlers.
That's not to say they didn't vote on communal affairs, but rather the oddity that although it was desirable and almost required that the citizenry should be able to READ scripture for themselves, they weren't supposed to question or attempt to "interpret" it for themselves.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top