This is admittedly more of a state issue, but the ramifications are obvious for Wake County.
As noted in today's article by Lynn Bonner, the state Department of Public Instruction is considering a new social studies curriculum in which U.S. history in 11th-grade would only cover 1877 to the present. Currently, it covers 1789 to the present.
State education officials have been under siege since Fox News reported on the change on Wednesday. People have been in an uproar over the exclusion of the Founding Fathers and the Civil War from the class.
The state is defending the proposed changes on the grounds that they'd cover early U.S. history in elementary and middle school. They say that starting after Reconstruction in high school U.S. history will allow students to spend more time studying recent history.
“What students are telling us is the part of history they don’t know is the history of today, of the 20th Century,” said Rebecca Garland, chief academic officer for the state Department of Public Instruction, in today's article.
That kind of explanation doesn't wash with folks like Steve Noble, chairman of Called2Action, a conservative Christian group. He sent an ActionGram Thursday night to his members urging them to lobby against the new curriculum.
"The progressive, historical revisionism that seeks to undermine the Judeo-Christian heritage of our nation is alive and well within the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction," Noble writes in the ActionGram.
Noble is urging people to contact their local school boards to get them to also oppose the curriculum.
This could turn into a repeat of the 2001 social studies curriculum fight. Back then, state educators proposed eliminating North Carolina history from eighth-grade. They had pointed out that North Carolina history would still be taught in fourth-grade.
In the ensuing uproar, the General Assembly passed a bill requiring that students continue to study the Tar Heel state in fourth- and eighth-grades. It was passed even though the state Board of Education had pledged not to change the eighth-grade curriculum.
The new history fight could wind up in this year's legislative short session.
Click here to view the current social studies curriculum.
Click here to view the proposed new curriculum. There's a link on the page to provide feedback. Comments will be taken until Feb. 15.
UPDATE
State Schools Supt. June Atkinson has issued a press release defending the proposed new curriculum.
Atkinson argues that the new curriculum would actually increase time spent on U.S. history when you add in the elementary and middle school years.
Comments
I will not be "won over" on this one
Mon, 02/08/2010 - 12:39 — louiselee44It's not just "increased time" that matters when studying history. So the elementary children "study" more US history under this plan. Are they mature enough to understand the complexities and to delve deeper into certain issues like most high schoolers? Few, if any.
Middle schoolers - older, yes, but there's still a big difference in studying something as a twelve-year-old vs a sixteen or seventeen-year-old.
Also, students who move to NC after the 7th grade would receive NO US history instruction prior to Reconstruction at all!. We could only hope that they had a good dose of it in their former school system, but those systems probably cover the bulk in high school. To me, this is a huge consideration. There's got to be a better way...
New history standards
Sat, 02/06/2010 - 11:36 — sstarksI've looked at the proposed standards, as well as the standards for electives that Ms. Atkinson says will be available to those seeking more history. However, the electives listed do not seem to cover early U.S. history in any meaningful way either.
Also, I am curious about AP takers. The AP history classes manage to cover all of U.S. history in depth. If you look at the standards for AP U.S. history, you will see that they require quite a bit of analysis of cause and affect of early U.S. history while teaching how our country came to be. So will AP takers now be the only ones who have this appreciation and understanding of our history?
Also, looking at 6th through 8th grade proposed standards, I don't see a rich examination of the history of our country there either.
Not a good plan
Fri, 02/05/2010 - 09:48 — ConcernedParentI suggest everyone:
For the feedback, they have a form to use. Use it. http://www.ncpublicschools.org/docs/acre/standards/phase2/feedback.doc
Then email the completed form to feedback@dpi.state.nc.us. Put something clear like "Feedback on Draft Phase II Standard for US History" as the subject.
If we all do this, it may carry more weight because it is clear we have read the SCOS proposal and are not just reacting to news reports.
I can tell you all from my serving on the WCPSS Elementary Math textbook review committee, that when the time comes to choose the 11th grade Social Studies text book, the SCOS in effect at the time will drive which book is chosen.
The publishers are going to love this change, unless we are not the only state considering this absurd change.
ConcernedParent - Comparing documents, confused
Fri, 02/05/2010 - 12:46 — croaswifeI looked at the 2 documents referenced by concerned parent however are we comparing apples to apples? The link you reference in #1 is 6th-8th grade and the link in #2 is 11th grade. I want to make sure I am clearly understanind what the issue is. Thanks!
Oops - wrong link
Fri, 02/05/2010 - 14:55 — ConcernedParentYep - pasted the wrong link into my post. As Mr. Hui says, he also posted the (correct!) links.
As my 6th grader says, "My bad!"
I have the links for both
Fri, 02/05/2010 - 13:01 — KeungHui (author)I have the links for both curriculae at the bottom of the post.
Note - deadline for feedback on Phase II 1.0 Draft is Feb 15!!!
Fri, 02/05/2010 - 09:51 — ConcernedParentThe feedback deadline is February 15.
The feedback form is a little involved. If you don't have time to fill that out, a short clearly worded email may help.
At a minimum, do the online survey at: http://www.zoomerang.com/Survey/?p=WEB229ZQGTUSD7
Good grief.
Fri, 02/05/2010 - 09:36 — Bob_SconceAny curriculum that doesn't talk about the civil war IN HIGH SCHOOL is fundamentally broken.
I agree
Sat, 02/06/2010 - 10:28 — lferreriIf it's really so difficult to do a high school survey course covering all of US History in one class, then maybe they should add another required class. That's how most colleges do their US History survey classes. They are usually two semesters long. I have a feeling that the lack of time is partly an unintended consequence of block scheduling. Eighteen weeks is a very short time to cover all of US history even if the class time is doubled (which it really is not).
Well
Fri, 02/05/2010 - 13:16 — supportwcpssI didn't hear elimination. I hear they talk about it in an earlier grade. Is that not sufficient?
No. It's not.
Fri, 02/05/2010 - 15:03 — Bob_SconceElementary and Middle school social studies does not get into history at the same depth or intensity that high school social studies does. The American Revolution and the Civil War are the two most important events in US History and deserve focused teaching at a level that just does not happen in elementary and middle school.
If we're running out of time teaching US History, then add some more time to teach it. But, don't think that you can take a Civil War lesson intended for 11th graders and teach it to middle school kids. That's just not going to work.
I'd be happier if we covered the period of 1941 to present day in middle school and left 11th grade US History to cover up to 1941.
Note that I'm going off Keung's description above and still trying to sort through the information on the website -- it's not exactly straightforward.
Disagree
Fri, 02/05/2010 - 15:15 — supportwcpssWhile I don't discount the importance of our history as our country I believe the last 60 years are just as important and may actually be more pertinent information for them to get ready for the current state of affairs.
To teach 1941 on in middle school only is very shortsighted.
Hmm...
Fri, 02/05/2010 - 16:15 — Bob_SconceSo, you are suggesting that learning about 1941+ ONLY in middle school short-changes that period. If so, wouldn't you also agree that learning about the Civil War only in middle school equally short-changes that period?
I suggest that myopia makes us think that the most recent period is the most important. I'll agree that some important thing happened in that time frame -- the Civil Rights Movement, the Cold War, Watergate, for example. But, those things don't go to the root of who we are, as a people in the same way that the Colonial Experience, the Civil War and (to a lesser extent) the Depression do.
But, your post brings out a real divide -- it appears that the DPI is maybe composed of people who want to change the relative importance of what's taught to our kids about history. That, however, is A VERY SIGNIFICANT STEP that ought not be handled by a bunch of educational bureaucrats without an extremely vigorous public dialogue.
This isn't like math -- whether we teach algebra or geometry first is something that's measureable. This goes to the core of our children's identities as citizens -- which principles and ideas are the most important to embue them with.
Woodstock/Bob/Shear
Fri, 02/05/2010 - 23:46 — supportwcpssThis is one of the reasons most people on here cannot have a logical and objective discussion. You're too busy opposing what I say to actually read what I say.
Bob - I never suggested learning before 1941 should only be in middle school. I simply questioned how we handle the gap. You suggested we only teach post 1941 history in middle school which makes no sense.
shear - I never said the last 60 years are more important. What I said is that I believe they are JUST AS important. And to make a connection between the last 60 years and the troubles we have today??? Well that makes no sense also.
woodstock - Again, I never said all the important history occured in the last 60 years.
Is it a man thing or just the fact that my opinion usually sits on the other side? You have no interest in having a discussion on any topic! you just want to fight.
I suggest we find ways to expand the history coursework in high school and cover the critical components that are relevant to what shapes our country and our future.
Ahhhh, Support, You said
Mon, 02/08/2010 - 10:43 — shearertwAhhhh,
Support,
You said the last 60 years were "more pertinant" for our young people to understand to get along in today's world (paraphrasing). My point is that this country has drastically slipped away from our founders intent, especially over the last 60 years. I believe our young people (and many adults today) don't need to learn about the advent of the computer age but rather take a look at the core values on which this country was founded. Then, perhaps, they may learn where freedom comes from and our you maintain it. How personal sacrifice and responsibility is what gave birth to the greatest nation ever created and how the lack of it will bring it down. I sense these concepts may be foreign to you but that's my point.
lol
Mon, 02/08/2010 - 11:37 — supportwcpssYou call it paraphrasing??? Go figure. More like takign words out of context. How easy would it have been to quote me exactly. I said "pertinent information for them to get ready for the current state of affairs"
Knowing what is going on in the last 60 years gives them an good solid foundation for what is going on NOW. Just looking at the core values from 300 years ago and saying that is adequate is naive. I said "I thought both were just as important".
And telling me the concepts may be foreign to me just makes you an a$$hole. Don't question my patriotism or my knowledge of it.
You're simply looking to argue for the sake of it. It's not becoming of you.
So..
Mon, 02/08/2010 - 11:52 — Bob_SconceIt's an interesting question: what is the purpose of learning American History? Is it to understand how to deal with the immediate problems of today, or is it, more broadly, to understand who we are as a people and how we got here?
In either case, I suggest that if you want to understand today's biggest problem (the economy) and what to do about it, then you're much better off paying attention to the history of the Depression and the Panics of 1873 and 1893, 70-140 years ago, than the last 5 years. Unfortunately, many of our leaders miss those older lessons.
Reflect on how you present
Sat, 02/06/2010 - 10:36 — woodstockReflect on how you present yourself on this forum and perhaps you will get some answers on how others react to you.
As for the history, I think too many students graduate and enter adulthood without a knowledgable perspective of what this country is about and its founding principles. It is concerning to me that these unprepared adults vote on things that impact the direction our nation will take, including the very freedoms we enjoy and that many have given their live for. It to fine to teach these things in grade school, but it is in high school when students are better prepared to understand the significance of what they are being taught.
Interesting...
Sat, 02/06/2010 - 08:43 — Bob_SconceI don't think I said that __ONLY__ post 1941 history should be taught in middle school. Personally, I think the lessons of the Founders and of the Civil War need to be taught repeatedly -- in elementary, middle, AND most importantly high school.
In any case, I was really attacking the current proposal which, apart from a 10th grade discussion of the Constitution and the Federalist Papers, leaves everything before Reconstruction out of high school. It did appear that you were trying to defend that proposal, so I apologize if I attributed it to you.
This is something that I'm very passionate about (much more so than whether my kids are on year-round school or most of the other things that we discuss here) because it goes to the things we believe should be taught to tomorrow's adults.
I'm afraid that the DPI is taking to heart Stalin's "Education is a weapon, whose effect depends on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed."
Oh my. Please go back and
Fri, 02/05/2010 - 15:51 — woodstockOh my. Please go back and think about what you are saying. I trust you will reconsider your comments. If you think all relevent history has occured during the last 60 years, you have a very, very narrow perspective.
support, Judging from the
Fri, 02/05/2010 - 15:27 — shearertwsupport,
Judging from the perspective you appear to have in the majority of your post, its not surprising that you believe the last 60 years is perhaps the most important history. That perspective is perhaps what is leading to many of the troubles we have today.
If you don't have a complete and full understanding of the principals on which this country was founded, you have no clue about what makes it a great country, perhaps the greatest, and how to keep it that way.
Starting with 1941 is like building a house by starting with the second story first!
No, it is not sufficient
Fri, 02/05/2010 - 15:02 — ConcernedParentSorry, but I don't think an elementary school student can possibly understand the issues at the same level they would understand them in 11th grade.
Even in the 6th grade book, the topics covered (WWII, Hitler, etc.) are, at best, a cursory overview. Add to that the mindset of a K-5 student, and I think the foundations of our country's government need to be covered in HS.
I think of K-5 as "basics" - read, write, spell, foundation math skills. 6-8 is starting to see that there is more to learn. HS is starting to learn in more depth.
I have a bright 6th grader. He was woefully underchallenged at the non-magnet ES he attended. He couldn't explain to me why the US sought independence except that "we didn't like the King." Let alone why we have three branches of government.
So
Fri, 02/05/2010 - 15:13 — supportwcpssIs this a discussion about what is the most important history to teach between 9-12 or we should include it all and make it fit?
Have you tried to discuss US
Fri, 02/05/2010 - 13:43 — shearertwHave you tried to discuss US history with a recent HS graduate lately?
Clearly what we do now is not sufficient.
When I work with my
Fri, 02/05/2010 - 10:13 — user12345When I work with my co-workers in Japan and China I use to think how easy we had it here in the US only having to study 300 year for the US vs. thousands of years for those countries ... sounds like it could get even easier
Heh..
Fri, 02/05/2010 - 11:40 — Bob_SconceHeh... Many cultures are tied into their histories a lot more than we Americans are. It's unfortunate, because you cannot understand where we are now without understanding where we've been.
This is ridiculous. Unless
Fri, 02/05/2010 - 09:45 — woodstockThis is ridiculous. Unless you understand the reasons for, and the process related to, the establishment and evolution our our country, you lose an enormous amount of perspective of what this country is all about.
Oh great. We lost the Civil
Fri, 02/05/2010 - 08:12 — changewcpssOh great. We lost the Civil War so we'll just erase it from the history books. Now I've heard it all.