February 4, 2010 6:46 AM
North Carolina to eliminate US History prior to Hayes
This is how totalitarian regimes boost their brainwashing power: First you strip away a people's heroes and histories - and religion - replacing them with what you want them to believe. In this case, globalism and environmental studies:
North Carolina Schools May Cut Chunk Out of U.S. History Lessons
Wednesday, February 03, 2010 By Molly HennebergHe 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.
More at FoxNews
Colby Carr has started a petition drive to stop this effort to deprive the next generation of its heritage.
Posted in Activism, Propaganda, Public schools | Permalink
Comments
Progressives roll on.
Posted by: A Mac and a Mug O' Joe | February 4, 2010 7:10 AM
reason # 625 for our family to homeschool
Posted by: Laura | February 4, 2010 9:07 AM
Actually, this doesn't seem all that menacing to me.
Here's why: When I was in school, it seems like every US history course started with the Native Americans. We always did the Revolutionary War. I knew about the civil war. But until an AP history class in High School, I had no idea what happened after that. I had some vague knowledge of the world wars and the Vietnam war--I'd heard of them--but I didn't know anything about them (except that I'd read books by or about Holocaust survivors--but that was the only part I knew about).
I think the problem was that for most history teachers, the more recent wars were something that they lived through, and it didn't seem like history to them. So I got very little exposure to the history that was made during the lifetime of my parents.
If that's what this change is about--the students in question have already studied the revolutionary and civil wars in junior high and before, and they're trying to teach them the rest of history--this seems like a good thing.
For you, Barbara, the Vietnam war is something that you lived through, watched news about, and knew about first hand. For me--and high school students in North Carolina--it's history that happened before we were born, and I'm glad that they'll get to learn more about it than I did.
Not trying to be contentious; just thought that my perspective might be a little different than yours. And I absolutely agree that they should be learning about the earlier events at some point, and if they are not it's a travesty.
Posted by: ycw | February 4, 2010 10:12 AM
As a HS teacher (in GA) I think ycw is right. But this issue actually goes back to another problem in schools, the prioritization of information... Math is important, but we are now so focused on math (and science) that we are cutting into history (and English) as being of less importance in school... and then this is also a field that is coach heavy... Many of the history teachers are active and dynamic and show the importance of history, but many are more focused on coaching and therefore just mark time in SS class... This leads to a decreased focus and understanding on historic curriculum... and therefore less time is given to it in the school curriculum (the Social Studies classes are some of the lowest on school required curriculum totem poles and they are often only semester classes, verus year long...) therefore creating a situation where stuff doesn't get taught and then we get into picking a choosing which history is "more important" than others... I need to find the materials from my administration masters classes, Barbara, but you might want to look into what used to be taught in schools in comparison to the amount of information that is supposed to be presented today. The amount of information is staggering... It creates models where people are picking and choosing... and that creates a bigger opportunity for bias... which is dangerous... It's all rolled up together in a flawed and overloaded system. Rather than try to overhaul health care our country's time would be better spent trying to overhaul education. We either need to have a federal curriculum (which is not my preference, not by a long shot, for a lot of reasons) or leave the states to do what they need to do with out all the big government interference... But that's another argument...
I would also note, that considering the way history textbooks are currently written (publishing and editing process etc) it doesn't really matter which time period is being discussed, there is so much bias and politicism all over the place... Yes, I'm a public school teacher and I said it. I'm trying to fight the system from the inside... and it's hard!
My point, however is that ycw does make a good point.
Posted by: Sandy | February 4, 2010 11:55 AM
I think this presents a different problem- the dumbing down of our schools. When I was in school in junior high when we studied American History we only went through Reconstruction. But in High school we went through the Korean War. It was expected that you could handle more information at a brisker pace having seen it before and now being older and more competent students.
I think provided the students are getting the first bit of American History in junior high that there isn't so much a danger of children not learning about our founding fathers, but it does concern me that we are starting to expect less and less of students. Some of it I know lies with the teachers. When I taught my first year teaching US history we didn't get through as much as we could have/should have because I was in experienced. I should have paced my lesson plans differently. But I know it can be done because I have done it correctly and the students handled the challenge just fine.
Posted by: tiffany | February 4, 2010 10:29 PM
