American History before 1877 is no longer RELEVANT.

[Heather in Neverland]

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

 

Shame on them.

[AngelBee]

That is crazy!

[1bassoon]

Oh, yeah. . . .

 

That'll go down big here in the SOUTH!

 

Sigh.

[Heather in Neverland]

Oh, yeah. . . .

 

That'll go down big here in the SOUTH!

 

Sigh.

 

That's what I was thinking. :tongue_smilie:

[TMc]

 

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

 

 

If anybody can do it and somebody should do it, nobody will do it.

 

[Ibbygirl]

Yeah that whole pesky rebellion thingy we did back in 1776 that made us Independent is pretty unnecessary. Just tear that bad boy right out of that book. Well look at the good news, nobody will ever have to memorize, "these are the times that try men's souls...." or "four score and seven years ago...." anymore. God knows those speeches didn't make any kind of impact at all. :rolleyes:

[momofkhm]

On the one hand I see the point. I never got further forward in history than WW II while in high school. They do need to do something so the kids know more recent history.

 

But I see the big picture too - covering "early American" history in middle school is not enough! You can go more in depth in high school. Why not have American history cover 2 years. Global studies sounds more like science to me. Civics and econ - I never got those in high school. No, they need to study all of American History! What would they do, start midway through a text book??

 

I'm so glad I homeschool!

 

ETA: I just asked oldest dd (15 yo) But why environment and economics. They aren't history. Why cut out that part of history?

Edited February 4, 2010 by momofkhm

[Ibbygirl]

I'm so glad I homeschool!

 

:iagree::iagree: a big AMEN to that! :) :thumbup:

[Margo out of lurking]

Sounds like the perfect NEA agenda: Keep the truth of the Constitution away from our high schoolers.

[TammyinTN]

Oh. My. Goodness! :glare:

 

We are studying this time period now and I can't imagine not learning this. It's very important to our heritage as Americans.

[Heather in Neverland]

Sounds like the perfect NEA agenda: Keep the truth of the Constitution away from our high schoolers.

 

You are so right!!!

[abbeyej]

My first thought, reading the intro, "U.S. history would begin years after President Lincoln, with the presidency of Rutherford B. Hayes in 1877" was, "Wow! Way to really engage students!" ... When I think of exciting, moving moments in American history, the first thing that springs to mind is always, "Rutherford B. Hayes!" Isn't yours?!?

 

Um... Yeah... Right.

 

I do appreciate an effort to fit in more 20th century history. Yes, sometimes that can get neglected a bit... But this is ludicrous.

[Paisley Hedgehog]

..

[NavyWifeandMommy]

It's alot of history to cover and while I am not 100% for it but if they cover the prior years in the younger grades and maybe just an overview before starting the new routine it wouldn't be so bad. If N.C. is thinking of doing this what have other states done or are planning to do?

[meet me in paris]

I have to be the voice of dissent, I guess, and say that I don't think it's that bad an idea. I mean, really, the ONLY history most kids get before high school is American History, except for one year of world history in about 7th grade. Can anyone honestly get to high school and not know about the Mayflower, the Revolution, and the Civil War? (And I know it might not be "in depth" in the MS years, but if you want to go in depth, it probably won't be in a typical public high school class anyway. :glare:)

 

I think it's much more important that students learn about the rest of the world. We are, as Americans, a very small part of world history, whether we like to believe that or not.

[FriedClams]

Sounds like the perfect NEA agenda: Keep the truth of the Constitution away from our high schoolers.

 

:iagree:

[FriedClams]

My first thought, reading the intro, "U.S. history would begin years after President Lincoln, with the presidency of Rutherford B. Hayes in 1877" was, "Wow! Way to really engage students!" ... When I think of exciting, moving moments in American history, the first thing that springs to mind is always, "Rutherford B. Hayes!" Isn't yours?!?

 

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

[Granny_Weatherwax]

Sounds like the perfect NEA agenda: Keep the truth of the Constitution away from our high schoolers.

 

This is exactly what I was thinking. When the next generation comes of age they will not be able to argue against changes to the Constitution.

[In The Great White North]

I think it's much more important that students learn about the rest of the world.

 

It seems to me that their original 9th grade "World History" course was a lot better for learning about the rest of the world than "Global Studies," with an emphasis on the environment!

 

Are they saying that the US History that we all managed to learn 200 years of, the current students are only capable of learning 130 years of? Because they are still spending the same amount of time (11th grade) on US History.

 

"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 da

 

They are not going to "see the big idea" if the foundations of that idea are left out.

[SquirrellyMama]

I have to be the voice of dissent, I guess, and say that I don't think it's that bad an idea. I mean, really, the ONLY history most kids get before high school is American History, except for one year of world history in about 7th grade. Can anyone honestly get to high school and not know about the Mayflower, the Revolution, and the Civil War? (And I know it might not be "in depth" in the MS years, but if you want to go in depth, it probably won't be in a typical public high school class anyway. :glare:)

 

I think it's much more important that students learn about the rest of the world. We are, as Americans, a very small part of world history, whether we like to believe that or not.

 

But how long will it take of this type of history curriculum before kids don't have that information any longer. You are right that most kids know about the Mayflower, the Revolution and the Civil War but at some point with this new curriculum you'll get more and more kids who don't. It will be a slow decline that won't be noticed until this knowledge is gone.

 

I disagree that it is more important for students to learn about the rest of the world. I think they should learn about the rest of the world but it shouldn't be at the expense of learning about their own country.

[littlebug42]

When I took Civics in high school, it was all about the constitution so if they still have that class, they will still be studying government issues. It may not be an ideal situation but I understand the idea behind it. I can tell you tons about the revolution and civil war eras but is it really better that I know more about the French and Indian War than Vietnam? I never got past WWII in school and even then it was usually rushed to pack it in before the end of the year. Most of what I know from the time period after that is from TV and the media - not terribly reliable sources.

[Dayle in Guatemala]

Is there a smilie for shaking your head in disgust? Ugh.

[Stacy in NJ]

I have to be the voice of dissent, I guess, and say that I don't think it's that bad an idea. I mean, really, the ONLY history most kids get before high school is American History, except for one year of world history in about 7th grade. Can anyone honestly get to high school and not know about the Mayflower, the Revolution, and the Civil War? (And I know it might not be "in depth" in the MS years, but if you want to go in depth, it probably won't be in a typical public high school class anyway. :glare:)

 

I think it's much more important that students learn about the rest of the world. We are, as Americans, a very small part of world history, whether we like to believe that or not.

 

Not in the state of NJ. middle schoolers do two years of world history (Ancients through Middles ages and Middles Ages to Moderns) in grades 6 and 7. They also do two further years of world history in high school. American history, civic, government and economics fill out the other years.

[Parrothead]

When I took Civics in high school, it was all about the constitution so if they still have that class, they will still be studying government issues. It may not be an ideal situation but I understand the idea behind it. I can tell you tons about the revolution and civil war eras but is it really better that I know more about the French and Indian War than Vietnam? I never got past WWII in school and even then it was usually rushed to pack it in before the end of the year. Most of what I know from the time period after that is from TV and the media - not terribly reliable sources.

I think the reasoning about that is because we, our parents and grand parents were living through these times. It might not even be considered history in a historical sense because it was just life happening.

 

My dad was at Vietnam. I have no memory of Daddy going to Vietnam, but I have vague memories of him coming home.

 

His dad and my maternal grandfather fought in WWII.

 

Ideally if we talked to our grandparents and parents we would know how and why and have a personal relationship with quite a few people who lived through those times.

 

My kid may have to read about Vietnam. But she probably will know people who fought in the Middle East.

[littlebug42]

I had no world history before High School, only state and US history. In high school, I took one year but it was only Western Civilization.

[Perry]

From the article:

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.

 

I am a leftie tree hugging environmentalist and I think this is nuts.

 

Environmental issues belong in science, not history.

[Saille]

From the article:

 

I am a leftie tree hugging environmentalist and I think this is nuts.

 

Environmental issues belong in science, not history.

 

See, this strikes me as what happens when folks quit teaching rhetoric. This seems like something that should be addressed through periodic current events activities, and it sounds like a great research topic to use when practicing debating skills. But to devote a year to covering current events-type issues *instead of* history...nope.

 

I had the kids look at a timeline of human history (as opposed to U.S. History) this year. Then I explained how many school years they'd spend learning about only the last two centuries if they were in ps here. Their eyes bugged out. The idea of doing less than that...yikes. Thanks for posting that article.

[happyhomemaker25]

This quote kept popping into my head

"He who does not learn from history is doomed to repeat it" George Santanya.

The Revolution, slavery, the War of Northern Aggression :001_huh:(Just kidding), Ahem, the Civil War... all things I would rather not have to repeat.

I have seen enough HS graduates who don't know the first thing about our country's constitution. I think this will make it worse.

[agw]

I'm a product of the NC school system, and I can say what one studied really depended on the teacher one has. I did not get 20th Century History (World or US) until college when I took it as an elective. The furthest I ever went in history was my NC History class in 8th grade - and we got through the Civil Rights movement.

 

I think 20th Century history is important and relevant, as is parts of US History prior to 1877. But, I don't think US History HAS to be studied separate from the World from 1877-Present Day. Now that so many high schools here are on the block schedule with 4 classes/semester they could easily add in an extra history requirement. Break World History into two classes, and cover the US in its relations to the world.

 

Also, I think a lot of time spent studying US History is spent on interesting, but largely irrelevant topics. Spending six weeks studying all of the battles of either the Revolutionary War or the Civil War is not necessary. Why we went to war and the results are much more relevant and take only a few weeks to study.

 

Just my thoughts as I will probably having children affected by this in a few years and my goal is to try to give them the history I would have liked them to have before then.

 

Amy

[Mynyel]

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

 

And in 13 years you can't teach them about history? Like we homeschoolers do?

 

"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."

 

Maybe if you think about changing the teaching style or curriculum you might be able to do something like this, instead of teach less material.

 

 

 

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.

 

So they expect the stuff that they are taught when they are 7 to stick when they are 15? Right, I sure remember a lot from school when I was 7. Or even 11 for that matter.

 

They also said 11th graders would start at 1877 and go onward. Well what about 12th grade? Can they not break it up? What are they going to do in another 20 years when there is even more "modern" history to teach? Take out WWI? WWII?

 

Why is it that homeschoolers can accomplish to much more than ps even if given the same amount of time? And don't tel lme about student to teacher ratio's I know that. That is only part of it. It is because school is boring. They push and push kids through even if they don't need to be and then kids can't understand because it is over their heads and they get bored.

 

For instance I read on article ( I think it was in Washington State) about a school that wanted to get rid of Huckleberry Finn as a study book because kids couldn't understand it (oh and apparently the racial slurs in it are too much as well). My daughter is 11 and has read Tom Sawyer and loves it. Yes I know Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn are different books but they are by the same author.

 

Anyhow, that is what I think. They need to rethink their teaching strategy not lessen the material.

Edited February 4, 2010 by Mynyel
added one little tidbit

[Saille]

Rachel, a Jr. High ELA teacher I know recently told me that her students couldn't handle Scott Westerfeld's dystopia novels (Uglies, Pretties, and Specials). That blew my mind.

[Ibbygirl]

Can anyone honestly get to high school and not know about the Mayflower, the Revolution, and the Civil War?

 

In my neck of the woods they sure can. I know of kids who are graduated from High School who cannot read. :svengo:

[1bassoon]

Here's yet another thing to think about:

 

This past fall, Bill Potter (historian/lecturer) came to our homeschool group and spoke, then took some families on an Alabama History Tour.

 

When asked, he said his one frustration was that many homeschool families don't seem to get any farther than the Civil War, or at best, WWII in their history studies. And that prevents them from fully understanding current events.

 

Just throwing that out there. . . .

[Renai]

Is there a smilie for shaking your head in disgust? Ugh.

 

[SonshineLearner]

"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."

 

Wow, look what it'd leave more time for.... Maybe we should knock out Social Studies... and stick with what we want taught. History and Geography. They can watch Al Gore for "Environment & Logic".

[Jami]

Here's yet another thing to think about:

 

This past fall, Bill Potter (historian/lecturer) came to our homeschool group and spoke, then took some families on an Alabama History Tour.

 

When asked, he said his one frustration was that many homeschool families don't seem to get any farther than the Civil War, or at best, WWII in their history studies. And that prevents them from fully understanding current events.

 

Just throwing that out there. . . .

 

But current events don't make sense without a strong foundation in the ideas and events which have preceded them. The issues in the middle east are a great example, you need to back and look at 19th century imperialism, and before that to medieval empires...to understand some of the relationship between nations. American civil rights history without a context of really understanding the Constitution (reading the ACTUAL document, not just studying the Revolution) and 19th century events leading up to and following the Civil War. And the Revolution itself, without a grounding in British, Roman and Greek historical ideas, makes less sense. Now younger children may have covered the superficial details of these events, but it's not until high school that they ready to see the connections, read the primary documents, and really dig into the history of ideas. I would much rather my child's time be spent laying a foundation for context than studying what is still really "current events" in the longer view of world history.

[Jugglin'5]

But current events don't make sense without a strong foundation in the ideas and events which have preceded them. The issues in the middle east are a great example, you need to back and look at 19th century imperialism, and before that to medieval empires...to understand some of the relationship between nations. American civil rights history without a context of really understanding the Constitution (reading the ACTUAL document, not just studying the Revolution) and 19th century events leading up to and following the Civil War. And the Revolution itself, without a grounding in British, Roman and Greek historical ideas, makes less sense. Now younger children may have covered the superficial details of these events, but it's not until high school that they ready to see the connections, read the primary documents, and really dig into the history of ideas. I would much rather my child's time be spent laying a foundation for context than studying what is still really "current events" in the longer view of world history.

 

:iagree:

 

I think current events are almost meaningless, just sound and fury, without having the background to make sense of them. Plus, the more current the event, the harder it is for a teacher to be even-handed (politically/religiously, etc.) in covering it. The events are still too near and dear. I'm not saying they shouldn't be covered, but it is fruitless to cover them without a good background of world and older American history.

[Greta]

I don't know, this doesn't seem so bad to me. In ALL my years in public school, my American History studies went like this:

 

Colonization

Revolutionary War

Civil War

World War I

World War II

 

Next year: repeat.

 

Next year: repeat.

 

And so on.

 

We never got any further than the 1940's, because we always started with Colonial America, and never had time to finish. I didn't learn one iota about the civil rights movement until I went to college. Cuban missile crisis? What's that? An 11th Grade History class that started in 1877 would have been very useful for me, actually.

[MaMa2005]

Oh, yeah. . . .

 

That'll go down big here in the SOUTH!

 

Sigh.

 

:iagree:

[Parrothead]

 

"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."

 

 

Someone should send this lady a copy of The Well-Trained Mind.

[Mrs Mungo]

I can see both sides. It would be nice if high schools did some sort of 4 year world history program, but they don't. My high school offered world history for honors students, that was pretty much the *only* world history I had in 13 years of public school (and I went to decent schools). Why is only US history taught in most public schools/to most public school students?

 

Modern history (along with politics and sociology) is important and I have to agree that not enough schools (and probably homeschoolers) get to it.

 

I agree that environmental science issues belong in science class. To pretend it's not a political and social movement worthy of mention in a history class though? I disagree with that.

 

I do think the title of the thread was misleading, as was the article, given the quotes within the article.

[Corraleno]

From the article:

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.

I am a leftie tree hugging environmentalist and I think this is nuts.

Environmental issues belong in science, not history.

 

Keep in mind that this is the FOX NEWS version of the story.

 

It seems that NC has decided to focus more on modern history in their HS classes. So they changed World History to Global Studies ~ i.e. Modern World History ~ and changed American History to American History since 1877 (assuming that part of the story is true).

 

So, if NC is teaching a course in Modern World History, including global politics, should they specifically exclude any reference to environmental issues? That's been a major hot-button issue in global politics for decades, why wouldn't that be discussed in a Global Studies course??? I'm thinking that there is probably a perfectly reasonable and appropriate discussion of that topic in the course, and Fox has seized on that one thing and linked it to the change in American history, so it seems like those crazy tree-hugging liberals threw out American History and replaced it with Environmental Studies.

 

I think that *IF* there is truly a strong history program in NC middle schools that focuses on Early American History and pre-modern World History, then doing Modern World & US History in HS is not such a terrible thing. Students at that age are better able to understand the complexities and ramifications of modern history and politics. And, as another poster pointed out, they have a semester of Civics in 10th, so it's not true that this is some conspiracy to prevent students from learning about the Constitution.

 

Jackie

Edited February 4, 2010 by Corraleno

[jujsky]

When I took Civics in high school, it was all about the constitution so if they still have that class, they will still be studying government issues. It may not be an ideal situation but I understand the idea behind it. I can tell you tons about the revolution and civil war eras but is it really better that I know more about the French and Indian War than Vietnam? I never got past WWII in school and even then it was usually rushed to pack it in before the end of the year. Most of what I know from the time period after that is from TV and the media - not terribly reliable sources.

 

This was my experience too. We never got past WWII. Perhaps if schools would teach actual HISTORY in the lower grades as opposed to "social studies" (in the schools where this subject isn't cut or greatly reduced due to NCLB) then the students would have the time to learn 200 years worth of US history in addition to world history & everyone would be happy.