Do U.S. students know U.S. history?

[LukkyKnight]

We've had enough talk about testing and the eucation bill and the motivation for it in other places, my question is simple. Read the following, and decide if students in U.S. elementary schools should be required to demonstrate familiarity with U.S. History as part of the measurement of their proficiency.

____________________________________

It was the first day of school in Marietta, Georgia and a new student named Suzuki, the son of a Japanese businessman, entered the fourth grade.

The teacher said, "Let's begin by reviewing some American history. Who said "Give me Liberty, or give me Death?" She saw a sea of blank faces, except for Suzuki, who had his hand up.

"Patrick Henry, 1775." He said.

"Very good! Who said 'Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth'"?

Again, no response except from Suzuki: "Abraham Lincoln, 1863.",

The teacher snapped at the class, "Class, you should be ashamed. Suzuki, who is new to our country, knows more about its history than you
do."

She heard a loud whisper: "F*ck the Japs."

"Who said that?" she demanded.

Suzuki put his hand up. "Lee Iacocca, 1982."

At that point, a student in the back said, "I'm gonna puke."

The teacher glares and asks "All right! Now, who said that?"

Again, Suzuki says, "George Bush to the Japanese Prime Minister, 1991."

Now furious, another student yells, "Oh yeah? S*ck this!"

Suzuki jumps out of his chair waving his hand and shouts to the teacher, "Bill Clinton, to Monica Lewinsky, 1997!"

Now with almost a mob hysteria someone said, "You little sh*t. If you say anything else, I'll kill you."

Suzuki frantically yells at the top of his voice, "Gary Condit to Chandra Levy 2001."

The teacher fainted. And as the class gathered around the teacher on the floor, someone said, "Oh sh*t, we're f*cked" and Suzuki said,

"Osama bin Laden to The Taliban! 2001"

 

[seXieleXie]

er... that is a joke, not an article....

 

[Andreina]

of course they should be tested... history is an integral part of a country's identity

 

[LukkyKnight]

Did I say it was an article?

 

[alltherage]

Re: Did I say it was an article?

Funny! I teach social studies to 8th graders. It is frightening to know what they do not. I got so frustrated that I took to using some extreme techniques to get my students to relate to the subject matter. I came to class dressed in period costume, which got roars of laughter at first but opened a very different and useful route into there heads. I think kids are exposed to so much imagery that they have great difficulty relating to things they can not see. It is helpful, I think, to give students a visual impression of the subject matter.

By the end of that year I had my class acting out historical events. They got excited and friday classes became a great release for them. In order to truly enjoy fridays the kids had to work to understand the lessons that were given from monday to thurs. Fridays event was always based on those lessons. I had several kids who took a leadership role and would spend time in the library reading more about things like medicine in the civil war. I found that to be rewarding. That week we were going to set up a scenerio concerning gettysburg. They wanted to know what could be done if a person got wounded. It was sobering for them. One young fellow made up a display of Matthew Brady photo's and presented it to the class.

My point is that kids need us to think outside the box. They need our creativity to help form their own.

 

[girl]

I don't think standardized testing is the answer. I do think that part of the problem lies in the public school system and part of the problem lies with the parents. A few observations:

- Public schools are so grossly underfunded that many now rely on corporate ads in school hallways as a main source of revenue (effectively creating a captive audience in schoolchildren)

- Parents often take the 'My kid is an angel' tactic when it comes to school discipline.

- Teachers do not have the incentive to actually keep children back when they do not show the proficiencies that they need in order to pass. Schools are evaluated on how many children make it through, not on the quality of the education that those children receive.

- A correlary to above, parents tend to make a huge fuss if teachers hold their child back. It's the teacher's fault that their child didn't learn, in their view.

- Many parents don't know US history, or world history, themselves. How can they help teach their child when they're ignorant themselves?

Please note, all the above are generalities and obviously aren't attributable to all parents/schools/teachers.

Looking back over the years and the education reform as well as the development of American society, it's not at all surprising, unfortunately.

girl

 

[girl]

Alltherage

What a fabulous way to get kids to learn! I love teachers like you.


girl

 

[Scabbers]

Alltherage for No. Teacher

What a fabulous way to get kids to learn! I love teachers like you.
girl

I second the nomination. Brilliant ideas. Teaching is one of the most important, least respected professions existing. And good teachers need to be rewarded in every way possible (even by mixers like us).

 

[Moridin187]

Alltherage, it was and is teachers like you who have given me the desire to become a teacher. From what you say, it sounds like you really care about the students and their educations, and that you honestly care about and are interested by the subject of history itself....

I remember when I first decided to be a teacher, 7th grade History.. Mr. Hussey(no, I'm not kidding, that was his name) Talking about the first atom bomb, and the pilot of the Enola Gay, saying after they dropped it, in such an intense, shaking tone.. "My god, what have we done?"

But I digress...
My last year of High School, I had to take U.S. History over (the first time around I took it the teacher hated me, and I quote "Well, this project deserves at least a B, you get a D") and I was actually sickened at times... The kids in that class were functionally illiterate, we'd be assigned a chapter one night, and then we'd spend the next two classes(and this is block scheduling with 1 1/2 hour periods) covering the material because the stupid, stupid children did not understand what they'd read. And even Then most of those kids failed because of their test scores.

It's not because kids are stupid, or that they're being taught wrong, it's that they just Do Not Care! And that literally makes me want to be ill.

 

[sch00lteacher]

Do US kids know US history.

I teach high school US history...



FUCK NO!


And it isn't because we don't teach it to them. They just can not see a reason for it. To them is just is not important. Try teaching a kid something they don't care about.

When I taugh in middle school, like alltherage I could play with it a little, and have some fun.

But in high school, I have an end of course test that North Carolina puts out, that the kids have to pass. There is no room for playing, for having fun, for getting of track every now and then. As if US history wasn't 'boring' enough...

So, I blame the state for the kids not caring or knowing. Not the teachers, not the students.

 

[alltherage]

Do US kids know US history.

I teach high school US history...



FUCK NO!


And it isn't because we don't teach it to them. They just can not see a reason for it. To them is just is not important. Try teaching a kid something they don't care about.

When I taugh in middle school, like alltherage I could play with it a little, and have some fun.

But in high school, I have an end of course test that North Carolina puts out, that the kids have to pass. There is no room for playing, for having fun, for getting of track every now and then. As if US history wasn't 'boring' enough...

So, I blame the state for the kids not caring or knowing. Not the teachers, not the students. [/QUOT It is the bureaucrats who drive you nuts in the end. The notion that we can prepackage education sickens me. I did not have all the freedom to do as I wanted. I basically had to sell my soul to the department head to have the freedom to do what I did. That is the way of the world. The age group I taught has a set of difficulties that defy description. After teaching 8th grade i fear hormones! lol.

 

[Oliver Clozoff]

The question of "do U.S. students know history?" (the name of the thread) and "should U.S. students know history?" (the question posed in the poll) are very different ones.

My answers are "no" and "yes", respectively.

It's definitely true that kids don't care about learning history. However, I think their lack of caring is a symptom of a broader indifference to history that's found throughout our society. I recently read that the majority of high school history teachers in America are PE coaches (and recognizing that coaches are good at coaching, we all remember how generally poor academic instruction from our PE coaches was.)

I think America's attitude towards history can be summarized by a common phrase in our culture, "that's history". We say it to refer to an event that's not only happened in the past, but to imply that the referrent no longer of any importance. The larger implication is that the past in general isn't much worth thinking about. The flip side of this attitude is our tendency to focus on the future - this is why we put so much more emphasis on teaching math and science.

I imagine these attitudes stem from the great success that science and technology have had in improving our lives in America. From the success of science, we've come to assume an historical "law of progress" which guarantees that the progression of time will guarantee us more increasingly fulfilling lives with greater and greater degrees of social and political equality along with ever-diminishing physical suffering and economic privation.

I generally agree with this "law of progress", but there's an insidious assumption that's crept in along with it - that technological progress is the only important determinant of societal change. When I studied history in college, I was taught that there are two basic reasons that history is important to society. These reasons can be summarized by two well-worn statements about history:

1. What is past is prologue - The idea is that world as it exists today is the result of the summation of all the historical changes occurring up until the present. As such, to know the past is to know the present. From this view, history can be seen as a kind of "evolutionary sociology", explaining society today in terms of a culmination of a collection of "historical principles".

2. Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it - The argument goes that a society, like an individual, requires a memory in order to learn and function. If a child isn't able to remember the consequences of touching a hot stove, his future doesn't bode well. The same goes for societies, for which history serves as collective memory the society relies on to inform its public discourse about courses of action to take in the present and the future.

Until America comes to see value in remembering the lessons of the past, I don't see a whole lot changing. Hopefully it won't take societal stagnation to teach us that history has important lessons to teach. I think our responses to terrorism and problems between the Middle East and the West could be much improved with a greater public knowledge of history.

 

[Moridin187]

I think one of the things I saw that scared me the most in that class was the complete lack of understanding of the horrors of nuclear weaponry..

One girl in that class, a Junior, didn't even know what a Nuclear bomb WAS for christ's sake!!! The rest of the kids were all for nuking anyone who didn't like the U.S... Not just jokingly, they honestly wanted to nuke some of the more dangerous countries... And didn't understand why we couldn't and what was so bad about it..

It took three documentaries on Hiroshima and Nagasaki for them to begin to understand, and then some of them still didn't fully grasp it...

 

[Mellon Collie]

I think the kids (assuming you mean high school) have a basic idea of what has happened in the past but certainly not enough. But I'm a history student planning on becoming a history teacher so I may be biased.

 

[Hamletmaschine]

"History is bunk."

So said Henry Ford, as many people know. But the attitude is wide-spread. Consumerism and the fashion industry offer an anti-historical pedagogy that is difficult for us (teachers) to compete with--especially with the young.

But the young have parents, and those parents don't know or care about history any more than their children do.

~H~

 

[Mellon Collie]

I forgot to mention, I do think the tests are biased.

 

[Rhys]

I'm self educated

I think that if I ever have children, my wife and I will undertake the education of our children. Teachers today are asked to do a lot and for very little money. Children today learn passively, through baby sitters, like the telly, rather than actively. Learning is a fire that has to be sparked, banked and continued to be fed for the duration of a life span. Teaching to a test is just rote regurgitation of the facts and is not learning. Learning is knowing how to evaluate something for yourself: the development of critical thinking.

I will be dragging my child all over the world if I can, to see and to do with other cultures. I will be telling him or her stories in the pram, then reading to them, then giving them books to help them discover the pleasure of reading. If I don't know the answer to a higher math question, I will find someone who can answer the question.

Most of my education came not from my schooling but because I was curious. I want to instill that in my children and nurture it...because I think there is a lot of incuriousity out there today.

 

[flawed_ethics]

Nice little story.

I voted yes for the obvious reason that children should be exposed to the concept that much has happened socially to get things in the world to where they are today (for better or worse). I myself am a college grad and don't know my history past a High School Freshman level. It's by my own choosing, and I accept that I run a great risk of repeating it. But hey - as I see it, even the most learned of sages can still be subject to repeating the errors of others by trying to avoid other discourses of errors.

On another note, I would like to shake the hand of the one who clicked 'No - the tests only reflect the biases of the creator'. Bold, but I think it dances around the point. They should be taught of it. What they learn isn't shown in a lousy report card, but in how they apply it in life.

LOL - sounds like some cheesy Public Service Annoucement, huh?

 

[rexfelis]

Yes they should.

Our education system is flawed. It's fundamental flaw is that it relies on society to create it, and our society is flawed with this attitude that nobody has to accept responsibility for anything. Politics rules the day, along with Big Business.

If nobody is held responsible for their actions, then nobody needs to care. If we don't hold students responsible for knowing or not knowing what they should know, they won't care one way or the other. Nobody would do much of anything if it was not for consequences.

Parents take the "my kid is an angel" route because nobody holds them responsible for their childrens' actions. There is no embarassment at having your kids misbehave aymore. And what about the parents? They can't punsih their kids anymore for fear of going to jail. No wonder the ones who care don't (or can't) stop their kids from acting that way.

Why should a kid care if he or she knows history when the educators either can't decide whether or not testing is "fair", or they don't have enough money to do anything anyways? They know that it does not matter in the long run. They won't be held back if they fail. Who cares? Do you really think kids can see far enough ahead to make decisions like that wisely?

Our society has yet to mature enough to handle the technology we have. That, I think, is the core problem. We as a society have become lacksadaisical, complacent, easy. Politics rules the day. Until we change the BS, we are only going to see things get worse.

 

[LukkyKnight]

past is prologue

Didn't mean to set sch00l off like that, but I'm glad he feels strongly about it.

Olivor, you're right, when I went to phrase the actual poll question the thread title was off-kilter, but I didn't want an edit to make it look like I'd changed something significant. Most people made the leap, but it's fair to point out the discrepancy.

I'm not ready to buy that parents can't punish their children for fear of legal repercussions. Parents can't beat children, or resort to cruel and unusual punishment, but that seldom if ever produces the best outcome anyway. One has to be thoughtful about punishment for it to be effective - there is more to being a disciplinarian than merely whipping off your belt to cause pain. More to the point, dedicated teachers seem to largely agree you cannot beat a point into a student, the way to get them to learn something is to inspire their curiosity.

 

[Weird Harold]

Re: I'm self educated

Learning is a fire that has to be sparked, banked and continued to be fed for the duration of a life span. Teaching to a test is just rote regurgitation of the facts and is not learning. Learning is knowing how to evaluate something for yourself: the development of critical thinking.

I wholehertedly agree with your attitude that learning is a process and not a static or passive thing.

However, I do NOT understand your objection to rote memorization as PART of the process.

In a thread I started several months ago, I asked how people define/determine whether someone is "literate." The point I tried to make then was that ther MUST be some way of determining if and what has been learned -- some objective, concrete definition of what schools are supposed to be teaching and an equally objective and concrete method of determining if they are teaching them.

That does NOT preclude schools from teaching MORE than the minimum requirements -- ie teaching to the test -- it only requires that certain minimum things must be included in the curiculim.

"Rote memorization" of some things is much more efficient in the long run than teaching "how to derive" a solution -- some things are so commonly used that memorizing them only makes sense because looking up how many cents are in a dollar every time you need to make change is a waste of time.

As far is history is concerned, I doubt that knowing WHEN Lincoln gave the Gettysburg Address is something that most people are ever going to need very often in their daily lives. Knowing who gave the Gettysburg address and why is important in everyone's daily lives -- it's part of the roots of the civil rights problems that still exist in our country today. Ignorance about the Civil War and what it was about causes people to consider things like the confederate battle flag being a part of a state flag to be inconsequential -- to a lot of people who have lived with the aftereffects of Lincoln's assasination it's as terrible a symbol as the swastika is to Jews.

Yes, tests can be biased. They can also be poorly designed, scored, and inappropriately used. However, I know of no other way to determine whether a student has learned the minimum requirements to be considered "educated" or "literate."

A test for minimum standards should be applied to History, Math, Language Skills, and every other part of a school's curiculim, in exactly the same way a driver's license test covers the minimum knowledge to be deemed a "qualified driver" -- not necessarily a good driver, just one that isn't totally ignorant and unsafe.

 

[LukkyKnight]

memorization

Wouldn't it be tedious if you had to "work out" that 10+10 is 20 each time it came up? So much better to practice until you know that without thinking.

Without memorizing, how could you learn to pronounce the following words in english? How would you turn what you read into the spoken language?

enough
have
through
are
laugh
cooperate

Wouldn't it be awful to have to work out the phonetic pronunciation of a word each and every time you saw it? So much easier to go over and over and over until it becomes second nature. If not, you'd still be two paragraphs back now, at best.

Have you ever marveled at how children enjoy repetition? They make those noises, watch those shows, tell those same jokes over and over? The mind is ready and willing to work this way, at the same time it is most attuned to learning language. No coincidence, IMHO.

Yes, memorizing the capitals of all 50 states seems pretty silly to a 3rd grader unless they've been given a hunger for travel, for knowing what it's like elsewhere... but bet your paycheck they can memorize every pokemon because they WANT to know, because it matters when they are with people who they want to communicate with...

 

[rexfelis]

Re: past is prologue

I'm not ready to buy that parents can't punish their children for fear of legal repercussions. Parents can't beat children, or resort to cruel and unusual punishment, but that seldom if ever produces the best outcome anyway. One has to be thoughtful about punishment for it to be effective - there is more to being a disciplinarian than merely whipping off your belt to cause pain. More to the point, dedicated teachers seem to largely agree you cannot beat a point into a student, the way to get them to learn something is to inspire their curiosity.

The form of punishment aside, many parents do not dare punish their children in ways that were effective for their parents, or their grandparents, because all it takes is a call to 911 and the Department of Children and Families suddenly becomes very interested... even if the child is making up stories. I have seen situations like this first hand. The end effect is that the parents may be punished by the child's actions and are powerless to do anything about it. The child can then potentially do as she or he pleases, on threat of the beurocracy finding out what the child wants to tell them. Punish the child, and it's reported as abuse. Don't punish the child, and the child goes amok.

That's what happens when the government steps in where they should not. We cannot legislate all our problems away. We have to, as individuals, take responsibilities for our selves and our actions. Ultimately, I believe that this is the root cause of our current societal problems. "It's not MY fault I did such-and-such to so-and-so! It's mommy's fault for doing this, or it's someone elses fault."

 

[Unclebill]

I don't think standardized testing is the answer. I do think that part of the problem lies in the public school system and part of the problem lies with the parents. A few observations:

- Public schools are so grossly underfunded that many now rely on corporate ads in school hallways as a main source of revenue (effectively creating a captive audience in schoolchildren). . .

You post was quite carefully thought out and well stated except this single statement.

Actually, funding is more than adequate. In the few areas where school vouchers have been instituted, when a family opts for the voucher, they get ONLY HALF the money allocated to the school district for their pupil.

The district retains the remainder. Yet with half the money, parents find a private school within that budget and generally get a better education for their child.

Even a majority of the studies on school perfomrnace have shown and INVERSE correlation between the money allocated per pupil and the educational result.

Translated, in general, the less money spent the better the education and vice cersa. Some of the highest cost school districts produce the lease educated kids.

And to an extent, I will agree that standardized testing is not the answer. But a standardized test is needed to provide a normalized assessment of the education system. I would like to something like the SAT for various levels in the system. Perhaps for the transition from elementary to junior high and then to senior high.

Having several years experience as a Navy Instructor, I understand the value and necessity of testing to assess learning. And if learning is not assessed periodically, you have no real way of determining if it's happening.

I also understand the fundamentals of setting up an educational program from defining the learning objectives to determining testing criteria. So I'm not speaking from a position completely outside the education environment.

Without a standardized measure of success, grade inflation is the result. You get a student who graduates high school with a 3.0 GPA who can't read above a fourth grade level.

An illustrative example certainly, but I remember about 30 or so years ago a family sued a California (San Francisco?) school district because their kid graduated high school and was truly illiterate; he could not read!

And it has not improved significantly in some areas yet.

And one thing you omitted is classroom discipline. Teachers are pretty much hamstring as far as dicsipline from many of the sources I hear. Kids can get away with far more than when I was in school. And parents can't or won't enforce discipline for some of the reasons stated throughout this thread.