I’m highly critical of high school social science curriculum for a variety of reasons. Part of this is due to the way schools adopt curriculum and part is due to state requirements that make the adoption of a coherent curriculum pretty difficult. Sometimes the teachers are the problem, but in general, knowing studetns at the collegiate level who I also am familiar with their high school teacher, good teachers don’t always end up with bright well informed students.
Every year someone releases a survey on the pitiful level of knowledge the average high school student is aware of and tells us how it used to be better. The problem is there is virtually no evidence it used to be better other than people who insist they walked up hill both ways to school.
Since the 1950s when fairly large scale polling began and people were tested for political knowledge, it’s been pretty well understood that most people are quite content to hold contradictory beliefs and maintain a relatively low level of political knowledge, but everyone keeps talking about the dangerous low level of information of the kids today.
There’s just no strong indication things have changed much–and the most likely reason why has nothing to do with schools, but with parents who don’t talk about politics with their kids. If the parents aren’t interested, the kids won’t be either in most cases. While I’d like everyone to be more invovled in civic discussions, I’m not sure that the current state is all that awful. People in the US are generally happy and the decide what to spend their time on. I can’t say that is always good as Doctor Phil is still on the air, but I’ll live with it.
The challenge of high school history and government texts is to provide a framework to force students to think critically and develop skills that are not just applied to rote knowledge, but can be applied as the world changes around them.
One doesn’t make a good citizen by preaching to a high school student. One does encourage a high school student to think critically and given a reasonable base knowledge, one would expect that the conclusion that the United States, while imperfect, is a country that is an amazing place to live.
My rant here has a point, in that teaching patriotism isn’t about reading a creed and having students memorize it. It’s about making US History and Government relevant to students and allowing them to discover each of those things in the creed through critical thinking.
I often object to saying the Pledge of Allegiance in classes and not because of the religious portion (which a student can opt out of if they so wish–another important lesson on freedomn and liberty). I object because it is divorced too often from teaching the lessons that lead to the conclusions of the Pledge of Allegiance.
I remember saying it in class and I can not think of a worse tribute to freedom than a bunch of sixth graders shooting spitballs and gossipping while pretending to recite the Pledge with meaning.
But what really pisses me off about the column above, is that he doesn’t have the first clue about how many educators do a remarkable job allowing students to explore the meaning of America. I’ve pointed out a project by Stevenson High School students that is a remarkable effort before.
Allison Nichols, Brittany Saltiel, and Sarah Siegel began a school project that turned into a movement for justice in the case of the Civil Rights Workers in killed in the Mississippi Burning case.
Their teacher Barry Bradford didn’t have them recite a creed, he encouraged them to live it. Which is a better way to teach patriotism to you?
And by the way, yesterday was the
Below are Barack Obama’s remarks on the Senate Floor concerning the case
And yesterday was the fourtieth anniversary of Bloody Sunday in Selma.
Read More
ArchPundit
