Debate Now The Dumbing Down of America

[usmbguest5318]

Has anyone shared with you that the video in the OP does not play?

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay guys. Let's keep it kinda sorta civil.

And let's agree that history or constitution was not Hillary's strong suit and it remains to be seen whether it will be with our current President--it is too early to tell. Our current President does have a degree in economics which I deem a good thing.

And I agree with Coyote that kids aren't going to learn much up against parents who demand their child be advanced without earning it. Or who don't care what goes on in school or how their kid is doing. Both situations put a teacher in a terrible position.

But what if we went back to the old system in which children and youth were required to show a reasonable proficiency in core curriculum before they could advance to the next grade or graduate? What if there were again strong PTA associations and parents were embarrassed to not participate at all? That teachers respected themselves in conduct and dress and required the students to do the same? And a school took great pride in actually educating the students instead of just getting most of them through the school year.

Given the deplorable knowledge some of our highschool and even college graduates are demonstrating in the most basic concept of civics, law, and history, what if they actually completed an education well versed in those subjects. I wonder how different society might be?

When I was in school (and to put it in perspective, I graduated in 77) - we respected our teachers. I didn't know any students who were rude or seriously disrespectful...or worse, assaulted a teacher. Yet I've heard that has happened in my highschool since I've been gone. My teachers ran the gamut from poor to great, and that is reasonable. What has changed?

IMO a big change is in the status of teachers - from respected to reviled. And some of the blame for that, imo lies with politicians who assault them. Today, the children of some of my coworkers are teachers - Lord knows why they would choose it, esecially in as hostile a state as NC...but they are. Because budgets are crappy, they pay for extras from their own pocket. That says a lot imo, about their dedication.

The amount of money in school budgets is not that bad--we do spend considerably more on education per student than all but one or two nations in the world. But in far too many school districts too much of the money is going to administration and too much other stuff and not enough going to the classroom. And yes, many teachers are buying school supplies out of their own pockets here too.

 

[Foxfyre]

Has anyone shared with you that the video in the OP does not play?

It did when the thread was started. Apparently Jesse Watters has now taken down that particular youtube video.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Should basic history as described here be core curriculum, and should students have a reasonable command of it before graduating high school and college? Why or why not is that important?

I suppose so. More thoroughly educated is always better than less well educated, so I can't really answer "no" to your question. You could have been considerably more specific in identifying learning objectives and the nature and extent of what you mean with regard to the topics you broadly described. You'll see why I say that as you read certain ones of my comments below....

I can say that for someone who graduates from college, all the stuff noted below should be well understood, not just that the relevant classes be taken, but taken and passed with a B+ (88%) or better.

The comments I've made below are, where applicable, with regard to high school graduates.

youtube watters world interviews - Bing video

I'm not sure what this video had to do with the matter of being academically well educated. Political correctness is a topic that has been studied in a scholarly manner, but it's not among the topics I'd expect or require be taught in high school.

• Pluralistic Ignorance and Political Correctness
• Political Correctness, the Law, and the Legal Academy
• Rethinking Political Correctness
• What Research Says About The Consequences Of PC Culture
• Political Correctness
• ‘Political correctness’: the politics of culture and language
• The Myth of Political Correctness: The Conservative Attack on Higher Education
• Multiculturalism, "Political Correctness" and the Politics of Identity

I can see it as a topic that one or some students might discover via a research paper in one or several specialized high school elective classes. I looked through the course catalog for the current year at one of the schools my own kids attended (they've graduated already) to see if any of the classes might plausibly offer such an opportunity. It appears the topic of political correctness might aptly have a place in one or more of the following course offerings:

• Cultural Anthropology: Exploring Human Behavior and Meaning
• Literature and Popular Culture
• Utopias and Dystopias in Literature
• Journalism
• Global Topics in Women, Gender and Society
• American Politics and Public Policy
• LGBT History, Politics and Culture
• Senior History Research Seminar
• The World Seen Through a Daily Newspaper

Seeing as at least one school offers classes for which an exploration of political correctness might be apropos, I would imagine others must as well. Nonetheless, I don't think that specific topic need be a graduation requirement. If they examine it, they do; if they don't, they don't.

I will admit to not really understanding the matter of political correctness (PC) beyond what it appears to be to me. From where I sit, PC, as a set of behaviors and modes of expression, is nothing more than the modern term for what I call good manners. Today as 60+ years ago, I think quite a lot of people don't actually have good manners and weren't raised by people who do, so it's no surprise they don't. I also think that as the world, certainly the U.S., has become more casual -- especially the attitude whereby it's ever more common for people to to presume they are free to behave more familiarly with others whom they don't truly know well -- in the wake of the social movements of the '60s - '80s, the notion that one has a duty to be respectful of others, of earned authority, experience, knowledge and position, seems to have fallen by the wayside.

I guess I'd say people don't anymore seem to know their place. Seen in that light, perhaps PC is someone's notion of restoring the crumbled "walls" of decorum, respect and decency that disappeared with the inegalitarian ills that necessitated the late 20th century's major social "revolutions."

youtube people can't answer political questions - Bing video

OT:
I guess I need to watch Wrecking Ball. I actually don't even recognize the name of the song. I have heard of Miley Cyrus, but I know her father's music better than I know hers.​

Here's where the OP's lack of specificity made it hard for me to have a strong response to thread question.

basic economics

What's your idea of "basic" economics? Mine idea of basic economics is the subject matter covered in AP Principles of Macroeconomics (there is a micro version from these authors) and AP Principles of Microeconomics courses. I say that because having taken many economics classes beyond those two, I know those two are just the beginning, yet, for sharp thinkers, those two provide enough information for one to at least know whether the economic public policy claims politicians make hold water or don't.

That's not to say those two courses will make one an economist or give one "all" one needs to adequately analyze any or every proposal policy makers broach, but they are enough (assuming one fully masters the material) for one to know when, how and where to look for more detailed information that will provide a sound basis for having a definitive and sound position on those proposals. Those two courses are also enough to allow one to read technical economics studies and assess their sufficiency in a general sense, that is, to tell whether the writer(s) are making sense.

all the effects of government programs

What? No, this does not need to be among any high school graduation requirement.

Nothing in the body of what anyone would call "basic" economics is going to allow one to identify "all the effects of government programs." To do that, one needs to be able to perform very details quantitative analysis of economic policies, or what's called econometric modeling. Even among people who have studied econometric modeling and have the math skills to develop or evaluate such models, unless they have access to models used by groups like the CBO, GAO, etc., or they can create their own and run them -- something that only academics and other professional economists are going to have the means to do -- that's just not realistic.

If a politician were to say, "We are going to implement XYZ policy because it'll create jobs," well, that's great. A basic understanding of econ will allow one to determine whether it's plausible to think "XYZ" will create jobs, sometimes even whether it'll create a material quantity of jobs given the geographic or industry context the statement implies. Plausibility analysis is about as far as one can take it, assuming one seeks the answer to "how many and what kind of jobs?", without doing the "heavy lifting" of econometric modeling.

our history

our Constitution,

basic civics

reasoning of the Founders

Here again, to what extent?

• Should people know who Crispus Attucks was and what his contributions to the American Revolution and later were?
• Should the full scope of the story of slavery be taught?
• Would you expect that people graduate from high school knowing that many of the major Founders weren't Christians? (Jefferson and Franklin were deists, Washington was thought to be a Pantheist, Hamilton only became Christian after his son was killed, Adams was Unitarian, which is sort of Christian, but doesn't consider Jesus to be the son of a god.
• Wouldn't it be great if schools stopped proponing the lie that Columbus discovered America or was even the first European to arrive in America.
• How about teaching a good deal more of the history China, which seems like a useful thing seeing as they are among the few modern day (remaining) nations/peoples/cultures that has endured for some some 5K years.
• Should people read the papers and letters of Thomas Jefferson?
• Should Common Sense be required reading?
• Should students have to read the proceedings of the First Continental Congress?
• Should students be required to undertake a dialectical examination of the Founders' debates over the terms of the Bill of Rights so they know what was included as compromise and what was included/omitted for reasons having nothing to do with what anyone thought/denied was a right of man? It's not as though there was universal agreement about them, their wording, and what was included and what was left out of each of the amendments.

Just how much detail do you want people to have upon graduating? I personally think it's more important that whatever details they learn be 100% factually and contextually accurate.

the great philosophers who informed them

Just what would you have high school students read?

• Plato -- The Republic; Socratic Dialogues
• Aristotle -- Nicomachean Ethics; Ars Rhetorica; Organon
• Machiavelli -- The Prince
• Kant -- Which of his writings? The man was prolific.
• Locke -- Two Treatises; "Concerning Toleration"
• Hume -- Which of his works? The man had a lot to say.
• Smith -- Wealth of Nations
• Hobbes -- Leviathan
• Rousseau -- Social Contract
• Voltaire -- Candide
• Montesquieu -- “On the Spirit of Laws”

Are the above not still required reading in high school?

the Founding Documents

Yes, okay. I'm going to assume you mean the Declaration and Constitution, along with the Articles. The U.S. has only one founding document: the Constitution. The Declaration does not have the force of law and the Articles are defunct, although they did once have the force of law.

The problem here is that merely reading the documents isn't enough and few students have the time during high school to take a class that covers these documents in detail, explores the nature of debate and jurisprudence on the major provisions in the Constitution, and evaluates their development and how they evolved as the nation and times changed.

So again, you'll need to add a degree of clarity and specificity that's not found in your OP. I can't just answer an overly broad question such as you've asked: "Should students know more about the founding documents of the United States? Of course they should, but the real question is what is the nature and extent of theoretical and legal understanding they should have about the documents and their impact and application upon completing high school.
​

the circumstance that encouraged people to risk everything to come here and then to form a new nation

Yes, this topic could be covered much more comprehensively and accurately than it is. And it should be.

 

[Flopper]

Proposed:

The modern generations are not being taught our history, our Constitution, or basic civics. They aren't being taught the reasoning of the Founders or about the great philosophers who informed them. Modern day students are not being required to study the Founding Documents or the circumstance that encouraged people to risk everything to come here and then to form a new nation.

They are not being taught basic economics, the principles of supply and demand in a free market system, the pros and cons of economic systems, or all the effect of government programs. The are not exposed to or encouraged to hear all points of view or use critical thinking to evaluate them.

They are spoon fed sound bites and slogans and the politically correct dogma of the day. Or what they know is gleaned from bits and pieces of internet sources or sounds bites from television or message boards. In short, too often they are being indoctrinated and effectively brainwashed instead of educated.

Some anecdotal evidence:


youtube watters world interviews - Bing video

youtube people can't answer political questions - Bing video

QUESTION FOR DISCUSSION: Should basic history as described here be core curriculum, and should students have a reasonable command of it before graduating high school and college? Why or why not is that important?

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:
1. Links are allowed but are not required and if used must be summarized in the member's own words.
2. Definitions for this discussion only will be provided by the OP as necessary.
3. Comment on the member's argument only and not directly or indirectly to or about the member making the argument.

I can only speak from my experience. My 4 grand kids, 2 in high school, 1 in middle school, and one in elementary know a lot more about American history, the constitution, and government than I did at their age. My 4th grader can intelligently discuss the functions of the branches of goverment, the constitution, and elections. They are all in honor classes or advanced placement in a good public school district in Washington State. My brother's three kids, who went to public/private schools in Louisiana have all graduated from college. One is a practicing attorney, one is in law school, and one is studying Chemistry. Maybe they are all exceptions; I don't know, but one thing is for sure your comments certainly do apply universally. There is a big variation in the quality of education between school districts and individuals schools, both public and private.

Your children and grandchildren are blessed and I am sure you are grateful for that.

I was public schooled in perhaps the best school system in our state at the time and I honestly got an education that prepared me to compete with anybody. A much better history, civics, and English department than what I encountered later in college but at least both were definitely required college courses and were taught reasonably competently.

My children and grandchild were also public schooled. My son and daughter got an excellent public school education in a small town in Kansas--strong parent participation, strong PTA, good school board which I, immodestly perhaps, was a member of for awhile, and excellent teachers.

My granddaughter not so much. Maybe it was the school or maybe it was her, I don't know. but there was an awful lot she didn't know that I thought she should.

But what stunned me later on was interviewing high school and college graduates for jobs. And that was a real eye opener at the level of deterioration of basic curriculum in the public schools. And these days, where we are now. I would do almost anything to avoid putting a child in the public schools.

But there are still stories of great teachers and good schools here and there even now.

For over 15 years I interviewed college grads for technical positions in management information systems, programmers, systems analysts, information specialists, and network engineers. In general, I have been very impressed with their education within their major and very unimpressed with their general education, particularly their communications skills. I believe much of the problem is the ever increasing demand for specialization. They know TCP/IP, the protocols stacks, can design an operating system, can setup servers, and can draw a hell of a Venn diagram, but can't write an intelligible report on their work or carry on a social conversation with customers.

I've discovered the same. Computer and technical skills are adequate to very good. But people skills not so much, or doing simple things like making change by counting it out or telling time on an analog clock. And believe it or not, some had problem reading cursive writing when they needed to read that writing.

Middle School kids barely know how to write in cursive. However, their typing skills are excellent. My grandson in high school is taking 6 courses. He has text books for only 3. All the material for the other classes are on the Internet which makes it impossible for parents to monitor their school work. You never know whether they are studying or just playing games or on social media. School is so different today, not sure if it's good or bad.

 

[Foxfyre]

Should basic history as described here be core curriculum, and should students have a reasonable command of it before graduating high school and college? Why or why not is that important?

I suppose so. More thoroughly educated is always better than less well educated, so I can't really answer "no" to your question. You could have been considerably more specific in identifying learning objectives and the nature and extent of what you mean with regard to the topics you broadly described. You'll see why I say that as you read certain ones of my comments below....

I can say that for someone who graduates from college, all the stuff noted below should be well understood, not just that the relevant classes be taken, but taken and passed with a B+ (88%) or better.

The comments I've made below are, where applicable, with regard to high school graduates.

youtube watters world interviews - Bing video

I'm not sure what this video had to do with the matter of being academically well educated. Political correctness is a topic that has been studied in a scholarly manner, but it's not among the topics I'd expect or require be taught in high school.

• Pluralistic Ignorance and Political Correctness
• Political Correctness, the Law, and the Legal Academy
• Rethinking Political Correctness
• What Research Says About The Consequences Of PC Culture
• Political Correctness
• ‘Political correctness’: the politics of culture and language
• The Myth of Political Correctness: The Conservative Attack on Higher Education
• Multiculturalism, "Political Correctness" and the Politics of Identity

I can see it as a topic that one or some students might discover via a research paper in one or several specialized high school elective classes. I looked through the course catalog for the current year at one of the schools my own kids attended (they've graduated already) to see if any of the classes might plausibly offer such an opportunity. It appears the topic of political correctness might aptly have a place in one or more of the following course offerings:

• Cultural Anthropology: Exploring Human Behavior and Meaning
• Literature and Popular Culture
• Utopias and Dystopias in Literature
• Journalism
• Global Topics in Women, Gender and Society
• American Politics and Public Policy
• LGBT History, Politics and Culture
• Senior History Research Seminar
• The World Seen Through a Daily Newspaper

Seeing as at least one school offers classes for which an exploration of political correctness might be apropos, I would imagine others must as well. Nonetheless, I don't think that specific topic need be a graduation requirement. If they examine it, they do; if they don't, they don't.

I will admit to not really understanding the matter of political correctness (PC) beyond what it appears to be to me. From where I sit, PC, as a set of behaviors and modes of expression, is nothing more than the modern term for what I call good manners. Today as 60+ years ago, I think quite a lot of people don't actually have good manners and weren't raised by people who do, so it's no surprise they don't. I also think that as the world, certainly the U.S., has become more casual -- especially the attitude whereby it's ever more common for people to to presume they are free to behave more familiarly with others whom they don't truly know well -- in the wake of the social movements of the '60s - '80s, the notion that one has a duty to be respectful of others, of earned authority, experience, knowledge and position, seems to have fallen by the wayside.

I guess I'd say people don't anymore seem to know their place. Seen in that light, perhaps PC is someone's notion of restoring the crumbled "walls" of decorum, respect and decency that disappeared with the inegalitarian ills that necessitated the late 20th century's major social "revolutions."

youtube people can't answer political questions - Bing video

OT:
I guess I need to watch Wrecking Ball. I actually don't even recognize the name of the song. I have heard of Miley Cyrus, but I know her father's music better than I know hers.​

Here's where the OP's lack of specificity made it hard for me to have a strong response to thread question.

basic economics

What's your idea of "basic" economics? Mine idea of basic economics is the subject matter covered in AP Principles of Macroeconomics (there is a micro version from these authors) and AP Principles of Microeconomics courses. I say that because having taken many economics classes beyond those two, I know those two are just the beginning, yet, for sharp thinkers, those two provide enough information for one to at least know whether the economic public policy claims politicians make hold water or don't.

That's not to say those two courses will make one an economist or give one "all" one needs to adequately analyze any or every proposal policy makers broach, but they are enough (assuming one fully masters the material) for one to know when, how and where to look for more detailed information that will provide a sound basis for having a definitive and sound position on those proposals. Those two courses are also enough to allow one to read technical economics studies and assess their sufficiency in a general sense, that is, to tell whether the writer(s) are making sense.

all the effects of government programs

What? No, this does not need to be among any high school graduation requirement.

Nothing in the body of what anyone would call "basic" economics is going to allow one to identify "all the effects of government programs." To do that, one needs to be able to perform very details quantitative analysis of economic policies, or what's called econometric modeling. Even among people who have studied econometric modeling and have the math skills to develop or evaluate such models, unless they have access to models used by groups like the CBO, GAO, etc., or they can create their own and run them -- something that only academics and other professional economists are going to have the means to do -- that's just not realistic.

If a politician were to say, "We are going to implement XYZ policy because it'll create jobs," well, that's great. A basic understanding of econ will allow one to determine whether it's plausible to think "XYZ" will create jobs, sometimes even whether it'll create a material quantity of jobs given the geographic or industry context the statement implies. Plausibility analysis is about as far as one can take it, assuming one seeks the answer to "how many and what kind of jobs?", without doing the "heavy lifting" of econometric modeling.

our history

our Constitution,

basic civics

reasoning of the Founders

Here again, to what extent?

• Should people know who Crispus Attucks was and what his contributions to the American Revolution and later were?
• Should the full scope of the story of slavery be taught?
• Would you expect that people graduate from high school knowing that many of the major Founders weren't Christians? (Jefferson and Franklin were deists, Washington was thought to be a Pantheist, Hamilton only became Christian after his son was killed, Adams was Unitarian, which is sort of Christian, but doesn't consider Jesus to be the son of a god.
• Wouldn't it be great if schools stopped proponing the lie that Columbus discovered America or was even the first European to arrive in America.
• How about teaching a good deal more of the history China, which seems like a useful thing seeing as they are among the few modern day (remaining) nations/peoples/cultures that has endured for some some 5K years.
• Should people read the papers and letters of Thomas Jefferson?
• Should Common Sense be required reading?
• Should students have to read the proceedings of the First Continental Congress?
• Should students be required to undertake a dialectical examination of the Founders' debates over the terms of the Bill of Rights so they know what was included as compromise and what was included/omitted for reasons having nothing to do with what anyone thought/denied was a right of man? It's not as though there was universal agreement about them, their wording, and what was included and what was left out of each of the amendments.

Just how much detail do you want people to have upon graduating? I personally think it's more important that whatever details they learn be 100% factually and contextually accurate.

the great philosophers who informed them

Just what would you have high school students read?

• Plato -- The Republic; Socratic Dialogues
• Aristotle -- Nicomachean Ethics; Ars Rhetorica; Organon
• Machiavelli -- The Prince
• Kant -- Which of his writings? The man was prolific.
• Locke -- Two Treatises; "Concerning Toleration"
• Hume -- Which of his works? The man had a lot to say.
• Smith -- Wealth of Nations
• Hobbes -- Leviathan
• Rousseau -- Social Contract
• Voltaire -- Candide
• Montesquieu -- “On the Spirit of Laws”

Are the above not still required reading in high school?

the Founding Documents

Yes, okay. I'm going to assume you mean the Declaration and Constitution, along with the Articles. The U.S. has only one founding document: the Constitution. The Declaration does not have the force of law and the Articles are defunct, although they did once have the force of law.

The problem here is that merely reading the documents isn't enough and few students have the time during high school to take a class that covers these documents in detail, explores the nature of debate and jurisprudence on the major provisions in the Constitution, and evaluates their development and how they evolved as the nation and times changed.

So again, you'll need to add a degree of clarity and specificity that's not found in your OP. I can't just answer an overly broad question such as you've asked: "Should students know more about the founding documents of the United States? Of course they should, but the real question is what is the nature and extent of theoretical and legal understanding they should have about the documents and their impact and application upon completing high school.
​

the circumstance that encouraged people to risk everything to come here and then to form a new nation

Yes, this topic could be covered much more comprehensively and accurately than it is. And it should be.

Too much here to cover comprehensively in a single post that wouldn't make everybody's eyes glaze over.

By basic history I mean just that: the non politically correct version of the incentives that inspired people to risk everything to settle here, the motives behind and the intent of the Declaration of Independence and how that intent was incorporated into the Constitution of the United States. And students should have at least a rudimentary knowledge of the wars we have fought, why we fought them, and the most sweeping economic and legislative forces that have most impacted our society and culture. There are students graduating college who were not exposed to any of this in their formal education. As a result, they are vulnerable to influence by almost any history revisionism fed to them.

By basic economics, I mean the fundamentals of supply and demand, why capitalism produces more prosperity than communism or socialism, and a basic understanding as the old Indian explained: you can't cut off one end of the blanket and sew it onto the other end and have a longer blanket. Or no matter how much water you take out of the deep end of the pool and pour it into the shallow end, there will always be a deep end and shallow end of the pool.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Should basic history as described here be core curriculum, and should students have a reasonable command of it before graduating high school and college? Why or why not is that important?

I suppose so. More thoroughly educated is always better than less well educated, so I can't really answer "no" to your question. You could have been considerably more specific in identifying learning objectives and the nature and extent of what you mean with regard to the topics you broadly described. You'll see why I say that as you read certain ones of my comments below....

I can say that for someone who graduates from college, all the stuff noted below should be well understood, not just that the relevant classes be taken, but taken and passed with a B+ (88%) or better.

The comments I've made below are, where applicable, with regard to high school graduates.

youtube watters world interviews - Bing video

I'm not sure what this video had to do with the matter of being academically well educated. Political correctness is a topic that has been studied in a scholarly manner, but it's not among the topics I'd expect or require be taught in high school.

• Pluralistic Ignorance and Political Correctness
• Political Correctness, the Law, and the Legal Academy
• Rethinking Political Correctness
• What Research Says About The Consequences Of PC Culture
• Political Correctness
• ‘Political correctness’: the politics of culture and language
• The Myth of Political Correctness: The Conservative Attack on Higher Education
• Multiculturalism, "Political Correctness" and the Politics of Identity

I can see it as a topic that one or some students might discover via a research paper in one or several specialized high school elective classes. I looked through the course catalog for the current year at one of the schools my own kids attended (they've graduated already) to see if any of the classes might plausibly offer such an opportunity. It appears the topic of political correctness might aptly have a place in one or more of the following course offerings:

• Cultural Anthropology: Exploring Human Behavior and Meaning
• Literature and Popular Culture
• Utopias and Dystopias in Literature
• Journalism
• Global Topics in Women, Gender and Society
• American Politics and Public Policy
• LGBT History, Politics and Culture
• Senior History Research Seminar
• The World Seen Through a Daily Newspaper

Seeing as at least one school offers classes for which an exploration of political correctness might be apropos, I would imagine others must as well. Nonetheless, I don't think that specific topic need be a graduation requirement. If they examine it, they do; if they don't, they don't.

I will admit to not really understanding the matter of political correctness (PC) beyond what it appears to be to me. From where I sit, PC, as a set of behaviors and modes of expression, is nothing more than the modern term for what I call good manners. Today as 60+ years ago, I think quite a lot of people don't actually have good manners and weren't raised by people who do, so it's no surprise they don't. I also think that as the world, certainly the U.S., has become more casual -- especially the attitude whereby it's ever more common for people to to presume they are free to behave more familiarly with others whom they don't truly know well -- in the wake of the social movements of the '60s - '80s, the notion that one has a duty to be respectful of others, of earned authority, experience, knowledge and position, seems to have fallen by the wayside.

I guess I'd say people don't anymore seem to know their place. Seen in that light, perhaps PC is someone's notion of restoring the crumbled "walls" of decorum, respect and decency that disappeared with the inegalitarian ills that necessitated the late 20th century's major social "revolutions."

youtube people can't answer political questions - Bing video

OT:
I guess I need to watch Wrecking Ball. I actually don't even recognize the name of the song. I have heard of Miley Cyrus, but I know her father's music better than I know hers.​

Here's where the OP's lack of specificity made it hard for me to have a strong response to thread question.

basic economics

What's your idea of "basic" economics? Mine idea of basic economics is the subject matter covered in AP Principles of Macroeconomics (there is a micro version from these authors) and AP Principles of Microeconomics courses. I say that because having taken many economics classes beyond those two, I know those two are just the beginning, yet, for sharp thinkers, those two provide enough information for one to at least know whether the economic public policy claims politicians make hold water or don't.

That's not to say those two courses will make one an economist or give one "all" one needs to adequately analyze any or every proposal policy makers broach, but they are enough (assuming one fully masters the material) for one to know when, how and where to look for more detailed information that will provide a sound basis for having a definitive and sound position on those proposals. Those two courses are also enough to allow one to read technical economics studies and assess their sufficiency in a general sense, that is, to tell whether the writer(s) are making sense.

all the effects of government programs

What? No, this does not need to be among any high school graduation requirement.

Nothing in the body of what anyone would call "basic" economics is going to allow one to identify "all the effects of government programs." To do that, one needs to be able to perform very details quantitative analysis of economic policies, or what's called econometric modeling. Even among people who have studied econometric modeling and have the math skills to develop or evaluate such models, unless they have access to models used by groups like the CBO, GAO, etc., or they can create their own and run them -- something that only academics and other professional economists are going to have the means to do -- that's just not realistic.

If a politician were to say, "We are going to implement XYZ policy because it'll create jobs," well, that's great. A basic understanding of econ will allow one to determine whether it's plausible to think "XYZ" will create jobs, sometimes even whether it'll create a material quantity of jobs given the geographic or industry context the statement implies. Plausibility analysis is about as far as one can take it, assuming one seeks the answer to "how many and what kind of jobs?", without doing the "heavy lifting" of econometric modeling.

our history

our Constitution,

basic civics

reasoning of the Founders

Here again, to what extent?

• Should people know who Crispus Attucks was and what his contributions to the American Revolution and later were?
• Should the full scope of the story of slavery be taught?
• Would you expect that people graduate from high school knowing that many of the major Founders weren't Christians? (Jefferson and Franklin were deists, Washington was thought to be a Pantheist, Hamilton only became Christian after his son was killed, Adams was Unitarian, which is sort of Christian, but doesn't consider Jesus to be the son of a god.
• Wouldn't it be great if schools stopped proponing the lie that Columbus discovered America or was even the first European to arrive in America.
• How about teaching a good deal more of the history China, which seems like a useful thing seeing as they are among the few modern day (remaining) nations/peoples/cultures that has endured for some some 5K years.
• Should people read the papers and letters of Thomas Jefferson?
• Should Common Sense be required reading?
• Should students have to read the proceedings of the First Continental Congress?
• Should students be required to undertake a dialectical examination of the Founders' debates over the terms of the Bill of Rights so they know what was included as compromise and what was included/omitted for reasons having nothing to do with what anyone thought/denied was a right of man? It's not as though there was universal agreement about them, their wording, and what was included and what was left out of each of the amendments.

Just how much detail do you want people to have upon graduating? I personally think it's more important that whatever details they learn be 100% factually and contextually accurate.

the great philosophers who informed them

Just what would you have high school students read?

• Plato -- The Republic; Socratic Dialogues
• Aristotle -- Nicomachean Ethics; Ars Rhetorica; Organon
• Machiavelli -- The Prince
• Kant -- Which of his writings? The man was prolific.
• Locke -- Two Treatises; "Concerning Toleration"
• Hume -- Which of his works? The man had a lot to say.
• Smith -- Wealth of Nations
• Hobbes -- Leviathan
• Rousseau -- Social Contract
• Voltaire -- Candide
• Montesquieu -- “On the Spirit of Laws”

Are the above not still required reading in high school?

the Founding Documents

Yes, okay. I'm going to assume you mean the Declaration and Constitution, along with the Articles. The U.S. has only one founding document: the Constitution. The Declaration does not have the force of law and the Articles are defunct, although they did once have the force of law.

The problem here is that merely reading the documents isn't enough and few students have the time during high school to take a class that covers these documents in detail, explores the nature of debate and jurisprudence on the major provisions in the Constitution, and evaluates their development and how they evolved as the nation and times changed.

So again, you'll need to add a degree of clarity and specificity that's not found in your OP. I can't just answer an overly broad question such as you've asked: "Should students know more about the founding documents of the United States? Of course they should, but the real question is what is the nature and extent of theoretical and legal understanding they should have about the documents and their impact and application upon completing high school.
​

the circumstance that encouraged people to risk everything to come here and then to form a new nation

Yes, this topic could be covered much more comprehensively and accurately than it is. And it should be.

Too much here to cover comprehensively in a single post that wouldn't make everybody's eyes glaze over.

By basic history I mean just that: the non politically correct version of the incentives that inspired people to risk everything to settle here, the motives behind and the intent of the Declaration of Independence and how that intent was incorporated into the Constitution of the United States. And students should have at least a rudimentary knowledge of the wars we have fought, why we fought them, and the most sweeping economic and legislative forces that have most impacted our society and culture. There are students graduating college who were not exposed to any of this in their formal education. As a result, they are vulnerable to influence by almost any history revisionism fed to them.

By basic economics, I mean the fundamentals of supply and demand, why capitalism produces more prosperity than communism or socialism, and a basic understanding as the old Indian explained: you can't cut off one end of the blanket and sew it onto the other end and have a longer blanket. Or no matter how much water you take out of the deep end of the pool and pour it into the shallow end, there will always be a deep end and shallow end of the pool.

Thank you for your reply.

 

[Foxfyre]

Proposed:

The modern generations are not being taught our history, our Constitution, or basic civics. They aren't being taught the reasoning of the Founders or about the great philosophers who informed them. Modern day students are not being required to study the Founding Documents or the circumstance that encouraged people to risk everything to come here and then to form a new nation.

They are not being taught basic economics, the principles of supply and demand in a free market system, the pros and cons of economic systems, or all the effect of government programs. The are not exposed to or encouraged to hear all points of view or use critical thinking to evaluate them.

They are spoon fed sound bites and slogans and the politically correct dogma of the day. Or what they know is gleaned from bits and pieces of internet sources or sounds bites from television or message boards. In short, too often they are being indoctrinated and effectively brainwashed instead of educated.

Some anecdotal evidence:


youtube watters world interviews - Bing video

youtube people can't answer political questions - Bing video

QUESTION FOR DISCUSSION: Should basic history as described here be core curriculum, and should students have a reasonable command of it before graduating high school and college? Why or why not is that important?

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:
1. Links are allowed but are not required and if used must be summarized in the member's own words.
2. Definitions for this discussion only will be provided by the OP as necessary.
3. Comment on the member's argument only and not directly or indirectly to or about the member making the argument.

I can only speak from my experience. My 4 grand kids, 2 in high school, 1 in middle school, and one in elementary know a lot more about American history, the constitution, and government than I did at their age. My 4th grader can intelligently discuss the functions of the branches of goverment, the constitution, and elections. They are all in honor classes or advanced placement in a good public school district in Washington State. My brother's three kids, who went to public/private schools in Louisiana have all graduated from college. One is a practicing attorney, one is in law school, and one is studying Chemistry. Maybe they are all exceptions; I don't know, but one thing is for sure your comments certainly do apply universally. There is a big variation in the quality of education between school districts and individuals schools, both public and private.

Your children and grandchildren are blessed and I am sure you are grateful for that.

I was public schooled in perhaps the best school system in our state at the time and I honestly got an education that prepared me to compete with anybody. A much better history, civics, and English department than what I encountered later in college but at least both were definitely required college courses and were taught reasonably competently.

My children and grandchild were also public schooled. My son and daughter got an excellent public school education in a small town in Kansas--strong parent participation, strong PTA, good school board which I, immodestly perhaps, was a member of for awhile, and excellent teachers.

My granddaughter not so much. Maybe it was the school or maybe it was her, I don't know. but there was an awful lot she didn't know that I thought she should.

But what stunned me later on was interviewing high school and college graduates for jobs. And that was a real eye opener at the level of deterioration of basic curriculum in the public schools. And these days, where we are now. I would do almost anything to avoid putting a child in the public schools.

But there are still stories of great teachers and good schools here and there even now.

For over 15 years I interviewed college grads for technical positions in management information systems, programmers, systems analysts, information specialists, and network engineers. In general, I have been very impressed with their education within their major and very unimpressed with their general education, particularly their communications skills. I believe much of the problem is the ever increasing demand for specialization. They know TCP/IP, the protocols stacks, can design an operating system, can setup servers, and can draw a hell of a Venn diagram, but can't write an intelligible report on their work or carry on a social conversation with customers.

I've discovered the same. Computer and technical skills are adequate to very good. But people skills not so much, or doing simple things like making change by counting it out or telling time on an analog clock. And believe it or not, some had problem reading cursive writing when they needed to read that writing.

Middle School kids barely know how to write in cursive. However, their typing skills are excellent. My grandson in high school is taking 6 courses. He has text books for only 3. All the material for the other classes are on the Internet which makes it impossible for parents to monitor their school work. You never know whether they are studying or just playing games or on social media. School is so different today, not sure if it's good or bad.

I still see a need for books. The internet is a vast resource for just about any information anybody could ever want, but it doesn't take an expert researcher to see the wildly conflicting opinions or information presented as fact on one site that directly contradicts information presented as fact on another. How is the student to discern the truth without a basic grounding in honest information and critical thinking in the classroom?

 

[Hossfly]

I can only speak from my experience. My 4 grand kids, 2 in high school, 1 in middle school, and one in elementary know a lot more about American history, the constitution, and government than I did at their age. My 4th grader can intelligently discuss the functions of the branches of goverment, the constitution, and elections. They are all in honor classes or advanced placement in a good public school district in Washington State. My brother's three kids, who went to public/private schools in Louisiana have all graduated from college. One is a practicing attorney, one is in law school, and one is studying Chemistry. Maybe they are all exceptions; I don't know, but one thing is for sure your comments certainly do apply universally. There is a big variation in the quality of education between school districts and individuals schools, both public and private.

Your children and grandchildren are blessed and I am sure you are grateful for that.

I was public schooled in perhaps the best school system in our state at the time and I honestly got an education that prepared me to compete with anybody. A much better history, civics, and English department than what I encountered later in college but at least both were definitely required college courses and were taught reasonably competently.

My children and grandchild were also public schooled. My son and daughter got an excellent public school education in a small town in Kansas--strong parent participation, strong PTA, good school board which I, immodestly perhaps, was a member of for awhile, and excellent teachers.

My granddaughter not so much. Maybe it was the school or maybe it was her, I don't know. but there was an awful lot she didn't know that I thought she should.

But what stunned me later on was interviewing high school and college graduates for jobs. And that was a real eye opener at the level of deterioration of basic curriculum in the public schools. And these days, where we are now. I would do almost anything to avoid putting a child in the public schools.

But there are still stories of great teachers and good schools here and there even now.

For over 15 years I interviewed college grads for technical positions in management information systems, programmers, systems analysts, information specialists, and network engineers. In general, I have been very impressed with their education within their major and very unimpressed with their general education, particularly their communications skills. I believe much of the problem is the ever increasing demand for specialization. They know TCP/IP, the protocols stacks, can design an operating system, can setup servers, and can draw a hell of a Venn diagram, but can't write an intelligible report on their work or carry on a social conversation with customers.

I've discovered the same. Computer and technical skills are adequate to very good. But people skills not so much, or doing simple things like making change by counting it out or telling time on an analog clock. And believe it or not, some had problem reading cursive writing when they needed to read that writing.

Middle School kids barely know how to write in cursive. However, their typing skills are excellent. My grandson in high school is taking 6 courses. He has text books for only 3. All the material for the other classes are on the Internet which makes it impossible for parents to monitor their school work. You never know whether they are studying or just playing games or on social media. School is so different today, not sure if it's good or bad.

I still see a need for books. The internet is a vast resource for just about any information anybody could ever want, but it doesn't take an expert researcher to see the wildly conflicting opinions or information presented as fact on one site that directly contradicts information presented as fact on another. How is the student to discern the truth without a basic grounding in honest information and critical thinking in the classroom?

I always am amazed to see the helplessness and confusion that happens when the power goes out for a week or more, Makes me wonder how my generation survived without electricity, television and telephones. Not to mention dirt roads. Pardon me while I order a pizza and book a hotel room on my Garmin watch.

 

[Flopper]

I can only speak from my experience. My 4 grand kids, 2 in high school, 1 in middle school, and one in elementary know a lot more about American history, the constitution, and government than I did at their age. My 4th grader can intelligently discuss the functions of the branches of goverment, the constitution, and elections. They are all in honor classes or advanced placement in a good public school district in Washington State. My brother's three kids, who went to public/private schools in Louisiana have all graduated from college. One is a practicing attorney, one is in law school, and one is studying Chemistry. Maybe they are all exceptions; I don't know, but one thing is for sure your comments certainly do apply universally. There is a big variation in the quality of education between school districts and individuals schools, both public and private.

Your children and grandchildren are blessed and I am sure you are grateful for that.

I was public schooled in perhaps the best school system in our state at the time and I honestly got an education that prepared me to compete with anybody. A much better history, civics, and English department than what I encountered later in college but at least both were definitely required college courses and were taught reasonably competently.

My children and grandchild were also public schooled. My son and daughter got an excellent public school education in a small town in Kansas--strong parent participation, strong PTA, good school board which I, immodestly perhaps, was a member of for awhile, and excellent teachers.

My granddaughter not so much. Maybe it was the school or maybe it was her, I don't know. but there was an awful lot she didn't know that I thought she should.

But what stunned me later on was interviewing high school and college graduates for jobs. And that was a real eye opener at the level of deterioration of basic curriculum in the public schools. And these days, where we are now. I would do almost anything to avoid putting a child in the public schools.

But there are still stories of great teachers and good schools here and there even now.

For over 15 years I interviewed college grads for technical positions in management information systems, programmers, systems analysts, information specialists, and network engineers. In general, I have been very impressed with their education within their major and very unimpressed with their general education, particularly their communications skills. I believe much of the problem is the ever increasing demand for specialization. They know TCP/IP, the protocols stacks, can design an operating system, can setup servers, and can draw a hell of a Venn diagram, but can't write an intelligible report on their work or carry on a social conversation with customers.

I've discovered the same. Computer and technical skills are adequate to very good. But people skills not so much, or doing simple things like making change by counting it out or telling time on an analog clock. And believe it or not, some had problem reading cursive writing when they needed to read that writing.

Middle School kids barely know how to write in cursive. However, their typing skills are excellent. My grandson in high school is taking 6 courses. He has text books for only 3. All the material for the other classes are on the Internet which makes it impossible for parents to monitor their school work. You never know whether they are studying or just playing games or on social media. School is so different today, not sure if it's good or bad.

I still see a need for books. The internet is a vast resource for just about any information anybody could ever want, but it doesn't take an expert researcher to see the wildly conflicting opinions or information presented as fact on one site that directly contradicts information presented as fact on another. How is the student to discern the truth without a basic grounding in honest information and critical thinking in the classroom?

From what I have see, the instructional material is on school websites, which includes reading materials, exercises to be completed online, and links to supportive text. The teacher can check see that the students have signed on and can track there progress via completed exercises. Since the basic material is all online, the teacher is free to cover more advanced topics in class, answer questions, and present auxiliary material. All this is fine and good. However, most kids in elementary, middle school, and the first year so in high school just don't have the discipline to resist jumping on to their favorite web sites for chat, music, games, and videos. They use small tablets, and smart phone so it's impossible to see what a student is doing either in school or at home. For advanced students that have develop good study habits and discipline, it works well. For the rest, it's doesn't.

The districts puts a lot pressure on the instructional staff to have everything on line because it saves a ton of money being spent on text books. Allowing the students to use their own smart phones, laptops and other devices, cuts down even more on district expenses but allows students unlimited access to the Net.