Debate Now The Dumbing Down of America

[Disir]

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.

Historians speak out against proposed Texas textbook changes

I noticed the video is from Texas. It appears Texas achieved what it was after.
There was an excellent article that I cannot for the life of me find and I don't have the time to wade through that many pages of a search to do it on how the lack of civics being taught shows up in the voter turnout in Texas.

The past twenty years has catered to the testing companies. You either want kids to regurgitate facts so they can pass the exams OR you want them to be able to critically think. As it stands right now, you cannot have both. Lesson plans that allowed kids to critically think have been cut to teach to the test.

For your enjoyment:
How to do the right thing in a system that is wrong?

Economics is required in high schools.

One of the videos was on the Texas Tech University campus, yes. The other two were not. My motivation for posting the Texas Tech one was in part to show that even in the heart of Texas red neck country, the lack of basic education is woefully apparent. I agree that teaching kids answers to questions so they can pass a standardized test is NOT education. I don't agree that economics is required in high schools or we would see students having at least a rudimentary understanding of economics. Most don't.

It is required.

And you see nothing between the alterations of the text books and the lack of basic education.

 

[jillian]

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.

students should be taught civics.

constitutional law would be nice.... but not your version of it... the one that actually exists.

in terms of what is "dumbing down" this country, it is less what is or is not being taught in school and more the unadulterated garbage people get online.

"My" version of anything is not allowed in this structured discussion. See rule #3.

But I agree that there is a lot of garbage on line. But a solid grounding in honest, non partisan history, government, civics, and economics in high school and college would go a long way toward exposing the garbage for what it is.

There is no such thing as "non partisan history" there is only history and revisionist history.

we can agree that people should understand the basics of how their government works.

 

[Coyote]

I chose "other"...

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.

This I do agree with. I think it's very important to understand the principles that underlie our countries founding....when I was in school, we had a civics class - I don't know if they do that anymore. I think it's important to understand why, for example, the ability to vote is so valuable, and why freedom of religion is one of our pillars. You can't understand the importance of our rights without understanding what the lack of them meant. I feel this should be in Highschool, but not necessary for college graduation.

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.

This one has two different aspects - the first being basic economics. I think a basic economic theory should be taught in Highschool - however, when you throw in the "effect of government programs" - then you are beginning to politicize it. They should learn the theory in highschool, but optional in college. I don't think it's necessary for graduation.

In college - I think all students should be "exposed to or encouraged to hear all points of view or use critical thinking to evaluate them" - that's one of the most important things college can do.

In highschool - I think critical thinking must be taught, especially given the barrage of media they are faced with every day. Critical thinking doesn't have a "right" or "wrong" answer but a student should be able to describe how arrives at his conclusions and why. I think in highschool it should be necessary for graduation.

I am on the same page with most of this except the bolded paragraph. Here I have to disagree. For instance, if the students are not exposed to all points of view re the long range effect of the Great Depression, if they do not hear all theories or opinion that the social initiatives put into place at that time--some camps say necessary and the moral choice; others say the larger effect was to prolong the Depression, etc.--how are they ever going to know enough history to use it to inform themselves? I would object to politicizing it too; but to provide students information of the various theories and opinions is to educate, not politicize or indoctrinate.

My goal for including a core curriculum that all students must pass both in highschool and college is in the interest of providing a real education instead of simply training for a specific task or occupation. I want educated citizens elected to high office where they can affect the lives of others, and I want educated voters going to the polls to cast their vote for those who will be elected.

I draw a difference between Highschool and College. Highschool should provide the educational foundation to be a good citizen, learn to navigate the modern world, be prepared for college if that is a choice or a vocation.

College is different - for one, it's optional. Students are preparing for specialized vocations. I am firm believer in a classical liberal arts education where the thoughts and ideas and ideologies of our founders are discussed from all points of view, where philsophy is explored, and logic is taught, etc etc - courses that would strongly encourage critical thinking skills - this is where I think it's especially important to be exposed to all kinds of views and it's where it typically happens.

In Highschool - they should be exposed to basic economic theory and encourage to use it to analyze real world situations. When they are taught about the Depression, they should be taught - imo - what is broadly supported by historians in terms of what happened, why, etc with other ideas brought in and discussed in relation to what is accepted to encourage discussion but not at the level of detail I think you are calling for. That really belongs in college.

I'd like to know what kids are actually taught now - I have no children, I graduated in 1977 - what I was taught is probably so so different.

But there are components of college that are not optional. Most colleges require a language course, at least some basic math, some proficiency in English--things required for a degree so that a student emerges educated and prepared to utilize whatever specialty he/she uses. Or at least that is the way it used to be. I haven't studied a college catalogue in awhile. And what specialty can anybody go into that is not affected by economics and government? It requires some history to understand both, and both are necessary in order for a person to actually be educated. I will continue to argue that such be components of the core curriculum.[/quoute]

It varies widely though. Requirements vary depending on the school, the individual colleges and programs. In our university - most programs have a pre-major that includes basic math, english, and choices of basic sciences and liberal arts type classes such as history, art, literature, geography, etc as electives to fulfill general categories. Economics can be included in electives and they are in fact, in our program. I think as electives, it's fine.

When I was in college, most of the first two years was taken up with required courses--core curriculum--required for ALL degrees--of course we also had some electives in areas of special interest or that went toward our major when we declared one. English, history, economics, civics were all part of that core curriculum. They still should be.

Ya, that's pretty much how it is here as well.

 

[Coyote]

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.

students should be taught civics.

constitutional law would be nice.... but not your version of it... the one that actually exists.

in terms of what is "dumbing down" this country, it is less what is or is not being taught in school and more the unadulterated garbage people get online.

Which is why critical thinking is so important.

 

[Dhara]

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.

students should be taught civics.

constitutional law would be nice.... but not your version of it... the one that actually exists.

in terms of what is "dumbing down" this country, it is less what is or is not being taught in school and more the unadulterated garbage people get online.

"My" version of anything is not allowed in this structured discussion. See rule #3.

But I agree that there is a lot of garbage on line. But a solid grounding in honest, non partisan history, government, civics, and economics in high school and college would go a long way toward exposing the garbage for what it is.

There is no such thing as "non partisan history" there is only history and revisionist history.

we can agree that people should understand the basics of how their government works.

Well, science tells us people remember the same events differently. It's not surprising that history is as fluid as it is. Disturbing when it takes something like the Holocaust, which is very documented, and it's rewritten as if none of it happened. Especially when we know the cover-up effort the Nazi's went to.

 

[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.

Historians speak out against proposed Texas textbook changes

I noticed the video is from Texas. It appears Texas achieved what it was after.
There was an excellent article that I cannot for the life of me find and I don't have the time to wade through that many pages of a search to do it on how the lack of civics being taught shows up in the voter turnout in Texas.

The past twenty years has catered to the testing companies. You either want kids to regurgitate facts so they can pass the exams OR you want them to be able to critically think. As it stands right now, you cannot have both. Lesson plans that allowed kids to critically think have been cut to teach to the test.

For your enjoyment:
How to do the right thing in a system that is wrong?

Economics is required in high schools.

One of the videos was on the Texas Tech University campus, yes. The other two were not. My motivation for posting the Texas Tech one was in part to show that even in the heart of Texas red neck country, the lack of basic education is woefully apparent. I agree that teaching kids answers to questions so they can pass a standardized test is NOT education. I don't agree that economics is required in high schools or we would see students having at least a rudimentary understanding of economics. Most don't.

It is required.

And you see nothing between the alterations of the text books and the lack of basic education.

Required by whom? And why are so many people completely clueless on the most basic concepts of it?

 

[dblack]

Well, I'm proud to be the only one who chose the correct answer.

If the 'correct answer' is that there should be no requirement that some basic history, economics, government, civics be required for graduation from high school or college, what should the criteria for graduation be?

Whatever the school issuing the diploma wants them to be.

 

[Foxfyre]

Well, I'm proud to be the only one who chose the correct answer.

If the 'correct answer' is that there should be no requirement that some basic history, economics, government, civics be required for graduation from high school or college, what should the criteria for graduation be?

Whatever the school issuing the diploma wants them to be.

Okay granted. In a free society, an educational institution CAN issue a diploma to students who have learned nothing, accomplished nothing, and have been prepared for nothing. But surely those of us who are still capable of critical thinking don't believe that is how it SHOULD be. I am quite okay with the university and the private citizens who support it, the administrators, teachers, school boards or board of regents etc. being the ones to determine the curriculum and policies for the educational institution. I don't want the federal government to have any say whatsoever in that.

But what SHOULD happen is that the education institutions educate the students in all the subjects the students will need to know in order to have a shot at achieving their potential and also be prepared to be the citizens who know why and how a free society should be and what makes it work. And in my opinion, among the subjects necessary for a person to be educated, they should have a grounding in honest history, economics, civics, and government.

 

[dblack]

Well, I'm proud to be the only one who chose the correct answer.

If the 'correct answer' is that there should be no requirement that some basic history, economics, government, civics be required for graduation from high school or college, what should the criteria for graduation be?

Whatever the school issuing the diploma wants them to be.

Okay granted. In a free society, an educational institution CAN issue a diploma to students who have learned nothing, accomplished nothing, and have been prepared for nothing. But surely those of us who are still capable of critical thinking don't believe that is how it SHOULD be. I am quite okay with the university and the private citizens who support it, the administrators, teachers, school boards or board of regents etc. being the ones to determine the curriculum and policies for the educational institution. I don't want the federal government to have any say whatsoever in that.

But what SHOULD happen is that the education institutions educate the students in all the subjects the students will need to know in order to have a shot at achieving their potential and also be prepared to be the citizens who know why and how a free society should be and what makes it work. And in my opinion, among the subjects necessary for a person to be educated, they should have a grounding in honest history, economics, civics, and government.

Alright. That makes sense. Perhaps I fell prey to the assumption that saying something "should" be the case, was equivalent to saying "It oughta be a law!".

 

[Foxfyre]

Well, I'm proud to be the only one who chose the correct answer.

If the 'correct answer' is that there should be no requirement that some basic history, economics, government, civics be required for graduation from high school or college, what should the criteria for graduation be?

Whatever the school issuing the diploma wants them to be.

Okay granted. In a free society, an educational institution CAN issue a diploma to students who have learned nothing, accomplished nothing, and have been prepared for nothing. But surely those of us who are still capable of critical thinking don't believe that is how it SHOULD be. I am quite okay with the university and the private citizens who support it, the administrators, teachers, school boards or board of regents etc. being the ones to determine the curriculum and policies for the educational institution. I don't want the federal government to have any say whatsoever in that.

But what SHOULD happen is that the education institutions educate the students in all the subjects the students will need to know in order to have a shot at achieving their potential and also be prepared to be the citizens who know why and how a free society should be and what makes it work. And in my opinion, among the subjects necessary for a person to be educated, they should have a grounding in honest history, economics, civics, and government.

Alright. That makes sense. Perhaps I fell prey to the assumption that saying something "should" be the case, was equivalent to saying "It oughta be a law!".

Well if it is to be a law, it should be the individual state or preferably the local community that makes it one.

 

[Coyote]

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.

students should be taught civics.

constitutional law would be nice.... but not your version of it... the one that actually exists.

in terms of what is "dumbing down" this country, it is less what is or is not being taught in school and more the unadulterated garbage people get online.

"My" version of anything is not allowed in this structured discussion. See rule #3.

But I agree that there is a lot of garbage on line. But a solid grounding in honest, non partisan history, government, civics, and economics in high school and college would go a long way toward exposing the garbage for what it is.

There is no such thing as "non partisan history" there is only history and revisionist history.

we can agree that people should understand the basics of how their government works.

I sort of agree, except I think it can be too easy to tack on the label of "revisionist history" when new information comes to light that changes the way we view history. History is written by the victors and history is interpreted through each cultures own lense. There definately is no such thing as non-partisan history though.

 

[Disir]

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.

Historians speak out against proposed Texas textbook changes

I noticed the video is from Texas. It appears Texas achieved what it was after.
There was an excellent article that I cannot for the life of me find and I don't have the time to wade through that many pages of a search to do it on how the lack of civics being taught shows up in the voter turnout in Texas.

The past twenty years has catered to the testing companies. You either want kids to regurgitate facts so they can pass the exams OR you want them to be able to critically think. As it stands right now, you cannot have both. Lesson plans that allowed kids to critically think have been cut to teach to the test.

For your enjoyment:
How to do the right thing in a system that is wrong?

Economics is required in high schools.

One of the videos was on the Texas Tech University campus, yes. The other two were not. My motivation for posting the Texas Tech one was in part to show that even in the heart of Texas red neck country, the lack of basic education is woefully apparent. I agree that teaching kids answers to questions so they can pass a standardized test is NOT education. I don't agree that economics is required in high schools or we would see students having at least a rudimentary understanding of economics. Most don't.

It is required.

And you see nothing between the alterations of the text books and the lack of basic education.

Required by whom? And why are so many people completely clueless on the most basic concepts of it?

https://www.eed.state.ak.us/AKStandards/standards/standards.pdf
http://www.azed.gov/standards-practices/files/2011/09/ssstandard-full-05-22-06.pdf
http://www.arkansased.gov/public/us...ction/Frameworks/Social_Studies/Economics.pdf
https://www.alsde.edu/sec/sct/Graduation Information/ALABAMA HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION REQUIREMENTS.pdf

I explained why.

 

[jillian]

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.

students should be taught civics.

constitutional law would be nice.... but not your version of it... the one that actually exists.

in terms of what is "dumbing down" this country, it is less what is or is not being taught in school and more the unadulterated garbage people get online.

"My" version of anything is not allowed in this structured discussion. See rule #3.

But I agree that there is a lot of garbage on line. But a solid grounding in honest, non partisan history, government, civics, and economics in high school and college would go a long way toward exposing the garbage for what it is.

There is no such thing as "non partisan history" there is only history and revisionist history.

we can agree that people should understand the basics of how their government works.

I sort of agree, except I think it can be too easy to tack on the label of "revisionist history" when new information comes to light that changes the way we view history. History is written by the victors and history is interpreted through each cultures own lense. There definately is no such thing as non-partisan history though.

Unless there is new evidence to sustain a change in historical view, then revisionist history is simply that

 

[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.

students should be taught civics.

constitutional law would be nice.... but not your version of it... the one that actually exists.

in terms of what is "dumbing down" this country, it is less what is or is not being taught in school and more the unadulterated garbage people get online.

"My" version of anything is not allowed in this structured discussion. See rule #3.

But I agree that there is a lot of garbage on line. But a solid grounding in honest, non partisan history, government, civics, and economics in high school and college would go a long way toward exposing the garbage for what it is.

There is no such thing as "non partisan history" there is only history and revisionist history.

we can agree that people should understand the basics of how their government works.

I sort of agree, except I think it can be too easy to tack on the label of "revisionist history" when new information comes to light that changes the way we view history. History is written by the victors and history is interpreted through each cultures own lense. There definately is no such thing as non-partisan history though.

Unless there is new evidence to sustain a change in historical view, then revisionist history is simply that

Agreed. But not only is revisionist history to be condemned, the OP is also objecting to omitted history that should be part of all core curriculum.

 

[ChrisL]

students should be taught civics.

constitutional law would be nice.... but not your version of it... the one that actually exists.

in terms of what is "dumbing down" this country, it is less what is or is not being taught in school and more the unadulterated garbage people get online.

"My" version of anything is not allowed in this structured discussion. See rule #3.

But I agree that there is a lot of garbage on line. But a solid grounding in honest, non partisan history, government, civics, and economics in high school and college would go a long way toward exposing the garbage for what it is.

There is no such thing as "non partisan history" there is only history and revisionist history.

we can agree that people should understand the basics of how their government works.

I sort of agree, except I think it can be too easy to tack on the label of "revisionist history" when new information comes to light that changes the way we view history. History is written by the victors and history is interpreted through each cultures own lense. There definately is no such thing as non-partisan history though.

Unless there is new evidence to sustain a change in historical view, then revisionist history is simply that

Agreed. But not only is revisionist history to be condemned, the OP is also objecting to omitted history that should be part of all core curriculum.

I can agree with both of those points. We need to stop telling the children "myths and legends" and making them believe that is what actually happened. We also need to focus a lot more on our rights and the Constitution. It is not covered NEARLY as much as it should be, IMO. Taking some elective in high school isn't good enough. There should be regular classes about our rights, how they came to be, why they are important, restrictions on them, and how we can legally practice our rights.

 

[Foxfyre]

"My" version of anything is not allowed in this structured discussion. See rule #3.

But I agree that there is a lot of garbage on line. But a solid grounding in honest, non partisan history, government, civics, and economics in high school and college would go a long way toward exposing the garbage for what it is.

There is no such thing as "non partisan history" there is only history and revisionist history.

we can agree that people should understand the basics of how their government works.

I sort of agree, except I think it can be too easy to tack on the label of "revisionist history" when new information comes to light that changes the way we view history. History is written by the victors and history is interpreted through each cultures own lense. There definately is no such thing as non-partisan history though.

Unless there is new evidence to sustain a change in historical view, then revisionist history is simply that

Agreed. But not only is revisionist history to be condemned, the OP is also objecting to omitted history that should be part of all core curriculum.

I can agree with both of those points. We need to stop telling the children "myths and legends" and making them believe that is what actually happened. We also need to focus a lot more on our rights and the Constitution. It is not covered NEARLY as much as it should be, IMO. Taking some elective in high school isn't good enough. There should be regular classes about our rights, how they came to be, why they are important, restrictions on them, and how we can legally practice our rights.

For first graders, I think the lighter version of say the first Thanksgiving is okay. And then as the student matures, the more realistic version should be taught as we have discussed in this thread. The PC version that the Pilgrims 'lured the Indians so they could harm or exploit them' is as much PC myth as the feel good Polly Anna-ish version most of us were taught as kids. And we are absolutely on the same page about teaching kids what they really need to know in the real world in order to understand how it works for their own benefit and for all. And that includes a good grounding in history, government civics, and economics.

 

[ChrisL]

There is no such thing as "non partisan history" there is only history and revisionist history.

we can agree that people should understand the basics of how their government works.

I sort of agree, except I think it can be too easy to tack on the label of "revisionist history" when new information comes to light that changes the way we view history. History is written by the victors and history is interpreted through each cultures own lense. There definately is no such thing as non-partisan history though.

Unless there is new evidence to sustain a change in historical view, then revisionist history is simply that

Agreed. But not only is revisionist history to be condemned, the OP is also objecting to omitted history that should be part of all core curriculum.

I can agree with both of those points. We need to stop telling the children "myths and legends" and making them believe that is what actually happened. We also need to focus a lot more on our rights and the Constitution. It is not covered NEARLY as much as it should be, IMO. Taking some elective in high school isn't good enough. There should be regular classes about our rights, how they came to be, why they are important, restrictions on them, and how we can legally practice our rights.

For first graders, I think the lighter version of say the first Thanksgiving is okay. And then as the student matures, the more realistic version should be taught as we have discussed in this thread. The PC version that the Pilgrims 'lured the Indians so they could harm or exploit them' is as much PC myth as the feel good Polly Anna-ish version most of us were taught as kids. And we are absolutely on the same page about teaching kids what they really need to know in the real world in order to understand how it works for their own benefit and for all. And that includes a good grounding in history, government civics, and economics.

Look, no country had "perfect" ideal beginnings. America didn't either. We did some terrible things, and it is okay to acknowledge this.


The Pilgrims of Plymouth, The Original Scalpers

Contrary to popular mythology the Pilgrims were no friends to the local Indians. They were engaged in a ruthless war of extermination against their hosts, even as they falsely posed as friends. Just days before the alleged Thanksgiving love-fest, a company of Pilgrims led by Myles Standish actively sought to chop off the head of a local chief. They deliberately caused a rivalry between two friendly Indians, pitting one against the other in an attempt to obtain "better intelligence and make them both more diligent." An 11-foot-high wall was erected around the entire settlement for the purpose of keeping the Indians out.

Any Indian who came within the vicinity of the Pilgrim settlement was subject to robbery, enslavement, or even murder. The Pilgrims further advertised their evil intentions and white racial hostility, when they mounted five cannons on a hill around their settlement, constructed a platform for artillery, and then organized their soldiers into four companies-all in preparation for the military destruction of their friends the Indians.

Pilgrim Myles Standish eventually got his bloody prize. He went to the Indians, pretended to be a trader, then beheaded an Indian man named Wituwamat. He brought the head to Plymouth, where it was displayed on a wooden spike for many years, according to Gary B. Nash, "as a symbol of white power." Standish had the Indian man's young brother hanged from the rafters for good measure. From that time on, the whites were known to the Indians of Massachusetts by the name "Wotowquenange," which in their tongue meant cutthroats and stabbers.

 

[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.

Historians speak out against proposed Texas textbook changes

I noticed the video is from Texas. It appears Texas achieved what it was after.
There was an excellent article that I cannot for the life of me find and I don't have the time to wade through that many pages of a search to do it on how the lack of civics being taught shows up in the voter turnout in Texas.

The past twenty years has catered to the testing companies. You either want kids to regurgitate facts so they can pass the exams OR you want them to be able to critically think. As it stands right now, you cannot have both. Lesson plans that allowed kids to critically think have been cut to teach to the test.

For your enjoyment:
How to do the right thing in a system that is wrong?

Economics is required in high schools.

One of the videos was on the Texas Tech University campus, yes. The other two were not. My motivation for posting the Texas Tech one was in part to show that even in the heart of Texas red neck country, the lack of basic education is woefully apparent. I agree that teaching kids answers to questions so they can pass a standardized test is NOT education. I don't agree that economics is required in high schools or we would see students having at least a rudimentary understanding of economics. Most don't.

It is required.

And you see nothing between the alterations of the text books and the lack of basic education.

Required by whom? And why are so many people completely clueless on the most basic concepts of it?

https://www.eed.state.ak.us/AKStandards/standards/standards.pdf
http://www.azed.gov/standards-practices/files/2011/09/ssstandard-full-05-22-06.pdf
http://www.arkansased.gov/public/userfiles/Learning_Services/Curriculum and Instruction/Frameworks/Social_Studies/Economics.pdf
https://www.alsde.edu/sec/sct/Graduation Information/ALABAMA HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION REQUIREMENTS.pdf

I explained why.

I rest my case. Reading through the first couple sets of 'standards' I was horrified at how vague and easy to manipulate they were in areas of government, civics, history, and economics.

 

[Foxfyre]

Violation of Rule 3. Please direct comments to the member's argument and not any member or members themselves.

That was directed towards your argument. You are claiming students aren't even taught the basics. You've offered nothing to prove that other than a 3:00 minute video, by the way Carson used to do that schtick 40 years ago, and where you're getting your information from is a valid question, I hope it's from more than Facebook videos. So, I repeat, yes they should be taught the basics and fortunately they already are.

Maybe the point is that the basics they are taught may need some fluffing up. I have previously seen an argument, (not in this thread) that people should not even get to vote if they don't have a Masters level or above understanding of history and civics.

That I disagree with. That's elitism.

The argument is that the basics are not being taught. And while I agree that a civics or history exam is not practical to establish criteria for voting, and a master's degree required to vote is ridiculously elitist, I am horrified that some people are given a name and a promise of some reward if they will go into the voting booth and vote for that name. They have no clue who are what they are actually voting for or what the implications of that might be,

So since a voter qualification test is not practical as a requirement to vote, how about we have an education system that best encourages students to be reasonably informed about these things when they graduate, so we will have a better chance to have an informed electorate not to mention a people who are smarter about what kind of people they want to trust with the government.

I'd say the basics are being taught but they aren't taught in way that engages all students equally. Some students are more disadvantaged than others and I walk away from this post wondering if the position expressed in this post cares about them or would leave them behind possibly even limit their voting opportunity.

It comes across as elitist or classist. Well meaning or intentioned perhaps, but not respectful of the range of citizens we have in our country and how o really address informed citizenry.

I have yet to see any evidence that the material is "not being taught" as the OP asserts. What is demonstrated is that it's not being learned.

But that is a different statement, and puts the onus in a different place.

If the material is not being taught, then the curriculum needs to change. If the students are not learning the material they should not graduate. That is the thesis of the OP.

 

[Unkotare]

...