NC Dept of Public Instruction: History did not Begin in 1877
Submitted by Nina Kilbride on Thu, 02/04/2010 - 10:19am
The North Carolina Department of Public Instruction is in the process of overhauling the curriculum for North Carolina Public Schools. The DPI has asked for feedback on the proposed curriculum through February 15, 2010. I reviewed the proposed curriculum. There is a glaring problem with the proposed history instruction in North Carolina high schools. The proposed curriculum eliminates the teaching of United States history prior to 1877 in North Carolina public schools. A few pre-1877 concepts are covered in other parts of the curriculum, but the proposed curriculum would not teach children:
Who came to the Americas and why
The states were once colonies of England
We fought a war to free ourselves from an imperial crown
We had a lot of discussion of how people in a democracy best rule themselves, culminating in the Constitution.
Western Expansion
Death and Displacement of Native Americans
Wars of U.S. Territorial Expansion
Slavery
Civil War
Reconstruction
I’ve left out many things, but these examples are enough to show that a history class without them is incomplete. The designers of this curriculum explicitly downplay “facts” in exchange for a set of goals that work better when tested on End of Grade EOG exams. I do not believe high school students can achieve any of the educational goals outlined with the bare-bones curriculum proposed.
The new curriculum instead focuses on “themes” that it examines using examples from the late 19th and 20th century. It seeks to teach about the “civil rights” and “social justice” movements of the twentieth century with no factual foundation for why people started these movements. The history curriculum seeks to teach students to evaluate and critique international global action in the twentieth century with no background. For example, students are expected to critique the US decision to return Panama Canal to the Panama government but they aren’t taught about the world that made the transaction. NAFTA is mentioned in the materials but not what created the North American economic model that ultimately brought NAFTA into being. Students are expected to understand changes in the power of government but aren’t taught about the ideas about government power our founders wrestled with and wrote down for posterity.
The course outlines the beliefs of the modern fundamentalist and conservative movements, but nothing that will teach us about the great gift of U.S. Citizenship.
How can students appreciate the special value of U.S. citizenship if they do not know what into creating it? How can they know what the Constitution means if they don’t know how it was born? How can they know what it means to be a citizen in a democracy is if they don’t understand the alternatives?
Here’s the link to the proposed curriculum:
http://www.ncpublicschools.org/acre/standards/phase2/
Dr. Holly Brewer and I have started a Facebook page “History did not start in 1877!” Please join if you can. We will have an online petition up and running ASAP and I will update with a link.
Thanks for reading.
- Nina Kilbride's blog
- 1600 reads
Has an explaination been given here?
This is very curious. Has there been an explaination given for this proposed change?
If it is "political correctness", then every citizen in this state regardless of race or creed or color should be up in arms. I am absolutely sure that being progressive or liberal or just calling oneself a democrat does not mean that we believe that we should deny educating our children about he entire history of our country simply because some of it may (or may not) be uncomfortable.
___________________________________________________
“Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; argument is an exchange of ignorance" __ Robert Quillen
How can this possibly be?
This seems bizarre beyond belief.
I spent a few minutes looking
I spent a few minutes looking over the different proposals and it seems there is significant material covering the pre 1877 period.
I'm not going to go point by point to see what should or shouldn't be taught, but it seems what is proposed does a much better job of encouraging thought and debate over the memorize and regurgitate that characterizes my 70's and 80's K-12 education.
So, you are okay with this?
You spent "a few minutes"??????????????????????
I am not truly understanding your post or what you are presenting on this.
Just what is covered pre-1877 and what is left out?
Elaborate, please.
___________________________________________________
“Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; argument is an exchange of ignorance" __ Robert Quillen
This is the HIGH SCHOOL curriculum
As pointed out in an article I read on this yesterday, students are in school for 13 years, and get plenty of instruction in middle school on the basic facts of American history pre 1877. When I was in school in 19(mumbletymumble) it seemed we spent FOREVER on pre 1865, and then rushed through the 20th Century like an afterthought. Provided the 1877- onward stuff is taught holistically, with an eye on its relationship to what came before, then I think this might result in students with a broader knowledge base. Not to mention one they find a bit more easily relatable to their current circumstances.
I would expect criticism of this approach from the Pope Foundation, which views any attempt to teach anything other than dead white men with suspicion, but not here.
"Man is free at the moment he wishes to be." -Voltaire
There is NOT, "plenty of
There is NOT, "plenty of instruction in middle school on the basic facts of American history pre-1877". NC history has been removed from the 8th grade, stripped of many of it's factual goals, and moved to the 7th grade. The 8th grade curriculum as proposed is an odd sort of world issues since 1950 as it relates to NC and the US. It to put it simply is a huge mess and offers little if any preparation for high school. The knowledge base that you mention is exactly what is missing from the DPI first draft. The concepts we want students to grasp can't be obtained without the scaffolding of a chronological base of knowledge that allows higher order thinking to take place.
I'm a moderate Democrat.
Moreover
this is an initial draft of a proposed course of study, which invites comment in a specific and professional way.
Ranting on facebook and encouraging an underinformed and kneejerk reaction is not the way to contribute such feedback.
"Man is free at the moment he wishes to be." -Voltaire
Oh, nice try
Making this some kind of anti-education conspiracy by the republicans or Art Pope or any other "button" that you can push to get we liberals and/or progressives to buy into it is just WAY too obvious.
No, saying that young children getting an education on history before 1876 justifies not including that history in high school is ludicrous.
Be honest. Is this some attempt to take the history of slavery out of our high schools? I said: "be honest".
Man, slavery was an abomination and wrong at EVERY level and believed so by nearly EVERY American. But, it was part of our history albeit wrong.
Taking that out of our history classes will only make other inequities in our American heritage too "wrong" to present to our kids.
If they hear about what we, as a citizenry, did that was inhumane, maybe...just maybe that will dissuade our future leaders from doing the same.
NOT rocket science.
___________________________________________________
“Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; argument is an exchange of ignorance" __ Robert Quillen
no, it's clearly not an attempt to take slavery out
how ridiculous a conclusion is that? Did you even bother to read the proposed curricula for the elective courses or the other Social Studies courses? How about the entire section of Civics and Economics devoted to studying whether the promise of American democracy met up with reality throughout the development of the United States? What about the Civil Rights course? Did you look at that?
Probably not.
"Man is free at the moment he wishes to be." -Voltaire
Perhaps it is a fair cricitism
to state that the essential facts of slavery and the genocide of Native Americans should be more prominently treated in a history course, or that there should be a speficic course offering in American history 1492 - 1876. THe point is, there is a way to make that point and to suggest such changes be included in version 2.0
Ranting about educators wanting to "take slavery out" is not the way to do it, lest you play into the hands of the Popeites.
"Man is free at the moment he wishes to be." -Voltaire
Sorry Doc
That dog don't hunt.
I definately do not have the ability to "argue" this with you on your level. I do have the ability to be pragmatic here, however.
___________________________________________________
“Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; argument is an exchange of ignorance" __ Robert Quillen
what won't hunt?
cogent and thoughtful analysis?
You're probably right, and that seems to be a major problem in politics right now.
"Man is free at the moment he wishes to be." -Voltaire
Let us not argue this
I believe that our country's history (since inception) should be taught to our high school kids in ONE class structure so as not to be something that gives only the kids that "elect" to take courses in "some" of the different parts of it or even in non-elective classes that work to make sure they teach things other than just the history but present "judgement" in the basis of the teachings.
Children should be taught our history. Much of it is not pretty. It is not for educators to "teach" their beliefs on our history but to just teach the history, ALL of our history.
Surely you can understand that.
___________________________________________________
“Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; argument is an exchange of ignorance" __ Robert Quillen
Don't take my word for it.
Read the proposal - carefully. Then read the proposals for the places where the DPI says it will teach pre-1877 us history. Note that "Facts" are dismissed as an objective.
click resources at: http://realhistoryreform.org to view the proposal, plus the blue-ribbon report as to why this change is proposed.
Good deal !
Thanks, Nina.
___________________________________________________
“Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; argument is an exchange of ignorance" __ Robert Quillen
The same vague notions that
The same vague notions that you find in the high school courses you will find in the the middle school proposals. I don't think Dr. Frank would go along with this one. Look at the proposal for the 7th and 8th grades. These proposals are going to create a huge mess of things for years to come if the final product is anything close to the first draft. This has absolutely nothing to do with political perspective and a great deal to do with a misguided attempt by educators at DPI (that don't have a clue about teaching a room full of adolescents)to adopt an unproductive and impractical set of standards. I suspect that they have all the best intentions but that doesn't make up for the fact that they are going to ruin the social studies curriculum if they have their way.
I'm a moderate Democrat.