<<http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/0104/25history.html>>
Dumbing down our past doesn't serve our future The state has unveiled sweeping changes it wants to make in the K-12 curriculum. A high school history teacher says the plan will gut the subject he has taught for 25 years. But the state superintendent says the new curriculum will make Georgia's schools the best. By JOSEPH JARRELL The Georgia Department of Education recently unveiled a draft of the new high school history curriculum. Officials tout it as "world class." It's not. They describe it as "rigorous" and "strengthened." It's neither. With much fanfare, spokesmen say it will raise expectations. It won't. While presented as part of the state's vision of "leading the nation in improving student achievement," the new curriculum will actually result in nothing more than dumbing down world history and U.S history courses. Remember the childhood story of the king who wanted all to see his fine new attire? In the old fable, the emperor was actually naked. Such is the case here. The grand parade of sound bites and press releases notwithstanding, the emperor has no clothes. Of course, in the new curriculum, history will have fewer emperors. The current high school world history course surveys civilization from the earliest times to the present. The new curriculum calls for teaching only the period from 1500 to the 21st century. Students will no longer study such figures as Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Cleopatra, William the Conqueror or Joan of Arc. "The Iliad" and "The Odyssey" will not be mentioned. The development of democratic government in Greece and the fall of the Roman Empire will be skipped. Jesus, Muhammad, the Buddha and Confucius are not to be found in the new curriculum. Great civilizations like ancient Egypt will no longer merit study, and the concept of feudalism will not be discussed. The present 11th-grade U.S. history course covers the Exploration period to today. In the proposed changes, teachers will spend two or three weeks discussing the foundation of our country, with the remaining time devoted to studying events from 1876 to the present. Gone is any mention of the Louisiana Purchase or Lewis and Clark. There will be no discussion of Indian removal and the Trail of Tears. Students probably will not be remembering the Alamo; it won't be a topic of discussion in Georgia's high schools. Daniel Webster and Henry Clay will be omitted, as well as Harriet Tubman, Frederick Douglass and the Underground Railroad. Search in vain for discussion of the Civil War; that topic is off limits. In a course entitled "American History," students will not study our most devastating war. There is no mention of Fort Sumter, Abraham Lincoln, Robert E. Lee or anything else associated with those years. Though teachers supposedly have no time to discuss topics essential to understanding our heritage, the curriculum suggests they have their students write a 1920s radio drama. Teachers are also encouraged to assign essays about dating in the Jazz Age and to show segments from "All in the Family," "Good Times" and "Chico and the Man." I have yet to talk to any teacher who likes the new curriculum, though I am sure there are some who favor the idea of teaching less. The misguided rationale behind the hastily prepared revision is that we teach too much history in high school. The solution? Eliminate 40 percent of the current coursework. Education officials note that much of the material removed from the high school courses will be taught in grades four through seven. They ignore the fact that elementary and middle school students lack the maturity necessary to grasp the importance of many of the events, people and concepts. Short cuts unwelcome Certainly it is a constant challenge to complete the present curriculum. I often feel as though I am running a marathon; however, like any runner, I feel a sense of pride when my students and I complete the race. I know that those who have passed the course have learned an enormous amount. Would it be easier to teach less? Of course. Would the new curriculum reduce my workload? Doubtlessly. But like so many other history teachers, I know that while claiming to seek the road to excellence, educrats are really leading us down the path of least resistance. There is also a sinister element to the changes. States are facing new federal mandates to improve test scores. Interestingly, states can devise many of the tests used to measure this improvement. While mandating that we teach less, Georgia will prepare assessments that test less. Interesting formula: teach less, test less, brag more. Imagine a similar approach with math. Teach half the multiplication tables and test only the half that is taught. Surely scores would rise and the headlines would scream that math scores improved! But students suffer when perception becomes more important than learning. Wisdom in short supply The state Education Department plans to spend thousands of dollars to train history teachers about the new curriculum. Teachers will collectively groan when they read about these "professional development" seminars. We will be held captive for hours while people with substantially less classroom experience tell us how to teach. Oh, the wisdom of those who rule! Millions of dollars are being slashed from the education budget, but the state plans to spend thousands training veteran history teachers to teach less. What will be the net result of the proposed changes? Those in charge will proclaim it a success. Contrived tests will probably yield desired scores. But in a few years the truth will emerge. We will read surveys detailing the number of Georgia high school students who have no understanding of the Civil War. Newspaper articles will document the ridiculous ignorance among our teenagers regarding ancient civilizations. We will flush with embarrassment when students say "the Gettysburg what?" The public will demand, and rightfully so, a broad, thorough coverage of history on the high school level. Taxpayers will then be forced to pay for the development of yet another curriculum. Let us save ourselves trouble, expense and time by acknowledging that diluting our history courses solves nothing. In spite of efforts to make the new curriculum sound plausible, it is a terrible disservice to all Georgians. We should never seek to do less; never diminish our expectations; never weaken our standards. If we are to demand the best from our students, then surely they deserve only the best from us. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
