I have been appalled at how little younger people know about the founding of this nation (the USA) and how much of what they "know" is flat out wrong. I'm convinced our schools must have stopped teaching USA History 25 years ago. What a shame.
History
- Thread starter Smitty37
- Start date
Signed-In Members Don't See This Ad
Signed-In Members Don't See This Ad
artillerist
Member
I graduated from high school 22yrs. ago and in the time since have come to learn that they either taught what they felt like or just enough to get by. Since then I found out that about half the history I was taught was wrong (completely) and the other half was not complete. Even though I had teachers that I took to be good at what they did and cared about their students. Too much effort put on standardized tests and not enough on what matters.
nativewooder
Member
I graduated from HS in 1960 and can guarantee you that the teachers cared about what they taught and who they taught it to. We had plain old text books that were taken from encyclopedia books or something like that. ALL our tests were standardized but the weekly and daily quizzes came from what we had been studying. You knew the teachers had to care if you knew how little they were paid. Today, I dunno! I'm sure there are some teachers today who get a thrill out of the students who actually learn from them. But the federal government interference with the educational system to make sure their vote-buying assured their re-election has dropped the requirements for teaching and attendance and behavior to the point that I don't understand why more parents don't home-school their kids. Thanks for the opportunity to rant! I apologize if this offended any ultra-liberal welfare users!
Displaced Canadian
Member
I think part of the issue is people read less and even less non fiction. I read a biography about Abe Lincon and it took longer to read that book than to listen to everything the teacher had to say about him. Most people who work with me say I'm the smartest person they know. The simple fact is, I've read the most. I don't blame the teachers, they have a difficult job and the education of a child requires input from the parent and the education system. The education system does need fixing, but most of those changes involve cost. Smaller class sizes, involved parents, and more hands on learning equals better educated students. Until we have the perfect system, encourage your children to read and watch the history channel.
Drstrangefart
Member
I went to school in an area where people express their condolences when I tell them where I went. Half of history class was watching a movie every day. The other half was just filling in blanks on Xerox sheets. THAT was the entire year. I pay enough attention to know enough of what's out there, but a lot of the history IS incomplete and being changed all the time by new evidence or the release of information that had been classified for the last 50 years.
Dave Turner
Member
Back in the 60's, when I was in the public school system, I remember my history teachers always running short of time when it came to US history. We spent too much time on the revolutionary war, skimmed the civil war, and skipped everything after that.
Carefully stepping onto my soapbox:
I think most teachers now are vastly underpaid for the task they should be doing. The people educating your children should be held in as high a regard as your physician. Teachers are just as important- both on a personal level and to society in general. If the positions paid better, they'd be able to attract and retain the caliber of instructors that we need.
Parents also need to be playing a much larger role in their children's education. The schools can provide a framework and starting point for learning. The parents need to fill in the details and let their kids know how the subjects they're learning fit into the real world. Two hours a day or more should be the norm for parents to interact with their kids. They should be reviewing homework to ensure completeness and provide remedial teaching. They should know when tests are coming up and be informed of how their student performed. They should be sharing their joy of reading with their kids.
Step down from soapbox.
Sometimes if feels good to vent.
Carefully stepping onto my soapbox:
I think most teachers now are vastly underpaid for the task they should be doing. The people educating your children should be held in as high a regard as your physician. Teachers are just as important- both on a personal level and to society in general. If the positions paid better, they'd be able to attract and retain the caliber of instructors that we need.
Parents also need to be playing a much larger role in their children's education. The schools can provide a framework and starting point for learning. The parents need to fill in the details and let their kids know how the subjects they're learning fit into the real world. Two hours a day or more should be the norm for parents to interact with their kids. They should be reviewing homework to ensure completeness and provide remedial teaching. They should know when tests are coming up and be informed of how their student performed. They should be sharing their joy of reading with their kids.
Step down from soapbox.
Sometimes if feels good to vent.
You are right that reading is very important --- and --- it is being stressed less and less all the time.
I don't think I agree with the smaller class size issue is a resolution of the issue. I believe it is what is being taught, and, probably more importantly, what is not being taught that create the problem.
The second issue that I believe is a heavy contributor to the "dumbing down" of education, is the lack of dicipline and control in the classroom and the inability of the schools to remove/resolve disruptive kids.
If I were doing it over today I would home school my children.
moke
Member
Rant open...
What does Chumlee, the pickers, and choot em lidabet' have to offer about history?
Rant closed...
My opinion is that dog don't hunt. Teachers are nearly all represented by Unions now and their wages and benefits are established by collective bargaining - they are not underpaid and their benefits are second to none.
I personally believe that the problems we have with teachers (if there is a problem with teachers - and I'm not saying that there are any.) stems from the inadaquacy of their education not their salary. Teaching programs at state universities (where most teachers get their education) tend to have very lax entry standards not geared to attracting high acheivers and the programs themselves seem to me to be poorly designed concentrating on "how to teach ???" rather than learning ???. You can substitute any subject for ???. Now that is not the teachers' fault, the teachers go to college and take the courses required and offered like anyone else, but they don't come out of college ready to be top notch teachers.
In my opinion, there are a few colleges that produce excellent teachers but many that really don't and there in lies the problem.
Akula
Member
Progressive Teachers and Schools. Change what they teach and change what people know about history. This younger group has become the less informed and instant gratification generation. OWS is a perfect example. There are still a lot of good kids out there today but we have made little to no progress in improving the inner city education system. Our ranking in the world is proof something needs to go back to the way things were. No excuse to not producing higher levels of thinking. Too many kids see as they are forced to going to school and in most places in the world they still consider it a privilege. There are even places where they PAY kids just to attend. The adults do not get a pass on the blame. Everyone got so busy working and keeping up with others, they allowed TV to take their place as parents. They didn't take the time to question what was being taught in the schools. Now we all know what the problems are, it's going to take a lot of hard work to get us back to where we should be in education.
AnachitlPut
Member
i just want to put this out there i am 16 and i know alot about my country and i have taken american history and about to take ap american history ( wich i might had is one of the hardest classes you can take) i not sure why you think we don't know about the past. now i will give you this i know there is a portion of people out there both young and old who have no idea how this country started.
AnachitlPut
Member
oh and there is no union for teachers in the southern states
ctubbs
Member
Smitty, your theory applies to any subject taught in any college you wish to mention, teaching, nursing, engineering, just add your branch. Everyone is taught how to do mundane things without having any real idea about how to do the job they will have when school is over. My late bride as well as my current bride, both BSN, RN and neither one knew anything about floor work in a hospital. They had to learn that once hired to do it. I work with Electrical Engineers routinely and none of the new Grads have any idea about reading drawings or how to make things work. OOPS, I've been back on my soapbox. Sorry, I'm off now.
Charles
Charles
I graduated from high school and got my degree in 1982 - I took my first college courses in 1966/67 and got B's then work intervened and I left college for a bit- I went back in 1976/1977 and got A's at what was supposedly a 'tougher' college. My work didn't get better - getting A's got easier. My Navy ET School was tougher than college.
Luke, we think you don't know much about History not because you aren't intelligent enough, but because you only know what you are taught. Our thinking is that you have not been taught enough and that too much of what you have been taught is not accurate. A suggestion I would make is if you are really interested in learning history, go to Hillsdale College after you finish high school.
TellicoTurning
Member
I have a daughter that is a teacher and a very dedicated one... my suggestion on the education of our young, take the government out of the schools and let the teachers be in charge. When teachers have to teach to a test so the schools can get funding from the government, they don't/can't spend a lot of time on the subjects at hand.... I graduated in 1960 and they were just beginning to develop the "achievement" test, but we took them without preparation for them... they were supposed to have been for the support of the teachers to see how well the students were comprehending what was being taught. They have devolved into something to determine how much money the schools should get per student or something like that.
Let the teachers do their jobs, there are many many good people out there trying to do the right thing, but often have their hands tied by school systems regulations.
Let the teachers do their jobs, there are many many good people out there trying to do the right thing, but often have their hands tied by school systems regulations.
StephenM
Member
That's an awful bold (and rude) statement made to someone you don't know.
If you look back (i.e. learn your history), you will find that these same conversations have been going on since there was an older generation and a younger generation.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
We are in agreement in some of what you are saying, schools spend far too much effort and too many resources worrying about things which are unrelated to education. They are unable to maintain dicipline, sports are over-emphasized and they have too much nonsense forced into the cirriculum so everybody can graduate.
On the other hand the standardized tests affecting funding are relatively recent and are a reaction to the poor performance of our students - my opinion is they are not the cause of the poor performance. I believe that if the subject is taught correctly the tests will take care of themselves.
Glen Schumann
Member
Robert111
Member
I taught English for 37 years and then worked for an educational consulting firm for seven more. I edited college and secondary school texts (over 60) and instructional materials. My $.02:
Problem 1: There are more students today who are problem learners than ever before, coming from broken and single-parent homes, from neglectful parents, from non-English-speaking homes, from crime and drug-ridden neighborhoods, from impoverished homes, etc. Many overcome their handicaps, but many more are a challenge to even the most committed and hard-working teachers. Some can be induced to take an interest, but it takes tremendous energy, time and talent.
Problem 2: If there are poor teachers (and there certainly are), there are poor school administrators. Leading a faculty calls for a supremely courageous, talented and intelligent man or woman. I have a school administrator's certification in New York. I've also edited books in management. The approach to leading workers in education is miles, MILES! behind that found in the private sector.
Problem 1: There are more students today who are problem learners than ever before, coming from broken and single-parent homes, from neglectful parents, from non-English-speaking homes, from crime and drug-ridden neighborhoods, from impoverished homes, etc. Many overcome their handicaps, but many more are a challenge to even the most committed and hard-working teachers. Some can be induced to take an interest, but it takes tremendous energy, time and talent.
Problem 2: If there are poor teachers (and there certainly are), there are poor school administrators. Leading a faculty calls for a supremely courageous, talented and intelligent man or woman. I have a school administrator's certification in New York. I've also edited books in management. The approach to leading workers in education is miles, MILES! behind that found in the private sector.
Last edited:
Here in SW Florida Reading is emphasized and required. The school system in my county requires the elementary students to read and pass a test on the books they read. They receive points for their testing performance and its based on the level of the books they read. Harder books have greater points. They have quarterly minimum score level goals they must meet as part of their grade. This year they have implemented required reading for the summer for the next grade level. both in elementary and middle school levels. I don't think there is any occupation that you cant say there are people who do an outstanding job and there are those taking up space. I feel that the parents that use the schools as a daycare facility and don't take an active part in the child's education other than when a "problem" arises carry most of the blame. Then next largest pet peeve is the parents that blame everyone else but the child and themselves for their child's problems at school. And at 56 I'm raising 2 of my grandchildren that are in 7th and 5th grade respectively. I would not agree on the pay scale issue entirely, our teachers are paid on an annual basis and recieve their entire summer pay in one lump sum at the end of school year. Most of the teachers take summer jobs on top of that pay. My daughters best friend from her school years is a teacher now and its not as low as I thought it was.
I opened this thread to mention what our children are not being taught. Not the problems faced by schools. The simple fact in my opinion is that the schools are not teaching the right things. That would still be the case even if there were no problems. No one has blamed the teachers, they teach what they have been taught and if they have not been taught the right things that isn't their fault but they can't teach what they don't know.
I have never met a school administrator in my life who did not begin as a classroom teacher and didn't get their advanced education according to the certification requirements of their state school system. They are the result of the same educational system that is producing the teachers. I don't think school boards are out there looking only for bad teachers to become administrators.
If they are emphasizing reading that's a good start.
Frank Nemke sr
Member
My son got caught ditching school. One week suspention. Asked the prin. "why are you rewarding him for ditching. He just gave me a dumb look
AnachitlPut
Member
i have to agree that this is getting really insulting that becouse of my age i can't know about history becouse schools don't have time to teach it. ( wich hasn't changed) i find it rude that yall say such things without know the real facts.
IPD_Mr
Member
You are right that not everything on the History channel is about history, but they do offer some really great history shows from time to time. For example on the 4th they had an almost all day long series on the Revolution. THAT was very educational. While not the most educational you will find that Pickers and Pawn Stars do offer a bit of education. The other day they talked about the first President of the United States. It was not Washington. Washington was the first president under the constitution that we follow today. Pickers has a bit of history when it comes to the industrial period of the US and does touch on WWII and the Civil War from time to time. But all in all it is the daytime shows not the prime time shows on the History channel that educate.
The statement is neither personal nor rude. Any young person knows only what they have been taught. And, saying that they have not been taught enough about a particular subject is no reflection what-so-ever on them.
Saying that I am appalled by how little about history young people know is if anything a reflection on older people who taught them or decided what to teach them.
It is no insult. Regardless of how bright you are and how well you have learned - what you know is constrained by what you have been exposed to. That is no reflection at at all on you - you might know twice as much as your peers.
I have been 16 (a long time ago) and I have raised 6 children all of whom were also 16 at one time and have had neices, nephews, grand neices and nephews around who were all 16 at one time. And including myself, I have never known a 16 year old who didn't think they knew more than they actually did - it goes with the territory and there's not a thing wrong with it.
AnachitlPut
Member
i not saying i know every thing about history but i know my fare share. i do find your statments rude. i said i know my history and alot of people tell me to make it brief no you don't know ( even though you don't have a clue what i have in my head and i have been tought)
and yes i do know my fare share of history. just becouse some kids my age don't doesn't mean all do. your side of it saying i don't know is rude and little consided
and yes i do know my fare share of history. just becouse some kids my age don't doesn't mean all do. your side of it saying i don't know is rude and little consided
AnachitlPut
Member
and your hole argument is based on the fact that i am puplic schooled. wich is a bold asumstion and a little consided.
Boy when I was your age, I had to walk 4 miles up hill both ways just to get to school. Gas was .22 cents a gallon. Kids respected their elders and always replied with sir or maam. Heck we never even had conditioned air. We never had tv and worked from daylight to dark.
I've heard every complaint known to man about the YOUNG GENERATION. I consider myself a very well educated 35 year old. I read alot and watch programs on tv about history. I graduated from high school in 94 and I can tell you that history class was short and sweet. Hit a few basics on different aspects of a certain period of time and move on to the next subject of history. I've learned more about history from reading books than i ever learned in school. 95% of all books i read are non-fiction, mostly biography's, biker gang's, true crime's, and books on war. The only fiction books i've read that i liked were Dan Brown Books. Angels and Demons, DaVinci Code, Lost Symbol, Deception Point and a couple others.
But what irritates me is all the older generation constantly complaining about the young people. Maybe when i'm 60 or 70 i'll be doing the same, but you have to realize, the world has drastically changed since you were young.
Now to step off my soapbox and prepare for incoming retalitation.
I've heard every complaint known to man about the YOUNG GENERATION. I consider myself a very well educated 35 year old. I read alot and watch programs on tv about history. I graduated from high school in 94 and I can tell you that history class was short and sweet. Hit a few basics on different aspects of a certain period of time and move on to the next subject of history. I've learned more about history from reading books than i ever learned in school. 95% of all books i read are non-fiction, mostly biography's, biker gang's, true crime's, and books on war. The only fiction books i've read that i liked were Dan Brown Books. Angels and Demons, DaVinci Code, Lost Symbol, Deception Point and a couple others.
But what irritates me is all the older generation constantly complaining about the young people. Maybe when i'm 60 or 70 i'll be doing the same, but you have to realize, the world has drastically changed since you were young.
Now to step off my soapbox and prepare for incoming retalitation.
Just a point of fact to consider when watching the history network for its historical value - most of the history programs that make it to television are geared toward the wider audience...meaning that facts can be 'interpreted' in a different way which is more approachable to TV viewers than perhaps what one might find in an academic journal.
Most of what we 'know' in later life comes from our own studies - grade school is just there to light the fire and passion for learning on our own...As a History teacher, I'm not going to weigh in on the argument in this thread, but I do think that I'd like to leave you with my favourite history quote by E.H. Carr. (It's not word-for-word, as it's from my head...I came across it in university in a Masters Historiography course; I think it's a very wonderful 'telling' of how facts and 'history' should be approached by the student of history.
"Facts are not at all fish on a fishmongers' slab, but rather fish in a vast and somewhat inaccessable ocean - what the historian chooses to catch depends partly on chance, but mostly on what part of the ocean the historian choses to fish and what tackle he chooses to use - these being of course determined by what kind of fish he wants to catch. By and large, the historian will catch the facts that he wants to catch. " (This is just a rough qutoe from memory - it's from E.H. Carr's "What is History" if you're interested in looking up the original. As a tome on historiography, however, it's worth looking up - a very interesting read!)
History as a discipline is just interpretation about events of the pas as recorded and documented by people biased by the times in which they lived. Please keep this in mind when reading/watching history. (and Abraham Lincoln likely didn't fight vampires! :biggrin
Most of what we 'know' in later life comes from our own studies - grade school is just there to light the fire and passion for learning on our own...As a History teacher, I'm not going to weigh in on the argument in this thread, but I do think that I'd like to leave you with my favourite history quote by E.H. Carr. (It's not word-for-word, as it's from my head...I came across it in university in a Masters Historiography course; I think it's a very wonderful 'telling' of how facts and 'history' should be approached by the student of history.
"Facts are not at all fish on a fishmongers' slab, but rather fish in a vast and somewhat inaccessable ocean - what the historian chooses to catch depends partly on chance, but mostly on what part of the ocean the historian choses to fish and what tackle he chooses to use - these being of course determined by what kind of fish he wants to catch. By and large, the historian will catch the facts that he wants to catch. " (This is just a rough qutoe from memory - it's from E.H. Carr's "What is History" if you're interested in looking up the original. As a tome on historiography, however, it's worth looking up - a very interesting read!)
History as a discipline is just interpretation about events of the pas as recorded and documented by people biased by the times in which they lived. Please keep this in mind when reading/watching history. (and Abraham Lincoln likely didn't fight vampires! :biggrin
ctubbs
Member
History as a discipline is just interpretation about events of the pas as recorded and documented by people biased by the times in which they lived. Please keep this in mind when reading/watching history. (and Abraham Lincoln likely didn't fight vampires! :biggrin
WHAT!! are you really sure?
My History teachers also informed me to take all printed history with much salt due to the fact it was all written by the winners. There are at least two sides to any history and most likely three, your side, my side and the correct side. Not meaning to take sides, oh well of course I am, Smitty is somewhat correct, we only know what we actually experienced or have been taught. We depend on the honesty of those before us to tell the truth. Sorry, but that does not always happen.
And yes, Andrew, Abe fought vampires
and the CDC has officially announced that the 'walking dead' do not actually exist.
What have we come to when the CDC has to actually make such an announcement!:rotfl:Charles
I did not say that you don't know your fair share - I said you don't know as much as you think you know.
I also said that the reason you don't is because you know only what you have been taught and as a coming junior (or possibly senior) in high school that is not a lot. There is nothing negative about you in that.
You did not say "I know my history" you said "I know a lot of history".
You are right I don't know what you have in your head but I do have a pretty good idea of what you have been taught in history and it hasn't been a whole lot.
To give you an idea of what I mean. On my college transcript I have 21 credit hours of History - probably as much as your teacher has unless he/she is a history major. In addition, since I have a concentration in Political Science I have a number of poly sci credits that are history related. I've also read at least 100 memoirs and or historical books outside of class. I don't consider that I "know a lot" of history. I learn something new about it almost every day.
Let's just say you and I don't mean the same thing when we say "a lot" and leave it at that.
Last edited:
Glenn McCullough
Member
If you care to, see this site from one of my customers. He is a Michigan Judge who wrote a book about taking back America and getting back to it's founding principals. He is a genuine caring American on a crusade with his daughter. They are making some noise!!
America's Survival Guide
America's Survival Guide
Looks pretty interesting Glenn. I'm ordering a few books from Amazon tomorrow and will add this one to my order.
I think I'll put that on my reading list. We need to start thinking like that. Societies based on democratic ideas tend to experience this kind of trouble when majorities discover they can vote themselves benefits at the expense of the minority and/or politicians learn they can buy votes by offering some people benefits at the expense of other people. We as a nation might be too far gone to turn it around, but maybe not.
AnachitlPut
Member
here is what you said
me i have to disagree with part of what you said. i am 16 and i know alot about this countrys history.
Originally Posted by Luke Putman
i have to disagree with part of what you said. i am 16 and i know alot about this countrys history.
smitty
Hello, I sincerely doubt that you know very much at all about the History of the United States
( Wich is very condescending)
In this statment (which i might add is very bold and rude to say to someone which you don't know) you question what i know about united states history. How are you supposed to know and assess what history is in my head? for all you know i am super smart and spend my days learning all i can about American history. you are in no place to judge my knowlege on american history untill we sit and spend atleast a couple of hours talking about it.
me i have to disagree with part of what you said. i am 16 and i know alot about this countrys history.
Originally Posted by Luke Putman
i have to disagree with part of what you said. i am 16 and i know alot about this countrys history.
smitty
Hello, I sincerely doubt that you know very much at all about the History of the United States
( Wich is very condescending)
In this statment (which i might add is very bold and rude to say to someone which you don't know) you question what i know about united states history. How are you supposed to know and assess what history is in my head? for all you know i am super smart and spend my days learning all i can about American history. you are in no place to judge my knowlege on american history untill we sit and spend atleast a couple of hours talking about it.
Signed-In Members Don't See This Ad
AnachitlPut
Member
oh and this is what i get form you thought on how i know things. i only know what is tought to me and if what was tought to me was wrong then i know wrong things.
this is wrong in more than one way. i know more than what i been tought. i personally search for things thus i was never tought it i learned it on my own. If someone thinks that you get out of school and are done learning they are foolish. live is one big class room. no matter what stage of life you are in you should allways be learning.
this is wrong in more than one way. i know more than what i been tought. i personally search for things thus i was never tought it i learned it on my own. If someone thinks that you get out of school and are done learning they are foolish. live is one big class room. no matter what stage of life you are in you should allways be learning.