Enjoy: http://tfninsider.org/2010/03/11/blogging-the-social-studies-debate-iv/

First, your rejection of the word “genuine” to qualify civil rights claims means that you are just gullible, huh? Apparently you will buy anything belched out by race hustlers like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

Second, your rejection of my argument as a red herring is bullshit. Let me give you an analogy. Let’s say that I claim that Chrysler cars suck. Then you come back with a bunch of data showing that Ford and Chevy do not suck and say that my focusing on Chrysler is a red herring. That is weak and is exactly what you are doing. Save that approach for the intellectual lightweights at DailyKos or DemocraticUnderground.

As far as your shrieking about feedback, etc, apparently you are unfamiliar with blogs, Mason. People post things and often other things shake out in the comments as has happened here. Perhaps you should get out more. Perhaps out of your liberal cacoon.

You wrote: “We’re to believe that the statist boogyman is gonna screw us over and destroy our children. Puh-leeeeeze.”

I never expected you to be impressed with my criticisms of statists BECAUSE YOU ARE ONE. You certainly do not see how immoral your liberal statist ideology is or you would not likely be a follower of that immoral ideology.

You’re still not getting it at the same time you say I don’t. I believe I do but I’ll have to say your qualification about “HIGH SCHOOL” is a red herring. Are they teaching what you want them to teach or not? I get a reluctant admission that, yes indeed, they appear to be, in some way, kind of…I think…maybe? Cognitive dissonance much?

Now the argument gets impossible to make because we would be dealing with what we really don’t know…and that is, word for word, what comes out of the teacher’s mouth in the classroom and what words will be absorbed from the page of some book by the student and will that match the expectations (read: interpretation of what is important in history). Seeing as how most teachers are stupid, there’s no way for them to win in your world-view.

So with your foot on the throat of these idiots, you unleash this barrage of near nonsense railing on shadows. Not only are there a host of mitigating factors which pretty much pulls the rug out from under your argument, this enemy of yours is calling you to the table and beckons for your feedback. I just find that hilarious…epic even. Isn’t this process eerily democratic? Additionally, does it not in some poetic way, mimic the construction and deconstruction of the Articles of Confederation and eventual birth of the Constitution by welcoming this input and indicating certain that there will be subsequent revisions based on this feedback? Did THAT get any play in your piece? No, it didn’t. We’re to believe that the statist boogyman is gonna screw us over and destroy our children.

Puh-leeeeeze.

“This seems antithetical to the conservative ideal like how civil rights, justice and diversity are derided as liberal coddling. ”

I do not get that one at all. Genuine civil rights, genuine issues of justice, and genuine acceptance of (as opposed to canonization of) diversity are not things that conservatives consider to be liberal coddling. It is their over-political use that conservatives often object to.

So are you arguing they don’t introduce “founding principles” early enough? That they don’t teach it late enough? They don’t get enough exposure to these founding principles? That elementary and middle school installments of American history aren’t sufficient or aren’t as effective vs. being provided this instruction right before they jump off into the “real world”? Are we going to argue when it is best to introduce these principles or how long we should sustain this instruction throughout the students education?

And is chronologically sequencing through events between American colonialism and 1877 necessarily addressing this “need” you are describing? If I learn that so and so did this in 1776 and so and so wrote that 1764 and this battle happened on this date…does that necessarily mean we will be including this context of the “founding principles”? Surely we’re not going to split hairs and say they aren’t doing “enough” of it. No, it doesn’t. But most, not all, but most of those flipping out over this non-event seem to think so which is ridiculous.

Seems to me you can get straight to the heart of these principles without having to force it within the confines of “pre-1877″. As we’ve stated before, it appears this is actually being done so again I say, “What’s the fuss all about?”.

If that’s what the debate devolves into, this insistence and laser focus on how robust the romance issued for the “American Experiment” or how “exceptional” America is sounds like a presciption for “coddling” to me. “We have to make sure we are protecting the children!” This seems antithetical to the conservative ideal like how civil rights, justice and diversity are derided as liberal coddling. Not sure how they would described differently.

Again, Mason, though you do make some worthwhile points the reality is that the history curriculum in high school would change from including pre-1877 history in History Class to excluding it. Some of the other classes do indeed help supplement that to a certain extent but the fact remains that they are proposing to limit their high school history curriculum to 1877-present. The fact that you can find history-related tidbits in other classes does not change that simple fact, though it does ease my mind a little bit about the NC high school curriculum.

Sure, some of the other snippets from other courses will help but the fact is that they propose to limit high school History Class to post-1877. Tongue in cheek, but next you will be telling me that since they read textbooks in math class it will count as literature. ;^)

There is more “mitigating” elements to be found for the 12th grade in the “Turning Points in American History” document.

One assessment prototype reads:

“To what extent was the election of 1800 a revolution? How did Jefferson’s actions as president reflect constitutional and political ideas of the period. How did Jefferson’s foreign policy and domestic issues interact”

– or –

“Why did the British government create the Proclamation Line of 1763? How did the line create tension that led to the American Revolution?”

– or –

“Why were European nations interested in colonizing America? Why were Roanoke and Jamestown chosen as sites of settlement? What is the difference between exploration and settlement? What did we learn although Roanoke Island was a failure?”

– or — (Humanities, 12th grade)

“How does Crevecoeur define what it means to be an American in 1782?”

– or — (continuing with Humanities, 12th grade)

“Evaluate changes in rhetorical and artistic expressions of identity in the United States from the early national period to the present in terms of logic, reason, faith and superstition.”

Also, you keep harping on this notion of the students must be prepared to enter the world with some understanding of the “founding principles”.

“Through the study of Civics and Economics, students will acquire the skills and knowledge necessary to become responsible and effective citizens in an interdependent world. Students will need a practical understanding of these systems of civics and economics that affect their lives as consumers and citizens.”

Keep in mind a) this is in the 10th grade and b) directly addresses this deep concern you have for “preparing students” for the future, directly even. It’s as if they knew you were going to publish to this blog on this topic. How prescient of these ignorant, stupid government, riding the Bell Curve low-lifes.

Stunning, I say.

That paragraph is about their entire education. It is not about requiring it in high school, which is my point and the point of my “6 year” comment.

“Admit it bro, you ain’t got nothin’ but a tempest in a teapot here.”

You are intentionally missing my point. I talk repeatedly about high school and you quote something about Kindergarten and first grade.

“Proposed changes to the North Carolina high school history curriculum have many people upset with critics correctly pointing out that the state is simply cutting out the first half of U.S. History.” — You

That is what I wrote and it is accurate. Many people are upset and they *are* proposing cutting out the first half of US History FOR HIGH SCHOOLERS though we have agreed that the 10th Grade Civics class helps.

“You excelled in your freedom to speak but failed in your responsibility to correctly represent not only the intent of the Dept of Education in North Carolina but factually misrepresented that American History before 1877 would not be taught.”

Under the proposed changes, pre-1877 *History* would not be taught in HIGH SCHOOL, which is what I have been talking about this entire time. How are you not getting that?

Again, the only difference between my original post and where we have arrived is the fact that the 10th grade Civics class helps. It does *involve* some US History but is not a pre-1877 American History course.

“North Carolina statutes require the teaching of foundational information about our history, including the Federalist Papers, the Founding Fathers, and so forth. Our goal is to continue that instruction and to increase the amount of U.S. History that North Carolina students learn in kindergarten through graduation. Draft 2.0 of these standards will be posted before April and will reflect changes suggested in the public input regarding U.S. History.”

They are mandated BY LAW to teach what you preach. This therefore further diminishes the relevance of your tirade.

“Under this plan their exposure to that is 6 years old in their freshman year of college.” – You (Comment @ 4:01 PM)

You don’t know that. Just like I don’t know for sure that the Essential Standard expressed for K.C&G.1 (Civics and Government – Kindergarten and 1st Grade) under the title “Understand the roles of a responsible citizen” will include instruction on the “founding principles”. Maybe it will, maybe it won’t. But if it does, it will make your statement above doubly incorrect…literally, by another 6 years.

Admit it bro, you ain’t got nothin’ but a tempest in a teapot here.

“Proposed changes to the North Carolina high school history curriculum have many people upset with critics correctly pointing out that the state is simply cutting out the first half of U.S. History.” — You

And sorry Rob, try as you might, this is at best, a misrepresentation without any redeeming qualification to clarify or rescue the notion later in your article. In my opinion, it is more than a misrepresentation. You excelled in your freedom to speak but failed in your responsibility to correctly represent not only the intent of the Dept of Education in North Carolina but factually misrepresented that American History before 1877 would not be taught. You can’t escape that.

To quote one high school student in North Carolina (and I’m sure this is the case in other areas of the Union) “I already learned last year that Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, do I really need to learn that again this year?”

This is what they were trying to address which is duplication of effort along with the demands of trying to insert more subject matter into the curriculum. With all reasonable consideration of the first order of evidence available, this is their intent. It is not some attempt by the “evil liberal left” to “screw with history”, “revisionism” or whatever pithy turn of phrase you would like to recycle.

Could you be any more ludicrous?

Stay tuned…

I did not imply that these were anything more than proposed changes. But even in that first link, they do clearly state that they will not be covering pre-1877 history in high school because they feel that “the years prior to reconstruction would have been covered with students three times before – in fourth grade (as part of North Carolina history) in fifth grade and in seventh grade.” I understand that this is their position and they feel that it has merit.

However, the point of my response to these proposed changes was my position that we need to be teaching the core ideals of what makes the American Experiment so exceptional as we prepare these young people to go out into the world. I think that realizing why we are not just another country is key to staying that way. Under this plan their exposure to that is 6 years old in their freshman year of college.

Having said that, I will concede that your point that parts of the 10th grade Civics curriculum do help that to some extent. Study of our unique-though-presently-dysfunctional government is a part of our core identity. However, I stand by my argument that lacking pre-1877 history in the years before college (or not, for many) means that they get perhaps half of what they would be getting in the “American Exceptionalism 101″ preparation that I have emphasized.

But that’s about all we have changed from what I wrote to begin with – that they will still get some good related stuff from Civics class. The proposed history changes were not misreported.