Quote: He may be the president who governed during the Civil War, freeing the slaves, but under a new curriculum proposal for North Carolina high schools, U.S. history would begin years after President Lincoln, with the presidency of Rutherford B. Hayes in 1877.

State education leaders say this may help students learn about more recent history in greater depth.

"We are certainly not trying to go away from American history," Rebecca Garland, the chief academic officer for North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, told Fox News. "What we are trying to do is figure out a way to teach it where students are connected to it, where they see the big idea, where they are able to make connections and draw relationships between parts of our history and the present day."

As the North Carolina curriculum stands now, ninth-grade students take world history, 10th-graders study civics and economics and 11th-graders take U.S. history going back to the country's founding.

Under the proposed change, the ninth-graders would take a course called global studies, focusing in part on issues such as the environment. The 10th grade still would study civics and economics, but 11th-graders would take U.S. history only from 1877 onward. ---MORE---

Global studies? Anyone else still wonder why our younger generation sounds like a bunch of dumbasses when it comes to the Constitution?

Oh yeah, because global warming deserves far more attention than the Constitution.

Oh well, just means my kids won't have much competition.

Hell. Most of the teachers don't know about anything that happened before 1980. And that's the good ones.

(02-03-2010 10:18 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

Quote: He may be the president who governed during the Civil War, freeing the slaves, but under a new curriculum proposal for North Carolina high schools, U.S. history would begin years after President Lincoln, with the presidency of Rutherford B. Hayes in 1877.

State education leaders say this may help students learn about more recent history in greater depth.

"We are certainly not trying to go away from American history," Rebecca Garland, the chief academic officer for North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, told Fox News. "What we are trying to do is figure out a way to teach it where students are connected to it, where they see the big idea, where they are able to make connections and draw relationships between parts of our history and the present day."

As the North Carolina curriculum stands now, ninth-grade students take world history, 10th-graders study civics and economics and 11th-graders take U.S. history going back to the country's founding.

Under the proposed change, the ninth-graders would take a course called global studies, focusing in part on issues such as the environment. The 10th grade still would study civics and economics, but 11th-graders would take U.S. history only from 1877 onward. ---MORE---

Global studies? Anyone else still wonder why our younger generation sounds like a bunch of dumbasses when it comes to the Constitution?

Would they not study the Constitution in civics class in 10th grade? I guess they could flip-flop 9th and 10th grade. I also am going to assume that your contention would be that if they do teach the Constitution they teach it from the left and not the right.

:muttering: Damn NEA and SEIU...


Increase of Up to $4 Billion in Proposed 2011 Funding Part of ESEA Renewal Bid

By Alyson Klein

Despite a pledge to hold down spending on most domestic programs, President Barack Obama called for greater investment in public schools in his State of the Union address as part of a push to renew the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

The president’s fiscal year 2011 budget, which was slated to be released Feb. 1, was expected to include a 6.2 percent increase to the U.S. Department of Education’s budget, including up to $4 billion more for K-12 education. The department’s discretionary budget for fiscal 2010 is roughly $63.7 billion.

If approved, the funding boost would represent the largest increase in federal education spending...

http://www.edweek.org/login.html?source=...velId=2100

(02-04-2010 04:09 AM)RobertN Wrote:  Would they not study the Constitution in civics class in 10th grade? I guess they could flip-flop 9th and 10th grade. I also am going to assume that your contention would be that if they do teach the Constitution they teach it from the left and not the right.

The Constitution is the Constitution. It's not a left or right document. It IS , however, something that ALL parties should try their damnedest to pattern themselves after.

Sounds like you're happy about the decision. So, I guess they learn about the Constitution in Civics class, but don't know a damn thing about the founders who authored it, the necessity for it, or the reason it came into being.

Yeah, GREAT dumb*** idea, Robert.

Easy for the liberals to discount the Constitution if no one knows why the fk it was needed to begin with.

North Carolina High School Civics is a joke. I was even in the Chapel Hill-Carborro district and I learned more about the Constitution from a single book (6 years later) than I did from an entire year from an instructor. Its pretty much Bill of Rights (which you skim over), brief coverage of the amendments and structure of government (which just makes most students even more confused, because we all know how focused teenagers are in HS). While 3/4 of my social studies teacher were decent, after the course I'm sure most of my classmates thought that the Constitution was an outdated document that was written by slave-owning white males that is no longer fit to run our present nation. This decision just makes clear the reasons why NC education is ranked 48th in the country.

Taking the last nine years into account, and the probable advancement of a global surveillance society, maybe an entire year of Constitution Studies should be de rigueur?

If I play my cards right, I'd like to retire in my mid-fifties and spend five years or so teaching HS civics or social studies, concentrating on the Declaration of Independence, the Revolutionary War and the Constitution. Hopefully in concert with moving to a small town, restoring an ol' Victorian, coaching swimming and running for City Council.

I can't imagine many history teachers being happy with it. My mom is a history teacher and she would certainly be pissed if they got rid of some of the most important parts of US history.

Because students can be so easily "connected" to Rutherford B. Hayes. LOL

(02-04-2010 12:31 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Because students can be so easily "connected" to Rutherford B. Hayes. LOL

I figured it was about the time the "populist" movement got traction.

Why not indoctrinate students into believing that our country was founded on an entitlement mentality?

(02-04-2010 12:31 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Because students can be so easily "connected" to Rutherford B. Hayes. LOL

Probably can't connect with Hitler either. Guess he's not worth learning about. Hey, I know, that old white guy Jefferson? Yeah, I don't see them connecting with him either. Might as well scrub him as well.

That type of idiotic reasoning runs in stark contrast of the reason we TEACH history. If they want to sit on their asses and listen to only **** they want to listen to they can keep their sorryasses at home and watch TV.

(02-04-2010 08:08 AM)Rebel Wrote:  

(02-04-2010 04:09 AM)RobertN Wrote:  Would they not study the Constitution in civics class in 10th grade? I guess they could flip-flop 9th and 10th grade. I also am going to assume that your contention would be that if they do teach the Constitution they teach it from the left and not the right.

The Constitution is the Constitution. It's not a left or right document. It IS , however, something that ALL parties should try their damnedest to pattern themselves after.

Sounds like you're happy about the decision. So, I guess they learn about the Constitution in Civics class, but don't know a damn thing about the founders who authored it, the necessity for it, or the reason it came into being.

Yeah, GREAT dumb*** idea, Robert.

Easy for the liberals to discount the Constitution if no one knows why the fk it was needed to begin with.

Remember to the liberals the constitution is "Living,breathing and changing". Something they can change to fit their purpose when needed.

(02-04-2010 01:15 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(02-04-2010 12:31 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Because students can be so easily "connected" to Rutherford B. Hayes. LOL

Probably can't connect with Hitler either. Guess he's not worth learning about. Hey, I know, that old white guy Jefferson? Yeah, I don't see them connecting with him either. Might as well scrub him as well.

That type of idiotic reasoning runs in stark contrast of the reason we TEACH history. If they want to sit on their asses and listen to only **** they want to listen to they can keep their sorryasses at home and watch TV.

What is your problem?

(02-04-2010 01:35 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-04-2010 01:15 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(02-04-2010 12:31 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Because students can be so easily "connected" to Rutherford B. Hayes. LOL

Probably can't connect with Hitler either. Guess he's not worth learning about. Hey, I know, that old white guy Jefferson? Yeah, I don't see them connecting with him either. Might as well scrub him as well.

That type of idiotic reasoning runs in stark contrast of the reason we TEACH history. If they want to sit on their asses and listen to only **** they want to listen to they can keep their sorryasses at home and watch TV.

What is your problem?

I'm tired of seeing the country turned to ****.

(02-04-2010 01:41 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(02-04-2010 01:35 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-04-2010 01:15 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(02-04-2010 12:31 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Because students can be so easily "connected" to Rutherford B. Hayes. LOL

Probably can't connect with Hitler either. Guess he's not worth learning about. Hey, I know, that old white guy Jefferson? Yeah, I don't see them connecting with him either. Might as well scrub him as well.

That type of idiotic reasoning runs in stark contrast of the reason we TEACH history. If they want to sit on their asses and listen to only **** they want to listen to they can keep their sorryasses at home and watch TV.

What is your problem?

I'm tired of seeing the country turned to ****.

My statement, and my opinion, has nothing to do with turning the country to ****. I was making fun of the reasoning used for their decision. But I guess that was too subtle?

Hey, at least the history books are still in English....

(02-04-2010 01:48 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  Hey, at least the history books are still in English....

Don't even give them any ideas.

(02-04-2010 01:43 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-04-2010 01:41 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(02-04-2010 01:35 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-04-2010 01:15 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(02-04-2010 12:31 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Because students can be so easily "connected" to Rutherford B. Hayes. LOL

Probably can't connect with Hitler either. Guess he's not worth learning about. Hey, I know, that old white guy Jefferson? Yeah, I don't see them connecting with him either. Might as well scrub him as well.

That type of idiotic reasoning runs in stark contrast of the reason we TEACH history. If they want to sit on their asses and listen to only **** they want to listen to they can keep their sorryasses at home and watch TV.

What is your problem?

I'm tired of seeing the country turned to ****.

My statement, and my opinion, has nothing to do with turning the country to ****. I was making fun of the reasoning used for their decision. But I guess that was too subtle?

I could be wrong, but I thought Reb was venting at the education "professionals," not at your ridicule of them.

(02-04-2010 09:57 AM)T-Monay820 Wrote:  North Carolina High School Civics is a joke. I was even in the Chapel Hill-Carborro district and I learned more about the Constitution from a single book (6 years later) than I did from an entire year from an instructor. Its pretty much Bill of Rights (which you skim over), brief coverage of the amendments and structure of government (which just makes most students even more confused, because we all know how focused teenagers are in HS). While 3/4 of my social studies teacher were decent, after the course I'm sure most of my classmates thought that the Constitution was an outdated document that was written by slave-owning white males that is no longer fit to run our present nation. This decision just makes clear the reasons why NC education is ranked 48th in the country.

I also went through NC ed not so long ago and I am a child of a NC educator. The way we had it in 2002 was that 9th took ELPS (Civics and Economics), 10th World History, 11th US History, 12th had optional AP Gov't and Politics. We learned plenty of the constitution in ELPS but it wasn't pounded into our heads through repetition like some other school systems do and it left us with a lack of true understanding of what the constitution meant.

While I was in Quebec, however, we had Federal Government and Provincial Government as two separate, semester long classes. They both went over nothing but the respective constitutions and it pains me to say that I can recite the amendments to those two constitution better than the US or NC constitutions.

I honestly think that we just need to get people who have been old school educators to run our school systems. They know what needs to be in a curriculum.