It was reported this morning in the Dallas Morning News that only 12% of high school seniors nationally were able to demonstrate proficiency on the National Assessment of Education Progress. The government found it encouraging that 8th graders did a little better. 20% of them demonstrated proficiency. Students taking the test scored most poorly on the section dealing with history. "The history scores released today show that student performance is still too low" said Education Secretary Arne Duncan. Interestingly, perhaps in a reflection of the current national obsession with the economy, students did best in economics, 42% of them were deemed proficient in the field.
Educators, with reason, blamed the system for the poor results. They assert that the No Child Left Behind program has compelled them to change emphasis from teaching history and science to focusing on reading and math. This is reasonable enough considering you cannot learn much about history if you cannot read and you would have a hard time making progress in science if you cannot do math. But what is neglected in all the measuring is the distinction between a necessary cause and a sufficient cause. Reading and math are necessary to a good education, but they are not sufficient. Other subjects are required. History is one of those subjects. History is also the subject students did most poorly on.
In the clamor over national competitiveness, attention has been turned to scientific and technological knowledge. History, literature, art, and other such subjects are pushed aside in the effort to ensure America's technological "edge" in the 21st century. Learning history will not make us more competitive. Only science can do that. As a result, less than a third of the eighth graders tested could list one advantage the Colonial Army had over the British in the Revolutionary War. Only twenty two percent could identify China as a participant in the Korean War. Ignorance of history was pervasive. From colonial history through the Civil War to the Great Depression, students' lack of knowledge was on display. Where more recent events were involved, students were better able to demonstrate a basic knowledge of dates, locations, and events, although many frequently erred in placing them in context.
None of this is likely to change anytime soon. History is one of those subjects that is commonly agreed to be important to any good education. It is also a subject where there is little agreement over what should be taught and how it should be taught. Debate inevitably arises over what merits discussion, what merits mention, and what can or should be excluded. A lot has happened in North America over the last four hundred years. All of it cannot be brought up in a few high school history classes. It certainly cannot be discussed. What compounds the problem is that even the narrow and abbreviated history that is taught is not being learned.
Kids don't care about the French and Indian War. What possible advantage could come from knowing about such a thing? It is not as if a potential employer is ever going to ask an applicant about it. It would be a waste of time trying to explain how history can broaden one's horizons and thereby make the world more comprehensible or how literature can give one insight into what it means to be human. Education is a tough enough task. There is no need to make it any tougher by introducing fuzzy topics likely to bewilder students. It is much better, and easier, to abstract history into a matter of numbers, dates, and brief descriptions that can be memorized and repeated.
History and the humanities are just not seen as important as science and technology. After all, even if students knew when, where, and what was at stake at the Battle of Gettysburg would that make them more productive citizens? Or would such knowledge just take up valuable space?
