Dumb textbooks, dumb students
June 30, 2011 by Jake SimmsPosted in: In this week's e-newsletter, Latest News & Views
Let’s hope that new digital textbooks being developed for Common Core don’t skimp on American history.
Reason: American students “don’t know much about history”. And some of the blame must be placed on U.S. history textbooks.
For example, a recent textbook for 4th graders in Virginia claims thousands of slaves fought for the Confederacy during the Civil War, among other mistakes. Some schools kept using the books for much of the just-completed school year.
Another example: A watchdog group found 249 errors in four Texas history books published in 2002. The state’s education agency and a highly-paid proofreading team didn’t catch the errors.
Yet another example: Howard Zinn’s “A People’s History of the United States” is required reading in many schools. Yet Zinn simplifies the Founding Fathers as rich, white landowners and America’s history as one of perpetual class warfare – not surprising since the late Zinn was a Communist.
Political correctness dumbs down history
According to the latest National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) tests, two-thirds of 4th graders and three-fourths of 8th graders don’t know why the Founders wrote the Declaration of Independence.
Consider that a question about the Declaration on the NAEP test summarizes that citizens “are given certain rights.”
Rights given by whom? The summary doesn’t say. The most logical assumption students would make is by the government. Not by God, which is the correct answer.
Since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down “religious instruction” in public schools, publishers have removed mentions of God from history textbooks wherever possible – despite the crucial impact of religion throughout American history.
On another question about the Declaration of Independence, the correct answer is “people in the United States should have some control over the government.”
Some control? George Washington and Thomas Jefferson must be rolling over in their graves.
Now that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and other organizations are working on digital textbooks and materials for Common Core, many schools will be getting rid of old history textbooks.
Not a moment too soon in many cases.
Have an opinion? Share it below.
Tags: a people's history of the united states, american history, Common Core, Common Core standards, digital textbooks, history textbooks, howard zinn, NAEP, national assessment of educational progress, us supreme court
Loading ...
July 1st, 2011 at 3:15 pm
History is NOT politically correct. History is history. It is what has happened in the past. Present the facts. History will always be skewed by who tells it–the winner of the conflict will always say they were in the right. But presenting history as propaganda for a political theory (as Zinn wrote it) or to justify or soften a reality (thousands of slaves fighting for the Confederacy?!) Is bad education. Whether you are religious or not, religious beliefs had a lot to do with the settling of many of the original colonies (Plymouth/Boston, Maryland, Rhode Island, & Pennsylvania, to name a few) and was incorporated into many of the seminal documents of this nation. You can teach about the influence without teaching religion.
July 1st, 2011 at 8:05 pm
Well, the story by Jake Simms and Librarylady’s comment present us with an interesting little “natural experiment” both in “getting facts right” and in whether or not “history is history”, that is, just “facts.”
Where is Mr. Simms’s evidence that “the late Zinn was Communist”? Here’s what Zinn’s Wikipedia entry says:
“Due to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, on July 30, 2010, the FBI released a file with 423 pages of information on Howard Zinn’s life and activities. During the height of McCarthyism in 1949, the FBI first opened a domestic security investigation on Zinn (FBI File # 100-360217), based on Zinn’s activities in what the agency considered to be communist front groups and informant reports that Zinn was an active member of the Communist Party of the United States (CPUSA).[53] Zinn denied ever being a member and said that he had participated in the activities of various organizations which might be considered Communist fronts but that his participation was motivated by his belief that in this country people had the right to believe, think, and act according to their own ideals.[53]
“Later in the 1960s, as a result of Zinn’s campaigning against the Vietnam War and his influence on Martin Luther King, the FBI designated Zinn a high security risk to the country, a category that allowed them to summarily arrest him if a state of emergency were to be declared.[53][54] The FBI memos also show that they were concerned with Zinn’s repeated criticism of the FBI for failing to protect blacks against white mob violence. Zinn’s daughter said she was not surprised by the files. “He always knew they had a file on him.”[53]”
So Mr. Simms criticizes Mr. Zinn of “simplifying” America’s founders and then immediately “simplifies” Mr. Zinn. Even if Mr. Zinn was a Communist, he wasn’t only a Communist. He was also the son of working class Jewish immigrants, a WWII veteran (bombardier), a Ph.D in history from Columbia, a professor of history at Spelman College and Boston University, civil rights and anti-war activist.
Would LibraryLady like to state her views on which of these “facts” about Zinn is most relevant to Mr. Simms’ evaluation of Mr. Zinn’s “A People’s History of the United States.”? What are we to do – as readers and writers of history – when the “facts” themselves are in dispute?
July 2nd, 2011 at 9:46 am
Thank you Arvid for some common sense on this crucial issue. History does not present us with a discrete set of facts to be learned about it. There are–to our shame, even in textbooks–outright untruths. But ALL history is selection of facts, the foregrounding of some and the finessing of others. It is always “ideological” (that is, a matter of interpretation, whether Christian or Communist or anything else). Kids should be told this up front. Yes, the founders were Christians and were influenced by Christian ethics. But read Jefferson and the others. They were far from untroubled, unquestioning Christians and we have primary sources to show they definitely did not want religion of any kind near secular government–as in an established Church. Religion was a matter of individual conscience–had no place in government. Those who harp on about teaching the role of Christianity in the founding–teaching it in textbooks to kids–do so, very often, to “prove” that the founders intended the US to be a Christian nation. That most definitely is a lie–at least a gross simplification. Maybe no Communist-biased histories like Zinn’s (it isn’t that, but let it go); but then spare our kids a lying Christian-tinged history of the nation. That too is just propaganda masquerading as history: a theocratic propaganda that would have deeply disturbed and offended the founders.
July 2nd, 2011 at 10:09 pm
SPOT ON, Librarylady. Just remove the phrase, “(as Zinn wrote it)” for Arvid. We’re not discussing ZINN, we’re discussing obvious mis-statements about America’s history to young, trusting learners. Just tell it like it was — and discuss what we have learned from it that affects our lives now and will continue to affect our future. That’s one reason we study history isn’t it? To prevent making the same mistakes in the future?
July 3rd, 2011 at 12:08 pm
History is more than a pile of facts. It is a process of selecting facts to support a narrative. Zinn’s narrative is surely different from ‘traditional’ textbooks. Zinn tells the story of America from the perspective of average people rather than leaders. But this is a fact that should be celebrated. It is a perspective wholly absent from nearly all ‘traditional’ historical narratives. It helps to make history relevant to our lives and the lives of young people, who come to learn that it is people just like them who have helped to shape this nation into what it is today. When we know how terrible most high-school history textbooks are, it is all the more important to employ alternative sources. And this is surely where the Internet has tremendous promise. I expected to read a thought-provoking article about using the Internet to enrich students’ experiences in historical study. What I found here was a cheap (and unsupported) attack on one of America’s best historians. On Fourth of July weekend, it seems really inappropriate to disrespect a real American patriot like Howard Zinn. Education Tech News? Unsubscribe.
July 5th, 2011 at 12:32 pm
Read Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt’s book “the deliberate dumbing down of america” http://deliberatedumbingdown.com/
July 8th, 2011 at 3:05 pm
Let’s be careful not to miss Mr. Simms’ point. He isn’t debating Zinn’s ideas or the importance of God in American history. Those points are assumed, and the problem is that confused people don’t always “understand” them. Simms seems to be contending that digital technology, supported by fantastically wealthy foundations, will make it easier to filter out misguided opinions and tailor content to the beliefs of whomever controls the technology.
August 31st, 2011 at 4:56 am
Of course, Jefferson had his own version of the declaration which did not include reference to the creator because he was one step this side of an atheist. He didn’t like the final draft of the Declaration and circulated his own edited version. That question, if asked correctly, could lead into a discussion about the debate over the variety of religious beliefs found among the founding fathers and how they wrestled with what role religion should or should not play in government which is a question still being asked today.
Oh, sorry, I’m talking about learning things. This is about getting the “right” answer on a test. I forgot, this isn’t about eduction it’s about passing tests.