The Ignorance of
South Dakota Education Officials
The other
day the South Dakota Board of Education voted to end the requirement in South
Dakota of teaching early American History. This means that students in South
Dakota will no longer be learning about the American Revolution, the Early
Republic, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, the Antebellum period, and the
Civil War. Most likely Reconstruction will be tossed as well. South Dakota’s
kids will grow up not knowing why the United States was created. This is an utter travesty and one that is
extremely flawed.
It seems
that the people who made this decision were science educators which means they
focus on STEM, not liberal arts. Note that no STEM classes were dropped, just
early American History. Is it not already bad enough that many Americans have
no clue of our nation’s past? If anything, students need more history
education. They also need a good education and that means requiring all history
teachers to have a BA in History. No more coaches teaching history with no
education in the subject.
I will say
that South Dakota has done a good job in pushing “new standards that are intended
to guide the teaching and learning of content, concepts and skills like inquiry,
communication, critical thinking and problem solving.” I agree wholeheartedly with
that idea. Here’s the thing. History classes are the best classes for meeting
those standards. Sam Wineburg has promoted this at Stanford for several years.
He is not alone. Other history educators have been saying the same for a long
time. Peter Seixas and Bob Bain are long time advocates of history education.
The problem
is when decisions are made that reject historical education in favor of classes
that are seen as more desirable for the job market. Let’s face it, STEM is
overrated. There are more STEM degree holders than jobs available. The US
Census of 2010 showed 74% of STEM degree holders working in different fields.
That in itself is not unusual as over half of all undergraduate degree holders
work in different fields than the degree they earned. The emphasis on STEM
comes from a perceived shortfall between the US and other nations in Science,
Technology, Engineering, and Math. Multiple reports from politicians and
corporate leaders talk about a STEM shortage, yet the facts do not support that
talk.
In fact,
speaking with human resource agents we find something else entirely. It appears
that many of our STEM graduates have problems writing and communicating. HR
agents are on the hunt for people who can understand STEM people and
communicate between them which while not efficient seems to be the only way
companies can get their tech employees to work in teams. Imagine how some
courses in history and English might have helped to solve those problems? This
is where the core of a liberal arts degree comes into focus. The base of that degree
is in K-12.
Unfortunately,
the incessant mania for STEM is starting to generate the degradation of that
base. That is what I think is taking place in South Dakota. I do like their
standards and the ways they have set up to go about achieving them. Removing
Early American History however is a massive mistake. It is the base foundation
of American historical knowledge. It must remain. It should be emphasized. I
teach at the community college and I routinely have students who do not know
the basic elements of history, let alone American History.
When asked
why, the number one answer is they didn’t learn much from their instructors.
Some did and I think that is great, but the majority did not. Is that the fault
of their school or the fault of their instructors?