The Republican War on Public Schools (vouchers, religion, graft, testing, etc.)

[Tidewater]

not to be snarky or rude, but what is your understanding of a public school history teacher’s responsibilities in a big picture sense. I’m asking to see your understanding of it because I’m very sure they aren’t what you think they should be.

I do not take your question as snarky.
If you are a high school history teacher, I assume your job are to present history (US, world, or whatever) the state's standards of learning (in terms of topics covered and the depth to which the students are able to function). For example, in Bloom's taxonomy, "list the battles of the American Revolution" is not in the same domain as (assess the significance of specific battles of the American Revolution."

In the broad sense, I believe it is to give the students the information they need so that they can be productive members of society and make informed decisions in light of past precedents.

 

[81usaf92]

I do not take your question as snarky.
If you are a high school history teacher, I assume your job are to present history (US, world, or whatever) the state's standards of learning (in terms of topics covered and the depth to which the students are able to function). For example, in Bloom's taxonomy, "list the battles of the American Revolution" is not in the same domain as (assess the significance of specific battles of the American Revolution."

In the broad sense, I believe it is to give the students the information they need so that they can be productive members of society and make informed decisions in light of past precedents.

Thanks for the response

The below piece is in reference to you bringing up data to Americans not knowing basic history.

Okay your description is correct in theory, but in practice it is only about 50% of what public secondary history teachers are expected to do. I’m not making a “woe is me” pity party post I’m just explaining in detail what happens. I truly love my job, and knew most of these things prior to going in. But think there usually is a disconnect when parents and people in the stands start accusing teachers of doing or not doing things and it usually is not understanding how public schools work and function.

Here are a few things to consider
1) Public schools compete with other public schools.
2) Failing kids is alot harder to do than finding an honor row
3) Public Education is changing at the High School level
4) There are 4 Core subjects and they aren’t equal.

All sounds like good things right??? Yes in theory they do, but what actually occurs usually is muddy at best. Let’s dive into them individually

I) Public Schools compete with other public schools…. This is probably the most important because the other 3 stem from it. Competition generally brings good results but the problem is that 1) competition just means ‘who does best on the ACT’ and/or 2) Only certain schools are subject to the consequences of competition. The latter one is mostly because of shady county politics

II) Failing kids is extremely hard… There used to be standards for graduation such as AHSGE. It forced students to take their core classes (English, Math, Science, and History) seriously. We saw standards but we also saw low ACT and low graduation rates in lower schools because of them. But once it went away so did the importance of Social studies past 6th grade.

Also many school districts are given money to fund summer school programs free of charge to the students at a low cost to paying teachers. I’ve had numerous students see this as a reason to act up and not try for the 180 days they are in school because they know they can effectively make up a whole school year in 1-2 weeks on a summer school computer session. There really is no consequence for failing.

III) Public Schools are changing… With Trump effectively destroying federal oversight in schools many states have started to pass laws and implement policies because they have the freedom to do so. Here in Alabama… Meemaw has passed laws that require every high school in the state to have a Dual Enrollment unit for every Core class and an Option B program.

DE may sound good on paper but the fact is what usually happens is that a school board doesn’t want to pay for physical instructors and usually makes it virtual out of a community college. It’s why Alabama public education students have a high failure rate on DE classes. Most students see these classes as “I don’t have to come to school and I can ChatGPT it”. And most of these students are using DE courses on history.

Option B is a Career Tech program in which in a student’s junior and senior years they can opt out of taking Science and math classes in exchange for a CTE diploma. I’m honestly on the fence about it but whatever. It’s benefit for the schools who offer it are theoretically higher ACT scores and higher graduation rates.

IV) Core classes not being equal. Out of all the core classes… which isn’t on the ACT??? History. Administration can say “well History is reading” all they want to but no student ever associates it as a reading course. They look at History as many administrators do…a boring untestable class that they wish they could be rid of.

I know it’s been long but here is what the average secondary history teacher is… a warm body. Administrators and society have built this system in which history education is more of an elective because it’s untestable on the ACT. With no graduation exam what motivation does the average student have to actually learn history?

Then look at the makeup of your average high school history department… They are almost always White, male, and coaches. Why? Because many administrations use history positions to fill in for Football coaching staffs. Why? Because the Praxis standards are low, you can teach at a very basic level, and it’s not a testable subject. I’ve literally been in a department in which they made an emergency certification mid year to keep a cheer coach and at the same time they had an emergency hire because they had too many PE teachers. Neither of these two people that they hired knew what the Bill of Rights were, Where Rome was, and who were the Allies during WWII were yet they were required to teach it. Both got glowing reviews and hardly observed. So really are you surprised about the results?

A history teacher that isn’t a coach is usually looking for bull crap to make them look useful. Like volunteering for every ticket booth assignment, volunteering to run every club, and basically everything under the sun. A good non tenured English or Math teacher doesn’t have to worry about getting pink slipped as long as they aren’t toxic to the staff and administrators. However a good history teacher is far more prone to it if he/she is

My point is more that this “teach to test well on the ACT” mentality has led to students and administrators to not valuing history. The typical administrator only really looks at a history job as a potential landing spot and the only requirement is that the kids aren’t acting off the chain. If most were honest then if they could get rid of a history department for more CTE and athletic jobs then they would.

I know it’s long and probably all over the place but I think it’s more of a problem with the goals of public education and how schools function than teachers not teaching students basic history and civics. The adverse mentality towards education and towards historical education is real.

 

[JDCrimson]

Im not sure I would want a tech graduate as an employer if they didn't have decent grasp of science and math...

Option B is a Career Tech program in which in a student’s junior and senior years they can opt out of taking Science and math classes in exchange for a CTE diploma. I’m honestly on the fence about it but whatever. It’s benefit for the schools who offer it are theoretically higher ACT scores and higher graduation rates.

 

[oldtimetider]

81's response above is spot on.... at least in my experience. I'm biased, but I believe that there is no other profession that is more filled with good and decent and caring people. Lord knows they didn't enter it for the $. I also think precious few have an agenda except to serve their kids. Teachers are asked to carry out an unbelievable amount of policies. Individual education plans, personal education plans, data driven lesson planning, posting plans weekly on various platforms for online access, differentiating lessons for specific learners, etc, etc. It's simply impossible for them to effectively complete all that is asked of them. If some come across as "ignoring" policy... it's likely because they've become accustomed to picking and choosing what is absolutely necessary and letting the rest slide. It's not a conspiracy, it's survival.

 

[81usaf92]

Im not sure I would want a tech graduate as an employer if they didn't have decent grasp of science and math...

Well the thought is that you peak at the 10th grade in real world knowledge. Really Government/Economics in the 12 and the two remaining English courses are what’s left.

They are trying to model it off the British system without understanding that Alabama isn’t this state of jobs that kids are going to make great money coming out of high school. Most industrial and maintenance jobs are highly competitive and in search of experience. Most of the kids I’ve seen who “had it all figured out and didn’t need college because they could get a job straight out of high school” found out the hard way that unless you are willing to move or work bonkers hours then many doors are shut for them. Many of them had to reconsider the military, go back to fast food, or finally try and find a college that would accept them.

I think Option B could have a devastating effect on kids who don’t fully understand the consequences of signing up for it. But if you do truly have a job lined up then go for it.

 

[Tidewater]

Thanks for the response

The below piece is in reference to you bringing up data to Americans not knowing basic history.

Okay your description is correct in theory, but in practice it is only about 50% of what public secondary history teachers are expected to do. I’m not making a “woe is me” pity party post I’m just explaining in detail what happens. I truly love my job, and knew most of these things prior to going in. But think there usually is a disconnect when parents and people in the stands start accusing teachers of doing or not doing things and it usually is not understanding how public schools work and function.

Here are a few things to consider
1) Public schools compete with other public schools.
2) Failing kids is alot harder to do than finding an honor row
3) Public Education is changing at the High School level
4) There are 4 Core subjects and they aren’t equal.

All sounds like good things right??? Yes in theory they do, but what actually occurs usually is muddy at best. Let’s dive into them individually

I) Public Schools compete with other public schools…. This is probably the most important because the other 3 stem from it. Competition generally brings good results but the problem is that 1) competition just means ‘who does best on the ACT’ and/or 2) Only certain schools are subject to the consequences of competition. The latter one is mostly because of shady county politics

II) Failing kids is extremely hard… There used to be standards for graduation such as AHSGE. It forced students to take their core classes (English, Math, Science, and History) seriously. We saw standards but we also saw low ACT and low graduation rates in lower schools because of them. But once it went away so did the importance of Social studies past 6th grade.

Also many school districts are given money to fund summer school programs free of charge to the students at a low cost to paying teachers. I’ve had numerous students see this as a reason to act up and not try for the 180 days they are in school because they know they can effectively make up a whole school year in 1-2 weeks on a summer school computer session. There really is no consequence for failing.

III) Public Schools are changing… With Trump effectively destroying federal oversight in schools many states have started to pass laws and implement policies because they have the freedom to do so. Here in Alabama… Meemaw has passed laws that require every high school in the state to have a Dual Enrollment unit for every Core class and an Option B program.

DE may sound good on paper but the fact is what usually happens is that a school board doesn’t want to pay for physical instructors and usually makes it virtual out of a community college. It’s why Alabama public education students have a high failure rate on DE classes. Most students see these classes as “I don’t have to come to school and I can ChatGPT it”. And most of these students are using DE courses on history.

Option B is a Career Tech program in which in a student’s junior and senior years they can opt out of taking Science and math classes in exchange for a CTE diploma. I’m honestly on the fence about it but whatever. It’s benefit for the schools who offer it are theoretically higher ACT scores and higher graduation rates.

IV) Core classes not being equal. Out of all the core classes… which isn’t on the ACT??? History. Administration can say “well History is reading” all they want to but no student ever associates it as a reading course. They look at History as many administrators do…a boring untestable class that they wish they could be rid of.

I know it’s been long but here is what the average secondary history teacher is… a warm body. Administrators and society have built this system in which history education is more of an elective because it’s untestable on the ACT. With no graduation exam what motivation does the average student have to actually learn history?

Then look at the makeup of your average high school history department… They are almost always White, male, and coaches. Why? Because many administrations use history positions to fill in for Football coaching staffs. Why? Because the Praxis standards are low, you can teach at a very basic level, and it’s not a testable subject. I’ve literally been in a department in which they made an emergency certification mid year to keep a cheer coach and at the same time they had an emergency hire because they had too many PE teachers. Neither of these two people that they hired knew what the Bill of Rights were, Where Rome was, and who were the Allies during WWII were yet they were required to teach it. Both got glowing reviews and hardly observed. So really are you surprised about the results?

A history teacher that isn’t a coach is usually looking for bull crap to make them look useful. Like volunteering for every ticket booth assignment, volunteering to run every club, and basically everything under the sun. A good non tenured English or Math teacher doesn’t have to worry about getting pink slipped as long as they aren’t toxic to the staff and administrators. However a good history teacher is far more prone to it if he/she is

My point is more that this “teach to test well on the ACT” mentality has led to students and administrators to not valuing history. The typical administrator only really looks at a history job as a potential landing spot and the only requirement is that the kids aren’t acting off the chain. If most were honest then if they could get rid of a history department for more CTE and athletic jobs then they would.

I know it’s long and probably all over the place but I think it’s more of a problem with the goals of public education and how schools function than teachers not teaching students basic history and civics. The adverse mentality towards education and towards historical education is real.

Thanks for the detailed reply.
I did my practicum at Old Dominion in the Tidewater of Virginia. I've seen a lot of the pathologies you describe.
I came to the conclusion that parents are a key reason why students perform poorly in school.
Parents that made their kids do homework and go to bed at a decent hour did okay. Parents whose kids are out after midnight tend to not do well.
No idea what the fix for that problem is.

 

[Tidewater]

81's response above is spot on.... at least in my experience. I'm biased, but I believe that there is no other profession that is more filled with good and decent and caring people. Lord knows they didn't enter it for the $. I also think precious few have an agenda except to serve their kids. Teachers are asked to carry out an unbelievable amount of policies. Individual education plans, personal education plans, data driven lesson planning, posting plans weekly on various platforms for online access, differentiating lessons for specific learners, etc, etc. It's simply impossible for them to effectively complete all that is asked of them. If some come across as "ignoring" policy... it's likely because they've become accustomed to picking and choosing what is absolutely necessary and letting the rest slide. It's not a conspiracy, it's survival.

Absolutely agree that most teachers just want what is best for kids under their charge. And not doing this for the high salaries.
There is probably a difference between failing to post a lesson plan on line (an administrative procedure directed by the school district) and not teaching kids that one race is superior to another or that people of one race bear the guilt of past people of that same race (a policy directed by the legislature, the representatives of the people of the state with law-making authority). This is true for two reasons:
(1) Violating the administrative procedure might get you chastised. Breaking the law may get you fired.
(2) I do not understand why it is necessary to include teaching racial superiority or race guilt in order to teach history (or any other subject).

The correct response to the legislature's judgment is simply to say, "Of course I will not teach racial superiority or race guilt. That would be reprehensible." And then comply. Pretty simple.

 

[Huckleberry]

I do not understand why it is necessary to include teaching racial superiority or race guilt in order to teach history (or any other subject).

The correct response to the legislature's judgment is simply to say, "Of course I will not teach racial superiority or race guilt. That would be reprehensible." And then comply. Pretty simple.

It's absolutely not necessary and any teacher who does so should be fired. Fortunately, the number of teachers who feel the need to do so is quite small, unlike what MAGA loons and the M4L crowd will have you believe.

 

[CrimsonJazz]

It's absolutely not necessary and any teacher who does so should be fired. Fortunately, the number of teachers who feel the need to do so is quite small, unlike what MAGA loons and the M4L crown will have you believe.

This is fair and it reminds me of the white supremacy issue. The majority of Dems want people to believe that white supremacy is a serious problem in this country and a genuine threat to the social order. Truth is, it isn't. It hasn't been for a long time now. But listening to half-wits like Joe Biden calling it "the most dangerous terrorist threat" is no different than hearing Alex Jones sounding the alarms over groomers and gay frogs. It makes an absurdity from a legitimate issue.

So yes, many parents are going to get rankled at the very HINT that some teacher is over-stepping on the race issue. If everyone could tone down the rhetoric, I think a lot of parents would calm down, too. Sadly, it's a popular platform that appears to be going nowhere and hypersensitive parents are going to remain on the lookout for this sort of thing.

 

[some_al_fan]

I’ve had two kids graduate from high school in North Alabama — the last one just this year — and neither of them ever mentioned hearing anything about racial theory in their history classes.
However, what I did hear is what was mentioned above: multiple times, they’ve had history teachers who were football/basketball/whatever coaches. Not always white. But always without an actual knowledge of history. Sure, it was an easy class to pass, since these coaches had no clue what they were teaching.

 

[Tidewater]

I’ve had two kids graduate from high school in North Alabama — the last one just this year — and neither of them ever mentioned hearing anything about racial theory in their history classes.
However, what I did hear is what was mentioned above: multiple times, they’ve had history teachers who were football/basketball/whatever coaches. Not always white. But always without an actual knowledge of history. Sure, it was an easy class to pass, since these coaches had no clue what they were teaching.

In the high school where I did my practicum, there were two types of history teachers: mild-mannered, middle-aged white women and Mr Ford. Ford was the basketball coach and had played center at So. Carolina State College. He was big and intimidating. (but nice as he could be). Ford got the "problem kids." When he said jump, the kids said, "How high?" on the way up.
The "good kids" walked all over the white women. They had limited control over their classrooms.

 

[Tidewater]

This is anecdotal and I cannot voucher for the methodology of the polling, but 36% of high school students here 'often/almost daily" that America is "a fundamentally racist nation."

That is an opinion, and a controversial one, and while teachers can certainly have that opinion, they should not be influencing minors to adopt that opinion.

When it comes to history, while we should teach about the existence of slavery, as far as it relates to the United States, the curriculum should emphasize:

• Slavery existed throughout human history.
• The first countries to outlaw the trans-Atlantic slave trade were Great Britain and the United States (1807/1808).
• On the even of the Civil War, half the operational ships in the US Navy were deployed off the coast of Africa to intercept slave traders. It wasn't just lip service. The US (and Britain) were spending time and money on it.
• While slavery did exist in the US for a time, the US was one of the most progressive nations in human history on slavery.

 

[81usaf92]

This is fair and it reminds me of the white supremacy issue. The majority of Dems want people to believe that white supremacy is a serious problem in this country and a genuine threat to the social order. Truth is, it isn't. It hasn't been for a long time now. But listening to half-wits like Joe Biden calling it "the most dangerous terrorist threat" is no different than hearing Alex Jones sounding the alarms over groomers and gay frogs. It makes an absurdity from a legitimate issue.

So yes, many parents are going to get rankled at the very HINT that some teacher is over-stepping on the race issue. If everyone could tone down the rhetoric, I think a lot of parents would calm down, too. Sadly, it's a popular platform that appears to be going nowhere and hypersensitive parents are going to remain on the lookout for this sort of thing.

Personally I think where the issue on race in education started was actually in good intentions. It’s been a known fact for sometime that public education history had been effectively infected with the Lost Cause Myth by the Daughters of the Confederacy and Woodrow Wilson. Generations of Americans, especially in the South, had grown up believing slavery wasn’t as big of an issue in starting the Civil War or was the central debate in addition of states during manifest destiny. This led to people promoting Confederate imagery as Southern pride or heritage and not understanding how certain confederate imagery can easily be viewed as white supremacy. Dylan Roof just happened to be the straw that finally broke the camel’s back over the issue and the Department of Education started to revisit curriculum in order to correct an obvious error of judgment.

However, when you give an inch certain groups take a mile. The 1619 project and its ilk have created their own obnoxious counterparts that strive to take race completely out of curriculum. So here we are… in between two obnoxious sides of the argument where neither really helps the situation.

 

[92tide]

good on the boise school district

Boise School District issues memo welcoming the 'Everyone is Welcome Here' poster

"The 'Everyone is Welcome Here' sign affirms a foundational principle of public education—that every student, regardless of their background..." the district wrote.

www.ktvb.com

BOISE, Idaho — The Boise School District announced Thursday it will continue supporting teachers who display "Everyone is Welcome Here" posters in their classrooms, directly contradicting guidance from Idaho Attorney General Raul Labrador.
The attorney general's office recently determined that the signs violate a new law that prohibits the display of flags or banners with political viewpoints.

 

[81usaf92]

 

[Tidewater]

I would not expect the British to don their hair shirts over the American Revolution. As is common, the truth lies between the two extremes.

For example, the Virginia standards of learning for US history says, of the Boston Massacre that "Colonists in Boston were shot after taunting British soldiers." Well, colonists were "taunting" the British soldiers. Rabble rousers were throwing snowballs with rocks in them at British soldiers. Depending on how big the rocks were, those are deadly weapons. It is less surprising that the soldiers responded with the tools they had at hand: muskets.

The same document states, "The colonies had no representation in Parliament." The SOL does not mention, however, that Parliament told the colonies, "Okay, you raise the money any way you want, by voting a tax though your own colonial legisture. We don't care how you raise the money. We just want the money."

Those are two nuanced interpretations, and you would be better positioned that I to judge whether your students would get that nuance.

As a matter of public policy we can discuss whether this level or nuance is appropriate for minor children. As an adult who has spent some time studying and thinking about American history, I get the nuance and the need for nuance. How much nuance there shoudl be in SOLs for minors is a policy debate.

 

[81usaf92]

I would not expect the British to don their hair shirts over the American Revolution. As is common, the truth lies between the two extremes.

For example, the Virginia standards of learning for US history says, of the Boston Massacre that "Colonists in Boston were shot after taunting British soldiers." Well, colonists were "taunting" the British soldiers. Rabble rousers were throwing snowballs with rocks in them at British soldiers. Depending on how big the rocks were, those are deadly weapons. It is less surprising that the soldiers responded with the tools they had at hand: muskets.

The same document states, "The colonies had no representation in Parliament." The SOL does not mention, however, that Parliament told the colonies, "Okay, you raise the money any way you want, by voting a tax though your own colonial legisture. We don't care how you raise the money. We just want the money."

Those are two nuanced interpretations, and you would be better positioned that I to judge whether your students would get that nuance.

As a matter of public policy we can discuss whether this level or nuance is appropriate for minor children. As an adult who has spent some time studying and thinking about American history, I get the nuance and the need for nuance. How much nuance there shoudl be in SOLs for minors is a policy debate.

The problem with teaching the American Revolution is whether to teach the “American Legend” or teach the “American Truth”. I think too often we view the American Revolution like the British view the Napoleonic Wars. It’s through a lens in which there is only good and evil when it was far more complex than what it appears.

I think dumbing it down to “self rule” and “military intervention” is a fair observation, but to not ask “why the concept of self rule happened in the colonies” and “why the British felt the need for military intervention” kinda paints the British as some oppressive actor and ignores that until the destruction of British property they mostly let the colonists to disobey the taxations without consequence. It also ignores that people like Hancock were smuggling Dutch tea and had far more of a vested interest to keep the heat up in Boston.

 

[Tidewater]

The problem with teaching the American Revolution is whether to teach the “American Legend” or teach the “American Truth”. I think too often we view the American Revolution like the British view the Napoleonic Wars. It’s through a lens in which there is only good and evil when it was far more complex than what it appears.

I think dumbing it down to “self rule” and “military intervention” is a fair observation, but to not ask “why the concept of self rule happened in the colonies” and “why the British felt the need for military intervention” kinda paints the British as some oppressive actor and ignores that until the destruction of British property they mostly let the colonists to disobey the taxations without consequence. It also ignores that people like Hancock were smuggling Dutch tea and had far more of a vested interest to keep the heat up in Boston.

Maybe the divising line between the "American Legend" version and the "American Truth" version is AP US History vs "normal" US History. "Normal" Hoistory students should get the "American legend" version, because part of the reason for including US history in public education is to instil a proper love and respect for the US, whereas the purpose of AP US History is to shape a mind for more critical thinking.

 

[81usaf92]

Maybe the divising line between the "American Legend" version and the "American Truth" version is AP US History vs "normal" US History. "Normal" Hoistory students should get the "American legend" version, because part of the reason for including US history in public education is to instil a proper love and respect for the US, whereas the purpose of AP US History is to shape a mind for more critical thinking.

Yes but 2 things… AP History probably doesn’t survive another 15 years with the emergence of DE and the modern classroom looks at history (more US than World) as a great annoyance than something that instills love and respect to one’s country. World History has far more engagement than US with modern students and the transition from World to US usually sees far worse grades. I think when Alabama was readdressing the Course of Study the suggestion to move US to middle school and 3 Units of World to High School was probably the best proposal. But 11th and 12th grade teachers pushed back because it’s law that Students have to take Government/Economics in the 12th grade.

Another big issue with standard US history is that it has become the “movie” course. There is far too much dry material in 1550-1880 US History, and most teachers show a ridiculous amount of movies to avoid boring the kids to death. US II is a little better but pacing is still ridiculous. But I think “Hamilton” and “The Patriot” teach more students than a US I teacher.

My point is more that the 1775 project and America First way of teaching US history really is probably more difficult than just than teaching the truth. Because kids tend to look at these Rich White landowners as people that they never could relate to. They relate more to people like Alvin York and Milunka Savic than someone like George Washington or Thomas Jefferson. It’s why Hamilton such a beloved figure now. I honestly see far more engagement in the Spanish Conquest and Manifest Destiny than I ever saw in the American Revolution and the Civil War. It’s mostly because they have heard the same story over and over again, they don’t believe it, and they want to hear something new or different in that story.

 

[oldtimetider]

I don't think teaching the truth about our history and inspiring love and patriotism for country are mutually exclusive. The U.S. has been a force for great good in the world and much prosperity. Our founding documents have been a gift not only to us but to much of the world. We have also at times fallen short of what we aspire to be. Those times don't need to be belabored in the classroom but they can be acknowledged. I think it helps us grow as a citizenry. I do wish our leaders, from either party, would use their pulpit to remind us of those aspirations... of the highest of our ideals. Reagan was good at that. So was Obama. Different philosophies... but both appealed to our "better angels".