Don't Know Much About History

A blog reader pointed me in the direction of a Wall Street Journal interview of  Pulitzer Prize winning historian David McCullough about students' lack of knowledge about U.S.  history. "We're raising young people who are, by and large, historically illiterate,"  he says in the interview.  

Last week, the U.S Department of Education released the results of the 2010 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) assessment in U.S. History.   It found that only 12% of high-school seniors scored proficient or "have a firm grasp of our nation's history." 20 percent of fourth graders and 17 percent of eighth graders tested proficient. 

Having lectured at more than 100 colleges and universities over the past 25 years, he says, "I know how much these young people—even at the most esteemed institutions of higher learning—don't know." Slowly, he shakes his head in dismay. "It's shocking."

McCullough points to a few factors that he believes are part of the problem, including the background of history teachers.

One problem is personnel. "People who come out of college with a degree in education and not a degree in a subject are severely handicapped in their capacity to teach effectively," Mr. McCullough argues. "Because they're often assigned to teach subjects about which they know little or nothing." The great teachers love what they're teaching, he says, and "you can't love something you don't know anymore than you can love someone you don't know."

Another is the method of teaching history:

"History is often taught in categories—women's history, African American history, environmental history—so that many of the students have no sense of chronology. They have no idea what followed what."

In textbooks, McCullough says that minor historical figures have overshadowed the major ones, in part due to political correctness.

many textbooks have become "so politically correct as to be comic. Very minor characters that are currently fashionable are given considerable space, whereas people of major consequence farther back"—such as, say, Thomas Edison—"are given very little space or none at all."

He also says that many history books are boring and not especially well written. McCullough says that he studied writing along with history, which helps him to develop plot and characters.

"You know that the Brooklyn Bridge exists," Mr. McCullough explains, referring to one of his former subjects. "I've got to get you so involved in the story of how it was done that you begin to wonder, 'Oh my God! Are they ever going to be able to do this?'" Thus, via his writing style, he hopes to impart a lesson of history: "There's no such thing as a foreseeable future."

In the end, McCullough thinks parents and grandparents need to share a love of history with children.

It's not their fault our children are ignorant, he says animatedly. "It's our fault," he says, pointing to his chest. "I mean the parents and grandparents of the oncoming generation. We have to talk about history, talk about the books we love, the biographies and histories." He continues, "We should all take our children to historic places. Go to Gettysburg. Go to the Capitol."

What do you think about how history is taught in the Norwalk schools?  Do you think it gets short shrifted compared to the tested subjects--math and English?