Dumbing down our past doesn't serve our future
The state has unveiled sweeping changes it wants to make in the K-12 curriculum. A high school history teacher says the plan will gut the subject he has taught for 25 years. But the state superintendent says the new curriculum will make Georgia's schools the best.

By JOSEPH JARRELL

The Georgia Department of Education recently unveiled a draft of the new high school history curriculum. Officials tout it as "world class." It's not. They describe it as "rigorous" and "strengthened." It's neither. With much fanfare, spokesmen say it will raise expectations. It won't.

While presented as part of the state's vision of "leading the nation in improving student achievement," the new curriculum will actually result in nothing more than dumbing down world history and U.S history courses.

…The current high school world history course surveys civilization from the earliest times to the present. The new curriculum calls for teaching only the period from 1500 to the 21st century. Students will no longer study such figures as Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Cleopatra, William the Conqueror or Joan of Arc.

"The Iliad" and "The Odyssey" will not be mentioned. The development of democratic government in Greece and the fall of the Roman Empire will be skipped. Jesus, Muhammad, the Buddha and Confucius are not to be found in the new curriculum. Great civilizations like ancient Egypt will no longer merit study, and the concept of feudalism will not be discussed.

The present 11th-grade U.S. history course covers the Exploration period to today. In the proposed changes, teachers will spend two or three weeks discussing the foundation of our country, with the remaining time devoted to studying events from 1876 to the present. Gone is any mention of the Louisiana Purchase or Lewis and Clark. There will be no discussion of Indian removal and the Trail of Tears.

Students probably will not be remembering the Alamo; it won't be a topic of discussion in Georgia's high schools. Daniel Webster and Henry Clay will be omitted, as well as Harriet Tubman, Frederick Douglass and the Underground Railroad.

Search in vain for discussion of the Civil War; that topic is off limits. In a course entitled "American History," students will not study our most devastating war. There is no mention of Fort Sumter, Abraham Lincoln, Robert E. Lee or anything else associated with those years.

Though teachers supposedly have no time to discuss topics essential to understanding our heritage, the curriculum suggests they have their students write a 1920s radio drama. Teachers are also encouraged to assign essays about dating in the Jazz Age and to show segments from "All in the Family," "Good Times" and "Chico and the Man."

I have yet to talk to any teacher who likes the new curriculum, though I am sure there are some who favor the idea of teaching less. The misguided rationale behind the hastily prepared revision is that we teach too much history in high school. The solution? Eliminate 40 percent of the current coursework.

Education officials note that much of the material removed from the high school courses will be taught in grades four through seven. They ignore the fact that elementary and middle school students lack the maturity necessary to grasp the importance of many of the events, people and concepts.