Basnight opposes history proposal
State Senate President Marc Basnight says he is “absolutely” against a proposed new high school curriculum plan that would limit 11th trade American history to the period after 1877.
“To exclude the founding of our nation and its early struggles from our high school curriculum would be doing a disservice to our students and teachers alike,” the Dare County Democrat wrote in a letter to the state school superintendent and the chairman of the state Board of Education.
Basnight wrote the letter in the wake of criticism of the curriculum proposal, most notably from conservative Tea Party activists reacting to a report by Fox News. The draft plan has received considerable attention since then.
The state Department of Public Instruction has been seeking public comments on its proposal for history instruction. In a statement on its Web site, the DPI said that American history, from its discovery through the present, would be taught at various grade levels and that the period beyond 1877 would be an in-depth focus for 11th graders.
“Our goal is to give students more study of United States history and to teach it in a way that helps them remember what they have learned,” State Superintendent June Atkinson said. “Students will have United States history three times before high school, and in high school they will have at least two more courses. The events, people and dates that are so familiar to many of us will still be taught to students. That means everything from early exploration through the Civil War, the 20th century and today.”
Local members of the Tea Party movement denounced the proposal at last week’s meeting of the Dare County Board of Education. One called it part of a liberal agenda to advance a “deity-free, Marxist/Socialist society.”
Schorr Johnson, a spokesman for Basnight, said Monday “that’s not what he thinks.”
Instead, Basnight said in his letter, his concern is that only high school students can be expected to have the depth of understanding of U.S. history in its full context.
“As a reader of history myself, I think that no one should graduate from high school without a thorough understanding of the Declaration of Independence, the Founding Fathers, the writing of the Constitution, and the personalities involved,” he wrote.
“Furthermore, it is my belief that only high school students have the capacity to understand complex and awful parts of our nation’s history such as slavery and the Civil War. To exclude the founding of our nation and its early struggles from our high school curriculum would be doing a disservice to our students and teachers alike.”
see the full text of Basnight’s letter »
see last week’s story on the curriculum proposal »
See what people are saying:
Join the discussion:
Liz says:
I do not agree with Basnight on this issue. I can remember every year in middle school and high school studying the same periods over and over again. There is more to our American history than 1877. My son is in 4th grade and he has already studied this period in K, 1st, 2nd, 3rd and now again in 4th grade. Even he is bored. He wants to know more about WWI, WWII, Korea etc. He wants to know about Hitler etc. To foster this need, I take him to exhibits and museums and he loves it. He has been to Williamsburg and Jamestown at least four times on field trips. I know this is a huge part of our history and why we are here to celebrate our U.S. History . . . but by the time they get to 11th grade let’s teach them the rest of the story!
Ray says:
With all due respect to Senator Basnight, I tend to agree with you Liz. Students get early U.S. history several times in the early grades . . . through 8th grade. We don’t re-teach the multiplication tables in high school algebra do we? Of course our country’s beginnings are all important, but, I feel there are a lot of kneejerk reactions going on here. Think about it. I am 67 years old, so there are 67 more years of history to be taught our children since I was in school. There are only so many hours in a school day.
Reacher says:
I unequivacably agree with Sen. Basnight’s belief that a sound fundamental understanding of our historical underpinnings is of paramount importance to the well-rounded high school student. That knowledge tempers the mind as a tool for learning and the character as a tool for responsible citizenship. However, I agree with and support Liz’s observations, and would hope that we would allow those who develop curricula as a vocation to more fully demonstrate the higher benefits of narrowing the scope of study at a time when these students are beginning to confront the realities of our present condition and their place in it.
I believe, (I certainly hope) as she reports, that by the 11th grade our children should have been made comfortably familiar with early American history, politics and geography. In my opinion, a study of the Modern era supported by a fundamental knowledge of the preceding events can only enhance the student’s preparations to take their part in the fabric of daily life. It should also better prepare those who wish to pursue higher education for the rigors of academic discipline. I am sure that we want our people to advance by degrees of understanding in history as we do in science and math.