Ohio lawmakers pass bill for schools to teach historic documents

I admit that this raises my eyebrow quite a bit. While some educational districts are poor performers, I worry as to what becomes the standard teaching model for how to teach the course. For example, our last few Presidents seem to have a very, let's just say special view on the Constitution.

reply to post by Jameela


Whoever wrote the bill actually knew what they were talking about.

It's quite a piece of work, I just looked it over thanks for getting me linked up with it.

Anyone have a copy of the prior legislation this is replacing? I'm interested to look around and see exactly how this changed over time. Get a few more views of different angles of what is going on here if that's possible.

Something is up with this that's apparent but what exactly is it? That's the more difficult part, a lot of people have posted suggestions already and they are varied.

reply to post by RealSpoke


I'd have to read the bill myself to understand the critics' complaints. I mean I take it on presumption this piece of legislation requires that amendments be taught as well. If it doesn't then I can relate as to why someone referred to the legislation as narrow, but evidently offerred it no praise otherwise ... unfortunately. Nonetheless, it's my impression that Ohio's lawmakers have taken a step in the right direction in terms of cultivating an informed public. Good for Ohio.

Nice OP

Edit:

Okay, just saw Jameela's post (thanks for posting that by the way!) and can now write that the narrow argument against this bill is very confusing.

reply to post by RealSpoke


This is judt a guess based on mt view point so take it for what its worth. To me there has been a concerted effort, by liberals, democrats etc (again my view my opinion) that wants to paint over history and replace it with a more worldy view.

Instead of going over what the begining of our country was like - slavery, sufferage etc, it gets replaced with where we are now with an eye on promoting the view point that wre are one world instead of an individual nation.
Instead of womens sufferage the concern is about the rights of illegal aliens in the country.

The goal is to paint over history in order to get the younger generations into the mindset of one world. Overall the goal is admirable, but the manner in which its being done is not. We should never forget where we came from, whetheror not that history is good or bad.

again just my 2 cents...

I had a great history teacher in 9th grade who made us memorize the Gettysburg Address, the preamble to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. You had to stand up and recite them. He only required you to recite so much but the more you were able to memorize, the better grade you got and special recognition went to every student who could recite them in full. He made it like a contest which made us want to do it. He also required us to write each one out in class for another grade which helped the timid kids who did the bare minimum out loud. This was 30 years ago. What happened to those kinds of teachers?

reply to post by RealSpoke

Critics of the legislation have included Democrats who say the documents are culturally narrow, failing to include texts such as the Bill of Rights, Emancipation Proclamation and Constitutional amendments that address women’s rights, and civil rights.

Great thread and talk about some food for thought. I'm a little jaded I guess in that I'm in a college class this semester which is teaching the National documents and the state issues as Missouri has them here, but I don't see how anyone can possibly argue this? First....It's already required.

Yes... REQUIRED. For anyone outside the U.S. or who didn't know. It isn't required in Grade School, though it should be. However, if you want to get an Associates degree in basket weaving, you *WILL* pass an American Government class. My wife passed hers in Oregon and I'm well toward passing mine in Missouri. If it's "narrow" for grade school kids, why isn't it too narrow for college?? I'll bet a few million College students would agree with how this class shouldn't be required.

It isn't like there is THAT much, either.. Heck, this class is 1 semester long, 2 days a week at 1 hour each day. 3 whole credit hours. It would take half a semester in grade school with the 5 day week. Okay, perhaps a year with kids today... Still though....is it SOOO much that we need to pass a LAW just to insure our national citizens have more than a movie knowledge of the origins of the nation and the documents which STILL regulate us? (or are supposed to..)

No wonder we get into constitutional battles across forums sometimes and parts of the debate seem so ill informed of the basic document as to pretty well kill intelligent debate. I didn't realize some saw it as an imposition or improper to teach the thing.

The text from the O.P. actually sounded so biased and unbelievable, I had to do some research, and of course, the entire text is a quote from The Columbus Dispatch.

Critics of the legislation have included Democrats who say the documents are culturally narrow, failing to include texts such as the Bill of Rights, Emancipation Proclamation and Constitutional amendments

However, the actual bill specifically calls for emphasis to be placed on the Bill of Rights and Constitutional Amendments.

Not later than July 1, 2012, the state board shall incorporate into the social studies standards for grades four to twelve academic content regarding the

original texts of the Declaration of Independence, the Northwest Ordinance, the Constitution of the United States and its amendments, with emphasis on the Bill of Rights, and the Ohio Constitution, and their original context.
The state board shall revise the model curricula and achievement assessments adopted under divisions (B) and (C) of this section as necessary to reflect the additional American history and American government content. The state board shall make available a list of suggested grade-appropriate supplemental readings that place the documents prescribed by this division in their historical context, which teachers may use as a resource to assist students in reading the documents within that context.

129th General Assembly State of Ohio

What a shame that a news outlet would choose to simply parrot the "Democratic critics" of the Bill, rather than doing several minutes or research, as I did.

reply to post by Oaktree

Actually..I just got done on another site posting this story and quite a bit more than I put here. Part of my MAIN emphasis was on the fact that critics refer to the Bill of Rights as a separate and unique document from the Constitution. You don't believe critics may have said this for a paper quote? You've seen the Letterman and Leno skits interviewing average adults on the street with Civics questions right? Somehow, it saddens me..but it doesn't shock me a bit.

I'd noted elsewhere that I'd made this mistake too....and I did. I also talked about the Bill of Rights as a document separate from the Constitution. I was called on it and I never forgot the lesson. I was all of 17. These people the paper interviewed were likely not teenagers, but no worse off than those Man on the Street segments we laugh at.

I'd also note....If California had a law requiring study and testing to a go/no-go level on this like College does now, I wouldn't have made that mistake when I was 17..and MOST 'Man on the Street' interviews wouldn't be hilariously sad for the state of knowledge among Americans of their own nation and history.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
reply to post by Jameela

 

Whoever wrote the bill actually knew what they were talking about.

It's quite a piece of work, I just looked it over thanks for getting me linked up with it.

Anyone have a copy of the prior legislation this is replacing? I'm interested to look around and see exactly how this changed over time. Get a few more views of different angles of what is going on here if that's possible.

Something is up with this that's apparent but what exactly is it? That's the more difficult part, a lot of people have posted suggestions already and they are varied.

Your welcome to you and the other poster who said thank you....

I cannot find what any of the original proposals may have been, and what may or may not have changed, all I can find is what was passed....Since this has been in progress for a long time I am not sure where to find them

I did find an article written by a teacher who criticized the bill for being too high a reading level for high school students and said

Alternatively, if the goal is to help produce a better informed, more involved citizenry, then studying more of the founding documents must be one of the least efficient methods. Our students, our schools and our democracy would be better served by studying objective secondary sources about the founding documents alongside brief selections of significant passages. This would leave more time to make active connections among students, current events, Constitutional issues and political activism. Moreover, such an approach situates the intersection between students and government at the curriculum's center, helping students see how personally relevant issues play out in our version of democracy

I did not like the "our version of democracy" part, should not modern version be the same as the founding version? Also the "situating the intersection between students and government" which sounds a bit more like brainwashing to me...

But this is the link to his article written 31 January of this year, in it he states that "Some House Democrats have suggested that the bill goes too far by allocating specific percentages of questions that must cover the founding documents on state standardized tests. Other groups, such as the Ohio Council for the Social Studies, worry about "the potential this bill would have on instructional time, state testing, and the status of World History [in secondary curricula]."

voices.yahoo.com...

I personally cannot fathom how it would be difficult to teach the founding documents to high school students, especially if you are laying this foundation from the 4th grade as the bill specifies. It really seems to worry people to have to inform students of history and what everything meant.

After reading and re-reading the quote:

Critics of the legislation have included Democrats who say the documents are culturally narrow, failing to include texts such as the Bill of Rights, Emancipation Proclamation and Constitutional amendments that address women’s rights, and civil rights.

I now understand, and it bothers me even more.
As Muzzleflash pointed out, you cannot teach the Constitution without the Bill of Rights,
however,
this article is actually saying that Democrats are critical because this Bill does not call for special emphasis on any part of the Bill of Rights or Amendments that specifically address women's rights and civil rights.

Originally posted by navy_vet_stg3
I think every state needs this. The fact that kids know who the last X number of American Idol winners are, who's dating who in Hollywierd, but don't know the first thing about the Constitution is sickening. It doesn't surprise me that the Democrats are against this. They seem to always be against anything that allows people to understand their TRUE freedom, which comes from the Constitution, and that the Constitution is a protection FROM the Government.

Well I can tell you four kids who will be learning all these things, even if at home! If you hear a collective groan a few doors down, you'll know it is me making the boys learn these things! LOL PS, are you loving this weather or what?!! I suspect we are in for a long, hot and dry summer filled with fires everywhere though. With it being this warm so early and not much snow pack.. sigh. Sorry, off track! Not all Americans will be ignorant in these things, I will make sure at least four are educated!!! Even if it kills them.. errr me!

Another thing I find interesting is that when I was homeschooling I was legally required to teach the constitution, yet this is not something they are required to teach in public schools. Why is that?

reply to post by Oaktree


That is silly though, I was thoroughly taught about the civil rights movement and women's suffrage. In elementary and middle school we usually were assigned lessons/projects about black achievements during black history month.In High School it was largely ignored, for good reason. However, it might differ if you went to a country/suburban school.

reply to post by Jameela


Thanks for researching the bill more, I didn't have time

I'm convinced they want us dumbed down as well. The teaching methods try to make you remember facts. Never think abstractly or for yourself.

reply to post by RealSpoke


Silly or not, I'm pretty sure that is what's being implied.
I am not entirely sure what projects were assigned during any month of the year, simply because I rarely attended class.
I dropped out in my fifth year of high school, because I was of age to sign myself out of school, however I received my GED before I turned 21, because I promised my mom I would.

For what it's worth, I was a junior the first year that MLK Day was officially celebrated, so maybe the curriculum was different back then, but like I say,
I wouldn't know.
I wasn't very interested in what school had to offer.

Originally posted by MaMaa
Well I can tell you four kids who will be learning all these things, even if at home!

If you hear a collective groan a few doors down, you'll know it is me making the boys learn these things! LOL PS, are you loving this weather or what?!! I suspect we are in for a long, hot and dry summer filled with fires everywhere though. With it being this warm so early and not much snow pack.. sigh. Sorry, off track! Not all Americans will be ignorant in these things, I will make sure at least four are educated!!! Even if it kills them.. errr me!

Yep, I know you're doing the right thing, and I believe my boy has been taught correctly. I think I heard them moaning last week as we drove past. HA! Weather is great!

reply to post by RealSpoke


This is a amazing thing,I unfortunatly wwent to school in kansas and the school board there made them teach creationism like it was science,so these people watch the Flintstones like it is a documentary

i don't remember much about elementary school, but i know that starting in middle school 6th grade up till 12th,
we had some from of history class. starting with, social studies, civics, world history, american history, americanism vs communism and geography. hell geography was as much about history as any history class was.
i remember mr. conover use to give me hell about the way i would color the maps he gave us with my color pencils. said it was hard on his old eyes, he was a good teacher, one of the best i ever had. i wasn't much for school in the later years of it, i skipped a lot of classes, but i was always there for history, i just loved it.

any way we started learning about, the mayflower compact, the lee resolution, declaration of independence, the articles of confederation, the virgina plan, the constitution, the bill of rights, dred scott decision, emancipation proclamation,just to mention a few, starting in the sixth grade and getting more in depth in the following years. but of course you have to realize that this was in santa rosa county floridia, in the early 70,s to 80. and there was around 50,000 people in the county give or take a few thousand ether way.

now i googled it and see where that floridia no longer teaches amercaian history before reconsturction for grades 9-12. this was approved in march 2010. and it makes me wonder what they had quit teaching before that. i have often thought over the past ten to fifteen years, from talking to younger relatives, that kids now days seem awful dumb, i guess i should have have known being that i know that tptb want a dumb populace.

and whats the old saying, he who writes history controls the future, that may not be the right saying but it sure seems to fit.

here's a link for the fl history

The Constitution No Longer Taught In Florida High Schools