Full Version: Philly schools require African-Amer. History
In an interesting way to handle their history curriculum, the Philadelphia public schools system will now be requiring African-American history courses for every student to take as a requirement to graduate.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/06/09/af...y.ap/index.html
Questions for debate:
1.)If a school's population is 2/3rds of a given race, should courses specific to the history of that race be a mandatory class?
2.)Do you agree with the PSP's actions?
3.)What would be a better solution to this curriculum problem?
QUOTE
The requirement in the 185,000-student district, which is about two-thirds black, begins with September's freshman class, The Philadelphia Inquirer reported Thursday.
The yearlong course covers subjects including classical African civilizations, civil rights and black nationalism, said Gregory Thornton, the district's chief academic officer. The other social studies requirements are American history, geography and world history.
The yearlong course covers subjects including classical African civilizations, civil rights and black nationalism, said Gregory Thornton, the district's chief academic officer. The other social studies requirements are American history, geography and world history.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/06/09/af...y.ap/index.html
Questions for debate:
1.)If a school's population is 2/3rds of a given race, should courses specific to the history of that race be a mandatory class?
2.)Do you agree with the PSP's actions?
3.)What would be a better solution to this curriculum problem?
1.)If a school's population is 2/3rds of a given race, should courses specific to the history of that race be a mandatory class?
Regardless of race in the school- this should be taught. It is soooo xenophobic how we pretty much teach white european male history in pretty much every school in the USA, and pretty much ignore the rest. I think they shouldn't harp on the history of western civilization only either- you know, for as much as conservatives hate Europe, they sure demand that we only teach European and Greek/Roman history for the most part.
I know there will be poeple on the right against this- but I say this is about darn time, needs to be nationwide.
2.)Do you agree with the PSP's actions?
Yep
3.)What would be a better solution to this curriculum problem?
As history is taught, take the near total focus off of "the history of western civilization" as it pretty much currently continues through college even (it is one of the required electives for my degree, I can substitute it for other humanities coarses, but there are few of them and the times are screwy)- so pretty much, I have to take History of western civilization.
Regardless of race in the school- this should be taught. It is soooo xenophobic how we pretty much teach white european male history in pretty much every school in the USA, and pretty much ignore the rest. I think they shouldn't harp on the history of western civilization only either- you know, for as much as conservatives hate Europe, they sure demand that we only teach European and Greek/Roman history for the most part.
I know there will be poeple on the right against this- but I say this is about darn time, needs to be nationwide.
2.)Do you agree with the PSP's actions?
Yep
3.)What would be a better solution to this curriculum problem?
As history is taught, take the near total focus off of "the history of western civilization" as it pretty much currently continues through college even (it is one of the required electives for my degree, I can substitute it for other humanities coarses, but there are few of them and the times are screwy)- so pretty much, I have to take History of western civilization.
1.)If a school's population is 2/3rds of a given race, should courses specific to the history of that race be a mandatory class?
I agree with C.R. on this, the history taught in schools mainly involves Europe and the US. I think the main reason behind this is that we have been doing it for so long no one has gotten the chance to change it. While having all types of history taught at all levels is unreasonable, I would like to see years dedicated to particular areas, like Asia, South America, Africa, the Middle East, along with Europe and the United States. It would promote understanding of different cultures and customs.
2.)Do you agree with the PSP's actions?
No, I think they should have went further to include other cultures and not focus on their own.
3.)What would be a better solution to this curriculum problem?
Include more regions and cultures into the program so that all the children can have a taste of each. When they have the opprotunity to choose their own classes, they they can do so on a subject that has already peaked their interest.
I agree with C.R. on this, the history taught in schools mainly involves Europe and the US. I think the main reason behind this is that we have been doing it for so long no one has gotten the chance to change it. While having all types of history taught at all levels is unreasonable, I would like to see years dedicated to particular areas, like Asia, South America, Africa, the Middle East, along with Europe and the United States. It would promote understanding of different cultures and customs.
2.)Do you agree with the PSP's actions?
No, I think they should have went further to include other cultures and not focus on their own.
3.)What would be a better solution to this curriculum problem?
Include more regions and cultures into the program so that all the children can have a taste of each. When they have the opprotunity to choose their own classes, they they can do so on a subject that has already peaked their interest.
QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Jun 10 2005, 01:01 AM)
Questions for debate:
1.)If a school's population is 2/3rds of a given race, should courses specific to the history of that race be a mandatory class?
2.)Do you agree with the PSP's actions?
3.)What would be a better solution to this curriculum problem?
1. Why? Doesn't this just promote the "Balkanization" of the United States where we are a nation divided along irrelevant "racial" lines? Why not just look at another modern western nation that decided that "racial" education was an important part of a child's education. I was in that country this week. It was practiced starting in the mid 1930's.
2. No. They're misguided. Why not require that students require geography instead? The kids could learn about the world, where countries are, and something of people's backgrounds. Focusing on "black history" is nonsense. It's a chapter in American history that must be covered. This sort of racist PC mentality just divides our kids further. It doesn't help to heal old wounds. It just opens them up.
3. A better solution? Focus on math, science, history, geography, english, and economics. The other nonsense is fluff particularly in districts where kids come from a poor background and may already have a tough road ahead. Why not give them an ultra solid education that gives them some chance instead of wasting their valuable time with fluff courses that are just designed to inflame someone's politics and potential racial animosities?
1.)If a school's population is 2/3rds of a given race, should courses specific to the history of that race be a mandatory class?
No, more later.
2.)Do you agree with the PSP's actions?
No, more later.
3.)What would be a better solution to this curriculum problem?
Teach US history in three sections: White, Black, Native. With those three perspectives, a greater understanding of true US history will come out, taking away the notion that only dead white guys were important.
An interesting part of early US History was the impact of the Iroquois Leage.
And then there were the Buffalo Soldiers.
Regarding African history, make that an elective world history class. Ideally, the history of every continent in the world, plus significant island chains, would be electives. I'm sure this is way out of most schools' budgets.
I'd do it this way:
History of where you live (town, county, state)
History of US
History of World (ancient, mid, modern)
A year each? I don't know, the scope of the material is pretty broad. But I think people naturally want to know about where they live, then work outward from there. Examining a single racial/cultural history seems to me to be very focused, and perhaps too focused for high school. Keeping this sort of study as an elective for motivated students makes sense, and keep it open. We're getting so mixed up with heritage that a particular student might have over 20 racial/cultural interests.
This isn't wrong, just confusing. And we are a transient society, so students who move around a lot would have to learn about where they live over and over again. That might be beneficial though, at least at a fairly high level to keep from overloading the students. Maybe have the local history condensed into a part of orientation?
No, more later.
2.)Do you agree with the PSP's actions?
No, more later.
3.)What would be a better solution to this curriculum problem?
Teach US history in three sections: White, Black, Native. With those three perspectives, a greater understanding of true US history will come out, taking away the notion that only dead white guys were important.
An interesting part of early US History was the impact of the Iroquois Leage.
And then there were the Buffalo Soldiers.
Regarding African history, make that an elective world history class. Ideally, the history of every continent in the world, plus significant island chains, would be electives. I'm sure this is way out of most schools' budgets.
I'd do it this way:
History of where you live (town, county, state)
History of US
History of World (ancient, mid, modern)
A year each? I don't know, the scope of the material is pretty broad. But I think people naturally want to know about where they live, then work outward from there. Examining a single racial/cultural history seems to me to be very focused, and perhaps too focused for high school. Keeping this sort of study as an elective for motivated students makes sense, and keep it open. We're getting so mixed up with heritage that a particular student might have over 20 racial/cultural interests.
This isn't wrong, just confusing. And we are a transient society, so students who move around a lot would have to learn about where they live over and over again. That might be beneficial though, at least at a fairly high level to keep from overloading the students. Maybe have the local history condensed into a part of orientation?
1.)If a school's population is 2/3rds of a given race, should courses specific to the history of that race be a mandatory class?
No, of course not. What should be done is to somewhat revise the textbooks to include some of this material in the mainstream American History course.
Blacks are not the largest minority in the US, hispanics are. Should we dedicate a year-long course to Hispanic American history? I recall that we pretty much glossed over the Mexican American war, the acquisition of California and Florida, and several other points in US history which pertained to hispanics. Does this mean we dedicate an entire year-long class to them?
2.)Do you agree with the PSP's actions?
No. As I explained above. The current textbooks (there are only a few in the US from which history is taught) should be revised to ensure that these subjects are properly taught.
Let's see, we spend weeks, perhaps a month or two, on the American Revolution but we should spend a year on a history that I think most will agree has a bit less significance. Something is out of whack here.
3.)What would be a better solution to this curriculum problem?
As I said, revise the textbooks. Emphasize the material that the school board feels is important. Use supplemental (i.e. non-text book) material for such emphasis. An entire year just seems overboard.
No, of course not. What should be done is to somewhat revise the textbooks to include some of this material in the mainstream American History course.
Blacks are not the largest minority in the US, hispanics are. Should we dedicate a year-long course to Hispanic American history? I recall that we pretty much glossed over the Mexican American war, the acquisition of California and Florida, and several other points in US history which pertained to hispanics. Does this mean we dedicate an entire year-long class to them?
2.)Do you agree with the PSP's actions?
No. As I explained above. The current textbooks (there are only a few in the US from which history is taught) should be revised to ensure that these subjects are properly taught.
Let's see, we spend weeks, perhaps a month or two, on the American Revolution but we should spend a year on a history that I think most will agree has a bit less significance. Something is out of whack here.
3.)What would be a better solution to this curriculum problem?
As I said, revise the textbooks. Emphasize the material that the school board feels is important. Use supplemental (i.e. non-text book) material for such emphasis. An entire year just seems overboard.
Although I hesitate to say such policies are a threat to the fabric of the nation 
I wouldn't make Black history a required class per se.
Not to say much of the material it entails shouldn't be covered.
In my opinion every high school upperclassmen should be required to take a semester long contemporary history course before graduation.
It would go a long way in eliminating a lot of the ignorance in our population...
I wouldn't make Black history a required class per se.
Not to say much of the material it entails shouldn't be covered.
In my opinion every high school upperclassmen should be required to take a semester long contemporary history course before graduation.
It would go a long way in eliminating a lot of the ignorance in our population...
I agree with the decision - a decision which has only arisen as a result of how lacking our current curriculum is.
This is the most recent graduation requirement listing I found, but I doubt it has changed drastically since 2000 since there seem to have been major changes implemented in 2000.
http://www.phila.k12.pa.us/ll/curriculumsu...mo/grade12.html
These kids are still getting the other history requirements in. Previous social studies requirements for the school system: 3 credits (American, World, Geography) - so this is an additional requirement added on to the current social studies requirement. I don't see anything wrong with adding a requirement. It's not like 22.5 credits are impossible to attain over the course of 4 years. That' averages out to be roughly 5.5 credits per year. My high school required 21 credits. We had magnet programs that were 1.5 credits per semester but that was not by any means a requirement...just meant that the magnet students usually graduated with 31 or more credits because we still had to meet all of the general education requirements (minus P.E.). I think it's a great idea since I don't see anyone elsewhere making steps toward changing the current history curriculum to include a more accurate and encompassing view of our history. We're always complaining about the lack of education that kids are getting, so now when they're adding requirements it's somehow a bad thing? Doesn't make much sense to me
I might add that non-European American history should already be a big part of American history, but it's not. And frankly, I don't see the history books changing ANY time soon (funding reasons and unwillingness for changing what we've been doing for so long). It'd be better if the requirement was Native/Black/Hispanic American history, but I'm sure that would require more money than a more specific course.
This is the most recent graduation requirement listing I found, but I doubt it has changed drastically since 2000 since there seem to have been major changes implemented in 2000.
http://www.phila.k12.pa.us/ll/curriculumsu...mo/grade12.html
QUOTE
Current 12th grade students should have begun this year with 15.5 credits earned in grades 9, 10, and 11. This year, students must earn 6 more credits in order to graduate. These students must:
Earn the number of credits needed to meet the requirements of 21.5 credits by June in order to graduate.
Graduate with:
4 credits in English
3 credits in Math
3 credits in Science
3 credits in Social Studies
1.5 credits in Health and Physical Education
2 credits in Arts and Humanities, and
5 electives
Complete a project that involves more than one subject, demonstrates problem-solving, communication, citizenship, school-to -career or multicultural competencies and requires strong writing skills.
Earn the number of credits needed to meet the requirements of 21.5 credits by June in order to graduate.
Graduate with:
4 credits in English
3 credits in Math
3 credits in Science
3 credits in Social Studies
1.5 credits in Health and Physical Education
2 credits in Arts and Humanities, and
5 electives
Complete a project that involves more than one subject, demonstrates problem-solving, communication, citizenship, school-to -career or multicultural competencies and requires strong writing skills.
These kids are still getting the other history requirements in. Previous social studies requirements for the school system: 3 credits (American, World, Geography) - so this is an additional requirement added on to the current social studies requirement. I don't see anything wrong with adding a requirement. It's not like 22.5 credits are impossible to attain over the course of 4 years. That' averages out to be roughly 5.5 credits per year. My high school required 21 credits. We had magnet programs that were 1.5 credits per semester but that was not by any means a requirement...just meant that the magnet students usually graduated with 31 or more credits because we still had to meet all of the general education requirements (minus P.E.). I think it's a great idea since I don't see anyone elsewhere making steps toward changing the current history curriculum to include a more accurate and encompassing view of our history. We're always complaining about the lack of education that kids are getting, so now when they're adding requirements it's somehow a bad thing? Doesn't make much sense to me
I might add that non-European American history should already be a big part of American history, but it's not. And frankly, I don't see the history books changing ANY time soon (funding reasons and unwillingness for changing what we've been doing for so long). It'd be better if the requirement was Native/Black/Hispanic American history, but I'm sure that would require more money than a more specific course.
QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Jun 10 2005, 12:01 AM)
Questions for debate:
1.)If a school's population is 2/3rds of a given race, should courses specific to the history of that race be a mandatory class?
2.)Do you agree with the PSP's actions?
3.)What would be a better solution to this curriculum problem?
1.)If a school's population is 2/3rds of a given race, should courses specific to the history of that race be a mandatory class?
2.)Do you agree with the PSP's actions?
3.)What would be a better solution to this curriculum problem?
Oh boy... here we go. I think this could become a sticky one!
Firstly, I refuse to accept the fact that one of the largest components of people in the American populus adds a prefix to "American". You are "African-American" in the event that you came from Africa and are now an American, but not because 10 generations ago your ancestors came from Africa. Frankly, most of us don't even really know much about our geneology. With that logic, I would be Russian American, the person in the next office would be Scottish American, etc, etc, etc
What's so wrong with being "American"???
Secondly, I think teaching "African" history is a great idea. Most school systems don't integrate the history of Africa in any form, but it's about time. The problem arises when we add the term "African-American". If we're going to move away from European history (which is just fine w/ me) and discuss the history of the world in public schools, then don't do it half-way. Why not discuss the history of Latin America? Why not discuss Asian history? Why not the history of the Middle East???? I believe that if you're attempting to enlighten the kids to world issues/history, do it completely as opposed to pandering to some minority issue in a predominantly black city.
I refuse to believe that this is a necessary measure, as we all know that there are a large number of children whom have a hard time completing simple mathematical equations after graduation. Yet, we're throwing tax dollars towards chasing some diversity issue?
Americans often get the stigma of "arrogance", and generally the stereotype is justified. We know very little about what's happened inside our borders, much less what happens on the other side of the pond. Why not start by asking Philadelphia 12th graders about the Signing of the Declaration of Independence or the Continental Congress, and if their answers are sufficiently correct we'll worry about Africa...! THEN, as we begin to dive into international history, let's not leave out 3/4 of the world in order to cater to some minority leaders in the Philly area. I'm confident that there are Asian, Middle Eastern, and Hispanic children in Philadelphia as well.
QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Jun 10 2005, 01:01 AM)
1.)If a school's population is 2/3rds of a given race, should courses specific to the history of that race be a mandatory class?
2.)Do you agree with the PSP's actions?
3.)What would be a better solution to this curriculum problem?
2.)Do you agree with the PSP's actions?
3.)What would be a better solution to this curriculum problem?
1. I don't know if history courses should be race-specific, but right now they already are and most of the history books I see that my two kids are assigned to read place the emphasis upon a white, Eurocentric perspective. That's fine for me. I always did well in history, but history is far richer, far more vast and far more (here comes the "D" word) diverse than it is currently presented in American schools.
2. Not entirely. Anything that gets kids interested in history is fine with me. I don't think a white suburban kid is going to be all geeked to know whom Elijah Pierce or Zora Neale Hurston were, but they might be interested and they should be exposed to history from a wide variety to choose from.
3. Anybody look at the state of the school system in Philadelphia lately? It's a basket case. Why not give it a try, evaluate it and if it is working keep at it. If not, dump it. Why try to cut off its legs before it learns how to walk?
QUOTE
Let's see, we spend weeks, perhaps a month or two, on the American Revolution but we should spend a year on a history that I think most will agree has a bit less significance. Something is out of whack here.
I'm trying to recall at what point in my life knowing who General Cornwallis was made ANY difference. I can't think of a single example. What is "less significant" to one person may be very significant to someone else. From my perspective, I think it's more useful to my kids to know who A. Phillip Randolph and the Pullman Porters were than who was William Henry Harrison's vice-president or crap like that.
1.)If a school's population is 2/3rds of a given race, should courses specific to the history of that race be a mandatory class?
Well I don't see how it hurts. High schoolers are not very prone as a group to love history, they tend more to be trying to escape it and make the mark in the present than to be intrigued with what has already happened in this world.
I think it is unfortunate that history tends to get debunked as learning about dead white guys. I think it is also unfortunate that the teaching of history in general seems to get people all riled up along political lines.
The school board may be trying to respond to a significant demand from the community.
One of the nice things about schools (and I admit there isn't a long list these days) is that they are a remaining bastion of local control. This requirement isn't going to hurt anyone.
2.)Do you agree with the PSP's actions?
Sure.
3.)What would be a better solution to this curriculum problem?
Well, a continued solution would be a board that continued to find ways to focus to keep its curriculum engaging and effective.
My school requires three years of history.
They are
World History (regular or honors)
United States history (regular or AP)
Twentieth Century History (or Modern European History AP)
It is my understanding that most school systems now teach world history instead of Western Civilization. While I am sure there are teachers out there that tend to focus much more on Western Civ than other materials, most text books I have seen in the last ten years are fairly balanced in their coverage of different cultural histories.
History is not all Greeks, Romans, Germans, Brits, and Frenchmen any more.
Ancient history, like Mediterranean history is very diverse. (Egyptians, Persians, a variety of religions)
Also most United States history books are beyond a prolonged study of General Cornwallis (Yorktown was basically Jamestown some places like Concord, Mass seem always to be showing up in US history) or William Henry Harrison's VP (Tyler of Tippecanoe and Tyler too) (John Tyler has a grandson that is alive and living in my county. Think about that one for a bit)
Today's US textbooks stray well beyond the presidential political history of our country and give a fairly thorough look at social and cultural developments that address a wide swath of the cultures that exist or existed in the present United States. (Aztecs, Iroquois, West African cultures, labor history, religion, women's movements) I teach in environment where the 95% white student body and parent community is more concerned about the pc-ification of history than the over-emphasis on dead white guys. I still think the genesis of these complaints is a complaint against history by students who think there time could be much better served with something that "they'll use later in life" ( auto shop, computer programming, free time for self exploration and self-actualization, or gender studies (dating))
The stuff is there to be taught.
I was brought to my school to teach a new requirement called 20th Century history. It is much like Turnea's suggestion of a semester course about recent history except that is is a year long course. It is designed to cover the United States and the World on a 50-50 or so basis.
In the second semester we cover the following topics in greater detail.
Decolonization (India, Africa, and the Middle East through 1967) (January)
1950s US anti-communism, baby boom
Civil Rights Movement (February)
China since 1949
Vietnam 1945-1975
JFK-LBJ
1960s protest movements (March)
Nixon (foreign policy and Watergate)
Middle East since 1973 Yom Kippur War through Iraq War
Western Europe and Unification
Eastern Europe and the Collapse of Soviet Communism
Reagan era (which I seem never to get to but the kids really need) I walked into an AP classroom last year and the smartest kids in our school were having a debate about Reagan. What they were really doing was practicing their skills in argument (a teen expertise) honed on the debate team and in watching pundits debate modern politics with rhetoric instead of facts.
I said let's forget the opinions for now and lay the facts on the table. Who knows any facts about Ronald Reagan's presidency? (This just after they had done some reading on the subject) They were truly interested and had questions, but only three or four real facts were offered up before they stumped themselves.
I have found that this semester (and a lot gets left out (Japan and Latin America) is something that can help high school students connect history to their lives. These different topics all get to the point where a discussion of recent news isn't just trying to engage kids by showing them history happening all around them, but that articles can be used to finish off the subject.
China's exponential industrial growth
The vote on the EU constitution
the Road Map for Peace
the policies of Mobutu and the recent film Hotel Rwanda
I like our curriculum. I like smaller school systems that hash these curriculum ideas out. We have a very diverse country and local flavor enhances more than waters down the history a student is taught.
Well I don't see how it hurts. High schoolers are not very prone as a group to love history, they tend more to be trying to escape it and make the mark in the present than to be intrigued with what has already happened in this world.
I think it is unfortunate that history tends to get debunked as learning about dead white guys. I think it is also unfortunate that the teaching of history in general seems to get people all riled up along political lines.
The school board may be trying to respond to a significant demand from the community.
One of the nice things about schools (and I admit there isn't a long list these days) is that they are a remaining bastion of local control. This requirement isn't going to hurt anyone.
2.)Do you agree with the PSP's actions?
Sure.
3.)What would be a better solution to this curriculum problem?
Well, a continued solution would be a board that continued to find ways to focus to keep its curriculum engaging and effective.
My school requires three years of history.
They are
World History (regular or honors)
United States history (regular or AP)
Twentieth Century History (or Modern European History AP)
It is my understanding that most school systems now teach world history instead of Western Civilization. While I am sure there are teachers out there that tend to focus much more on Western Civ than other materials, most text books I have seen in the last ten years are fairly balanced in their coverage of different cultural histories.
History is not all Greeks, Romans, Germans, Brits, and Frenchmen any more.
Ancient history, like Mediterranean history is very diverse. (Egyptians, Persians, a variety of religions)
Also most United States history books are beyond a prolonged study of General Cornwallis (Yorktown was basically Jamestown some places like Concord, Mass seem always to be showing up in US history) or William Henry Harrison's VP (Tyler of Tippecanoe and Tyler too) (John Tyler has a grandson that is alive and living in my county. Think about that one for a bit)
Today's US textbooks stray well beyond the presidential political history of our country and give a fairly thorough look at social and cultural developments that address a wide swath of the cultures that exist or existed in the present United States. (Aztecs, Iroquois, West African cultures, labor history, religion, women's movements) I teach in environment where the 95% white student body and parent community is more concerned about the pc-ification of history than the over-emphasis on dead white guys. I still think the genesis of these complaints is a complaint against history by students who think there time could be much better served with something that "they'll use later in life" ( auto shop, computer programming, free time for self exploration and self-actualization, or gender studies (dating))
The stuff is there to be taught.
I was brought to my school to teach a new requirement called 20th Century history. It is much like Turnea's suggestion of a semester course about recent history except that is is a year long course. It is designed to cover the United States and the World on a 50-50 or so basis.
In the second semester we cover the following topics in greater detail.
Decolonization (India, Africa, and the Middle East through 1967) (January)
1950s US anti-communism, baby boom
Civil Rights Movement (February)
China since 1949
Vietnam 1945-1975
JFK-LBJ
1960s protest movements (March)
Nixon (foreign policy and Watergate)
Middle East since 1973 Yom Kippur War through Iraq War
Western Europe and Unification
Eastern Europe and the Collapse of Soviet Communism
Reagan era (which I seem never to get to but the kids really need) I walked into an AP classroom last year and the smartest kids in our school were having a debate about Reagan. What they were really doing was practicing their skills in argument (a teen expertise) honed on the debate team and in watching pundits debate modern politics with rhetoric instead of facts.
I said let's forget the opinions for now and lay the facts on the table. Who knows any facts about Ronald Reagan's presidency? (This just after they had done some reading on the subject) They were truly interested and had questions, but only three or four real facts were offered up before they stumped themselves.
I have found that this semester (and a lot gets left out (Japan and Latin America) is something that can help high school students connect history to their lives. These different topics all get to the point where a discussion of recent news isn't just trying to engage kids by showing them history happening all around them, but that articles can be used to finish off the subject.
China's exponential industrial growth
The vote on the EU constitution
the Road Map for Peace
the policies of Mobutu and the recent film Hotel Rwanda
I like our curriculum. I like smaller school systems that hash these curriculum ideas out. We have a very diverse country and local flavor enhances more than waters down the history a student is taught.
QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Jun 10 2005, 01:01 AM)
Questions for debate:
1.)If a school's population is 2/3rds of a given race, should courses specific to the history of that race be a mandatory class?
2.)Do you agree with the PSP's actions?
3.)What would be a better solution to this curriculum problem?
1.)If a school's population is 2/3rds of a given race, should courses specific to the history of that race be a mandatory class?
2.)Do you agree with the PSP's actions?
3.)What would be a better solution to this curriculum problem?
1) No. History should be taught as a whole, not one ethnic group at a time. The reason that most US schools concentrate on European/North American history is that such is the most relevant to our society. The principles of our government and society at large started with Hammurabi went through the Greeks and Romans, then the English then here. That is a fact. Deal with it. We already have a "Black History Month" do we need another mandated feel good class? No.
2) Nope, ethnic pandering of the worst kind.
3) Teach history that is relevant. Expand the amount of history needed to graduate so we can touch on Asian, African and Pre-Columbian American history but once again, the history of our predominate culture is and was a liner thing that drove mainly through Europe, not Africa nor Asia nor Pre-Columbian American. Facts are stubborn things.
1.)If a school's population is 2/3rds of a given race, should courses specific to the history of that race be a mandatory class?
2.)Do you agree with the PSP's actions?
3.)What would be a better solution to this curriculum problem?
1.) No. Courses specific to the history of the dominating race should be offered but not made mandatory.
2.) No. All cultures deserve equal time. However in acception to that general statement, US history should be mandatory.
3.) Equal time to all cultures, US history mandatory, extracurricular African related activities should be available to a school population that exceeds 50%.
2.)Do you agree with the PSP's actions?
3.)What would be a better solution to this curriculum problem?
1.) No. Courses specific to the history of the dominating race should be offered but not made mandatory.
2.) No. All cultures deserve equal time. However in acception to that general statement, US history should be mandatory.
3.) Equal time to all cultures, US history mandatory, extracurricular African related activities should be available to a school population that exceeds 50%.
QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Jun 10 2005, 01:01 AM)
1.)If a school's population is 2/3rds of a given race, should courses specific to the history of that race be a mandatory class?
2.)Do you agree with the PSP's actions?
3.)What would be a better solution to this curriculum problem?
2.)Do you agree with the PSP's actions?
3.)What would be a better solution to this curriculum problem?
1.) Forgive me for sounding rather crude, but my community (which, by all statistics, is 99.7% Caucasian) does not have a course entitled White History. I think each person, given his or her own merits, should take it upon themselves to learn about their culture if that is what interests them.
2.) No.
3.) Encourage projects of one's ethnic background that can be done for extra points in a social studies like course. While 66.6% is an impressive number, it does not make up for the 33.3% who might be offended by being required to learn another cultures cultural significant. In other words: let the people decide.
In Atlanta, GA, I went to Grammar and High Schools which were 3/4 black. I am white, one of 20 white males in my graduating class of about 200. I endured 100 black history monthes and had that afro-centric line of thought drilled into my head. Many of my teachers wore west african style kente cloth to school everyday. Several of my history teachers threw the state-mandated textbooks out the window, which are TERRIBLE in GA, and taught from photocopied handouts from other textbooks. While we did not have a year, per se, dedicated to Black history, being in a poor black neighborhood, we had far and away more black history than most american public schools. I can recall years worth of black history month assemblies wondering 'what does this have to do with me?' and 'what does dancing have to do with history?' While many of my [black] friends actually performed, took seriously, and participated in the black history month celebrations, I didn't get them, and treated them like most kids treat most assemblies. Furthermore, they isolated me from the school and made me feel like a- i was being blamed for a past that I did not 'do', b- I was being pushed to the corner of the room, because i stood out like a sore white thumb on an african hand. Once, a very famous black football player, for whose sake I will keep confidential, told me, the only white guy in the gym to 'shut the f--- up!!' during a 'stay and school and do well, black youth!' assembly. (I was talking). Looking back, however, I understand now, and I am indebted in amounts beyond words to those experiences. (Minus the verbal lashing from the wide-reciever.)
Malcolm X once said that a southern black man calling himself an American is like a man at a supper table who is being refused a meal calling himself a diner. Coincidentally, its Malcolm X who came up with the term Afro-American. (note the difference between Afro and African-American)
A Russian-American, 10 generations removed, doesn't grow up in Russian American neighborhoods, doesn't listen to russian-american music; Russian Americans don't overwhelmingly live in dire poverty compared with other '-americans,' russian americans don't make the news every night, and don't get the evil eye from the police on they're way home from work because so many drug dealers happen to be russian americans. COPS isn't about russian americans being chased through the hood, slammed on the concrete and hauled away, but the jails are full of African-Americans, 10 or more generations removed from Africa. Rascism starts in the statistics, then crawls into the brain, somehow. Black History month is about two things:
1.) Turning around negative images of Africa and African-Americans, so that blacks (and whites) can see being black in a positive light. Freeing pre-conceptions of what being black is, by showing what being black comes from and has been through, so that black people can begin to decide what they want to be, without thinking, "black people don't do that."
If you've been looking for that much talked-about pair of bootstraps, they start over here, wrapped around one's own identity.
2.) Learning from African culture, which, regardless of what anyone says, is a difficult to tap, absoloute WEALTH of knowledge. Someone said this
two things to say about that, ONE, that is either very wrong, or at best, very simplified view of history. I happen to think that the French had a lot to do with the 'principles of our government and society,' as did the Iroquious, the Jews, the Chinese, and even a few africans along the way. (Was not Washington D.C. itself designed by a black man? Who better has called for adherance to the principle of our society than blacks?)
Two, you are right, we do need another mandated feel good class. By circumstance, America does a lot to make being black not 'feel good,' and I believe that the best, most complex and compelling, way we can learn about the history of America, is to see it through two sets of eyes: that of our own, and those of other peoples we have come in contact, whether they be thankfully freed ex-communist European peoples, or marginalized and decimated native americans. One of the country's problems is that things ain't set up for us to criticize a people without criticizing the person, can't criticize a president without invariably criticizing the troops, or critize abortion without invariably offending some aspects of motherhood: and we can't criticize our, my, confederate grandfathers, without feeling like we're being accused of heinous crimes, ourselves. In this regard, Black History has a lot to say, clearly and respectfully, about the underbelly of 'White History,' and it is a kind of unexpressably important subject.
Too much Math!! 13 grades in our educational system, and 13 percent of our population is black. I like those numbers. Now, one grade, equals 7.69 percent of one 'education,' so technically, not one year should be dedicated to black history, but two years, minus a month or three!
Not only do I think Philly should be free to see what works for Philly, I think that all Americans should further look at and understand black history, if only as a mirror for our own history. Whatever our points may be, I hope that all the members of A.D. will back me in saying that no american should be allowed to reach voting age without a MUCH more intensive education in history.
QUOTE
Firstly, I refuse to accept the fact that one of the largest components of people in the American populus adds a prefix to "American". You are "African-American" in the event that you came from Africa and are now an American, but not because 10 generations ago your ancestors came from Africa. Frankly, most of us don't even really know much about our geneology. With that logic, I would be Russian American, the person in the next office would be Scottish American, etc, etc, etc
Malcolm X once said that a southern black man calling himself an American is like a man at a supper table who is being refused a meal calling himself a diner. Coincidentally, its Malcolm X who came up with the term Afro-American. (note the difference between Afro and African-American)
A Russian-American, 10 generations removed, doesn't grow up in Russian American neighborhoods, doesn't listen to russian-american music; Russian Americans don't overwhelmingly live in dire poverty compared with other '-americans,' russian americans don't make the news every night, and don't get the evil eye from the police on they're way home from work because so many drug dealers happen to be russian americans. COPS isn't about russian americans being chased through the hood, slammed on the concrete and hauled away, but the jails are full of African-Americans, 10 or more generations removed from Africa. Rascism starts in the statistics, then crawls into the brain, somehow. Black History month is about two things:
1.) Turning around negative images of Africa and African-Americans, so that blacks (and whites) can see being black in a positive light. Freeing pre-conceptions of what being black is, by showing what being black comes from and has been through, so that black people can begin to decide what they want to be, without thinking, "black people don't do that."
If you've been looking for that much talked-about pair of bootstraps, they start over here, wrapped around one's own identity.
2.) Learning from African culture, which, regardless of what anyone says, is a difficult to tap, absoloute WEALTH of knowledge. Someone said this
QUOTE
1) No. History should be taught as a whole, not one ethnic group at a time. The reason that most US schools concentrate on European/North American history is that such is the most relevant to our society. The principles of our government and society at large started with Hammurabi went through the Greeks and Romans, then the English then here. That is a fact. Deal with it. We already have a "Black History Month" do we need another mandated feel good class? No.
two things to say about that, ONE, that is either very wrong, or at best, very simplified view of history. I happen to think that the French had a lot to do with the 'principles of our government and society,' as did the Iroquious, the Jews, the Chinese, and even a few africans along the way. (Was not Washington D.C. itself designed by a black man? Who better has called for adherance to the principle of our society than blacks?)
Two, you are right, we do need another mandated feel good class. By circumstance, America does a lot to make being black not 'feel good,' and I believe that the best, most complex and compelling, way we can learn about the history of America, is to see it through two sets of eyes: that of our own, and those of other peoples we have come in contact, whether they be thankfully freed ex-communist European peoples, or marginalized and decimated native americans. One of the country's problems is that things ain't set up for us to criticize a people without criticizing the person, can't criticize a president without invariably criticizing the troops, or critize abortion without invariably offending some aspects of motherhood: and we can't criticize our, my, confederate grandfathers, without feeling like we're being accused of heinous crimes, ourselves. In this regard, Black History has a lot to say, clearly and respectfully, about the underbelly of 'White History,' and it is a kind of unexpressably important subject.
Too much Math!! 13 grades in our educational system, and 13 percent of our population is black. I like those numbers. Now, one grade, equals 7.69 percent of one 'education,' so technically, not one year should be dedicated to black history, but two years, minus a month or three!
Not only do I think Philly should be free to see what works for Philly, I think that all Americans should further look at and understand black history, if only as a mirror for our own history. Whatever our points may be, I hope that all the members of A.D. will back me in saying that no american should be allowed to reach voting age without a MUCH more intensive education in history.
1.)If a school's population is 2/3rds of a given race, should courses specific to the history of that race be a mandatory class?
2.)Do you agree with the PSP's actions?
3.)What would be a better solution to this curriculum problem?
Lets just take them all together:
I agree with other members here who have suggested that history should not be taught in a race specific format. I think we need to re-evaluate history education in general. First, why not simple teach history per date, regardless of the race or class of individuals involved in the particular, important event. What difference does the race of the person / people in question make unless their race was the reason for the event?
When we segregate our education like this don't we promote the racial divide?
Secondly, we do this country as dis-service when we teach our kids a white-washed version of history. We have ugly moments throughout the history of this nation, many of which were necessary evils if we were to become the nation we are today. We need to teach about these events, but drop the "white-knight" propaganda and focus on reality.
Someone one said: "He who does not know history is doomed to repeat it." or something along those lines.
Well, he who only knows the cleaned up version of history is just as likely to repeat it.
Think about this, if American kids were taught about the horrors of carpet bombing in world war two would they be as outraged by the occasional stray smart bomb, when seen in the context of the mass slaughter of WWII, the war everyone supported and the vast majority still look back on today with high regard? In war, people die, sometimes those people are innocent bystanders. The technology we have today limits those losses to a tiny percentage of the innocent bystanders killed in allied carpet bombings of industrial centers (also know as cities).
2.)Do you agree with the PSP's actions?
3.)What would be a better solution to this curriculum problem?
Lets just take them all together:
I agree with other members here who have suggested that history should not be taught in a race specific format. I think we need to re-evaluate history education in general. First, why not simple teach history per date, regardless of the race or class of individuals involved in the particular, important event. What difference does the race of the person / people in question make unless their race was the reason for the event?
When we segregate our education like this don't we promote the racial divide?
Secondly, we do this country as dis-service when we teach our kids a white-washed version of history. We have ugly moments throughout the history of this nation, many of which were necessary evils if we were to become the nation we are today. We need to teach about these events, but drop the "white-knight" propaganda and focus on reality.
Someone one said: "He who does not know history is doomed to repeat it." or something along those lines.
Well, he who only knows the cleaned up version of history is just as likely to repeat it.Think about this, if American kids were taught about the horrors of carpet bombing in world war two would they be as outraged by the occasional stray smart bomb, when seen in the context of the mass slaughter of WWII, the war everyone supported and the vast majority still look back on today with high regard? In war, people die, sometimes those people are innocent bystanders. The technology we have today limits those losses to a tiny percentage of the innocent bystanders killed in allied carpet bombings of industrial centers (also know as cities).
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.