As an historian, I'm keenly aware that my field of interest is like the proverbial canary in the mine. Historical ignorance is a symptom of a larger educational problem and, consequently, I'll weigh-in on the Core Curriculum all abuzz in Levittown and environs these days.
I'm not without my own critiques of the Core to be sure. It, or more precisely, it's implementation and evaluative aspects, has been infected with the same "teach-to-the-test" virus that's given us a generation whose education is more suited to game show trivia than to erudition and critical analysis. Data, after all, is not knowledge and a diagnostic methodology should never overshadow the vey cognitive attainment it endeavors to measure. Too, I have reservations about the manner in which it approaches such humanities as literature and social studies because I think Snow's "two cultures" thesis has done little more than divorce the sciences from the very humanistic roots that bequeathed them intellectual virility in the first place. But these critiques are entirely academic; entirely epistemological and pedagogic in their scope.
Alas, many attacking the Core in recent public forums have offered little constructive criticism. Indeed, some have been completely over-the-top: a superintendent who claimed, without citing any peer-reviewed medical journals, that the Core causes respiratory illnesses in children; a self-described regional supervisor of a large coffee company who oversees a $20 million budget but claims her Third Grader's math homework is incomprehensible; a parent who complains that the Core isn't "fun enough" or "too hard" on students. Maybe the school district and coffee company in question need to consider personnel changes and maybe the parent needs to learn that education can't always be an effortless barrel of laughs because it's not the same as playing video games or watching TV.
Much of this tommyrot and ballyhoo, too, I've observed, hails from younger Boomers and Generation Xer's accustomed to mediocrity being the standard; people who are, true to the dire prognostications of the 1983 "A Nation at Risk" report, less educated than erstwhile generations.
Visiting America in 1835, Alexis de Tocqueville wrote how impressed he was by the state of education, especially in New England, and how even the "man in the street" had extensive general knowledge, knew about the Constitution and workings of government, and was versed in the theological evidences of his religion. Indeed, he noted that it was unusual to find a person not thusly acquainted. Does that sound like America in 2013 when the "Information Age" offers opportunities for learning that could not have even been imagined in 1835?
Without being too melodramatic, there is much at stake here. Our children are enveloped by forces dedicated to transforming them into vulgar, self-centered ignoramuses: knowledge is not venerated as of old and knowledgeable people are deemed curiosities. Demanding historical accuracy, scientific evidence, moral reasoning, and proper language usage is considered snobbish and narrow-minded by a growing number. Parochial "street smarts" is considered more realistic than availing oneself of centuries of thought, learning, and experience found in books.
Truth is dismissed as subjective. Iconoclastic wit is considered superior to erudition. Hyped-up is confused with import. Celebrities are mistaken for historical figures. Dumbed-down is confused with summation. Shibboleth and cliché are preferred to critical analysis. This is not the American culture that Tocqueville encountered but it is the American culture in 2013 which confronts the Core or any other endeavor to reform education.
Want to learn more about the history of Levittown and the surrounding communities? Visit www.levittownhistoricalsociety.org
