American Heritage 2
E Pluribus Unum: Are We Losing Our American Heritage?
Paula Baumgardner
Contents
Abstract / 3
Introduction / 4
Research Questions / 5
Literature Review / 5
Research Proposal / 16
Research Hypothesis / 18
Null Hypothesis / 18
Research Methods / 18
Findings / 20
Summary / 20
Conclusion / 20
Appendices / 21
Findings from American Heritage Survey / 22
References / 26
Abstract
It has become increasingly apparent that many in the United States are not familiar with some of the basic principles or foundations of our nations beginnings. Research indicates that revising American history curriculum has an impact on students and their testing results, as does inadequate teaching of the principles of our Founding Fathers. In addition, it has become a concern among historians, politicians, educators, but most importantly our nation. Will we, as a nation, lose our American Heritage over time? Changing our children’s American history textbooks and not exposing the next generation to the Founder’s plan for our country, it could happen (Neal, et al, 2000, p 4).
INTRODUCTION
My passion is learning and teaching American History and American Government. I believe it is essential that every American citizen learn, appreciate and become active in the American culture. I believe that we, as Americans, are losing our heritage as a result of the many changes that have occurred in the institution of education.
I hope to learn the reasons why many do not know about America’s foundation and the importance of studying it. I hope by discovering the underlying issues, I can help to rectify the deficiencies in the knowledge of American heritage.
This area of study has a significant impact on my professional practice because it is imperative that students are taught the full scope of American History/Government, not just fragments of it. Not only is it significant in my professional practice, but to others who have a great influence in educating our youth to carry on the legacy of our nations founders. Without knowledge, people perish — in this case our nation will not continue to be if our present and future generations do not have a firm foundational understanding of the principles of our forefathers. Not only is it imperative that the next generation understand the significance of what our founders went through, but also the documents they crafted that shaped our national foundation.
Undertaking this research project will bring a better understanding of how important it is to educate students in America’s foundation and how it is still relevant today. Without a strong foundation, the nation cannot stand. Students need to understand the relevance of holding on to our foundations so that this country can remain as one — United States of America. It is to this end, that it is necessary that all educators who help mold our next generation into citizens know where we came from, where were we are going, and the possible implications if we are not secure in our national heritage.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Through my research I hope to discover answers to the following questions:
1. Do most Scioto County citizens have a basic knowledge of the principles the founders of our nation had put into practice?
2. Do most high school seniors score well on the American history/civic section of the state test?
3. Are most students taught about the United States Constitution and other relevant foundational documents?
LITERATURE REVIEW
Are We Still a United States of America?
A Review of the Literature
Literature articles have been written to expose the lack of education students are receiving in American History and Government and the effects of this lack of knowledge. In a study conducted by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, it was discovered that many college students graduate without knowing their American heritage (Neil, et al., 2000). Hess (2009) describes in his article that, “too many young Americans do not possess the kind of basic knowledge they need. When asked fundamental questions about U.S. history and culture, they scored a D and exhibit stunning knowledge gaps” (p. 5).
This literature review will address some of the underlying issues in hopes of gaining a perspective on this increasing trend.
1. Why study the past?
2. What changes are being made?
3. What impact can these changes have on the future?
Why study the past?
Carpenter points out Thomas Jefferson “believed that the main purpose of an educated citizenry is to serve as the basic line of defense against any encroachment on their lives by a government” (p.144). He continues by saying that Jefferson “thought it important to read such political works as the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist Papers, and the Constitution of the United States” (p. 145). Nash concurs by stating that, “Jefferson, Rush, and Webster represent the desire to use schooling to create the ‘uniform America’ and ‘to create a new unity, a common citizenship and culture’ . . .and to create citizens who would be loyal to the new country” (p. 419). Neal explains “the nations past unifies a people and ensures a common civic identity (p. 4). She continues to say that “the importance of a shared memory appears to have lost its foothold in higher education” and “what happens in higher education relates directly to what happens in K-12 (abstract, 2005). Neal further advocates that, “other than our schools, no institution bear greater responsibility for the transmission of our heritage than colleges and universities” (p. 7). Finally, Neal explains that, “citizens who fail to know basic landmarks of history and civics are unlikely to be able to reflect on their meaning” and therefore, “fail to recognize . . . the importance of preserving it” (p. 7).
Hess’s study seems to articulate the same ideology as Neal’s. Hess stated that, “ it is vital that schools familiarize students with the history and culture that form the shared bonds of their national community” (p. 7). Hess continues to address the issue that our forefathers regarded comprehensive education as the schools purpose. This is the schools’ primary mission, to “equip every young person for the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship” (p. 7). In order to achieve this goal one must be taught, “with the historical narrative and cultural touchstones that mark our national experience, schools provide the vocabulary for a common conversation that can render e pluribus unum” (Hess, 2009, p. 7). Hess continues to say, “absent shared reference points, it may be more difficult for young Americans . . . to find their common identity as citizens” (p. 7).
Gutierreze (2003) emphasized, “In order for people to appreciate the legitimate claim of the polity and the society from which the government came, they must be knowledgeable about the origins of its professed values and beliefs. Therefore, as part of a government, civics, and even history curriculum, the content should include historical study of the origins of those ideals, especially in order to avoid an inaccurate or distorted understanding of those origins” (p. 221).
Carpenter quotes Jefferson again saying,
For this purpose the reading in the first stage, where they will receive their whole education, is proposed. . . to be chiefly historical. History by apprising them of the past will enable them to judge the future; it will avail them of the experience of other times and other nations; it will qualify them as judges of the actions and designs of men; it will enable them to know ambition under every disguise it may assume, and knowing it, to defeat its views (p. 141).
Carpenter continues to say, “The ultimate goal of Jefferson’s educational plan was, of course, effective citizenship education” (p. 142). In addition, “ . . . all citizens regardless of educational background, would be effective defenders of the new republic against threats to their personal liberty” (p. 142).
Why are there changes?
According to Neal, “the abandonment of history requirements is part of a national trend” (p. 6). She supports her statement by including a 1988 study completed by the National Endowment for Humanities. This study indicated “that more than 80 percent of colleges and universities permitted students to graduate without taking a course in American history while 37 percent of those institutions allowed students to avoid history altogether” (p. 6). Neal further explains that thirteen years later, the percentage increased to “One hundred percent do not require American history and 78 percent require no history at all (p. 6). Even though Neal’s primary focus was the college level, she stated that few students who leave high school have adequate knowledge of American history and that “colleges and universities do nothing to close the ‘knowledge gap’” (p. 6). Robelen (2010) states that “efforts to rewrite social studies standards come as concerns persist . . .are getting squeezed out of the classroom because of the federal No Child Left Behind Act’s emphasis on reading and math” (p. 18).
According to the Ohio Department of Education, students will only need “ . . . a half unit of credit in American History and a half unit of credit in American Government” (p.1). ODE outlines indicate that the “course examines the history of the United States of America from 1877 to the present” (p. 3). Lynne Munson, according to Robelen (2010), said, “scaling back the breadth of American history coverage in high school is a bad idea” (p. 19). In addition, the ODE, as other “proponents of the spiral curriculum, suggested that the fifth grade go from 1492 to the War of 1812 . . .” (Stotsky, 2004, p. 27). Stotsky points out that “the average fifth grader is incapable of bringing much depth of understanding to our basic political principles” (p. 27). Robelen (2010) quoted Lynne Munson stating, “I do think once you’re in high school and your intellectual development and background knowledge . . .you can restudy the American past in a way that will bring more meaning than you might have been able to glean at earlier grades” (p. 19).
Hess’s article indicated that the change to student’s knowledge of American history is three-fold. First, he stated, “The nation is in thrall with testing and basic skills. We think this is a mistake” (p. 6). Hess’s concern with the Title I legislation was that, “Congress required all states to create standards and testing, but only in reading and mathematics” (p. 6). This new policy meant an increase in instructional time to those areas of testing and a decrease in instructional time for history (Hess, 2009, p. 8). The second issue is that “some children do not grow up in homes . . . in which parents are [not] conversant in questions of history and culture . . . and that schools are especially crucial” (Hess, 2009, p. 7). Lastly, Hess emphasizes the change in our youth’s culture. He stated, “American youth have more schooling, money, leisure time, and information than any previous generation, yet they devote enormous quantities of time to social networking websites, television, and video games” (p. 7).
Waters, on the other hand, believes the changes are not only due to what students are taught, but their perception of American history is different depending on the grade level (p. 11-12). Secondly, Waters stated that curriculum changes occur in the K-12 level because of political correctness and that this correctness changes over time (p. 13-14). Waters continues by stating, “Today’s textbooks will be criticized for having omitted issues which do not seem important today. But again, this is where college classes should come in” (p. 13).
DeRose concurs with Waters, by stating that there are “some factors affecting historical interpretation” (p. 233). For example, “emotion and feeling can influence our perceptions of current individuals and events” (p. 233). However, with some distance, our memories of the past will change (p. 233). Lastly, DeRose points out that, “As society places greater or less emphasis on certain issues or becomes more accepting or even less tolerant of various groups or conditions, we might reinterpret the past to conform to these new social standards”(p. 233). On the other hand, Stotsky examined that, “The history of Western political thought is diminishing because of the comparative sociocultural approach now frequently used for the study of history” (p. 28). She continues to say that, “In effect, sociocultural approaches tend to obliterate the origins and development of our civic culture, to devalue the groups that advanced individual rights and to create sympathy for cultures, extinct or not, that don’t value individual rights”(p. 28).
Stotsky addresses the issue from the perspective that teachers are not adequately trained. She states, “52 percent of its eighth grade U.S. history teachers have neither a history nor a social studies license, that 38 percent of its ninth grade U.S. history teachers have neither a history nor a social studies license, and that a whopping 86 percent of the English as a Second Language teachers who teach U.S. history classes for ESL students at eight county high schools have not had a single course in U.S. history” (p. 21).
What impact can these changes have?
Neal addresses three issues that these changes can have. First, “As we move forward into the 21st century, our future leaders are graduating with an alarming ignorance of their heritage—a kind of collective amnesia—and a profound historical illiteracy which bodes ill for the future of the republic” (p. 4).
Secondly, if these “graduates leave school without knowing the foundations of American society, children they teach will certainly do not better (p. 7). Lastly, Neal quotes novelist Milan Kundera stating, “If you want to destroy a country, destroy its memory. If a hostile power wanted to erase America’s civic heritage, it could hardly do a better job—short of actually prohibiting the study of American history” (p. 6). Novak supports Neal by stating, “People are willing to kill us just for being Americans. So we ought at least to know what being American is. Yet many of our students have been taught painfully little about our nation’s history, purposes, or achievements” (p. 32).