An article came out this week in the Wall Street Journal: State Reviews Its Toughest Test
This bothered me for a number of reasons:
- It's ludicrous to get rid of a state exam because it's
"hard". I agree with disposing of this standards-era waste of paper,
but that's because I think we should trash all of the current state exams.
They're extremely poorly written and they undermine good teaching and
development of real, core academic skills in students.
- The article references a "push" in science and
math as the reason we're getting rid of this history test. That implies that
emphasizing these subjects has not been happening since Sputnik was launched 55 years ago. Perhaps if the author of this article and state officials had paid
attention in their history classes, they would know this.
- The Education Commissioner, John King, basically states we should get rid of this test and history courses because "future jobs" will require math and science. This man needs to wake up to the fact that "the future" as he's referring to it started decades ago. Also, no one has ever said that the curriculum in a history course leads directly to a job in the field of history. We agree that it's important because to understand what is happening around you at this moment requires knowledge of the past and to formulate constructive responses to difficult situations in the future we need to understand things like cause and effect as it pertains to human action. Furthermore, learning history is more about critical thinking, and learning to read and write proficiently about real things than it is about rote memorization of facts- something that is lost on the designers of the current Global History Regents exam.