We've been posting the last several days about the not so subtle encroachment of international goals and international curriculum in Missouri schools. The Missouri DESE website showcases international goals over the rights guaranteed to US citizens in the Constitution and the IB curriculum is being debated in Ozark, MO. IB curriculum highlights world history over national history in its quest for globalism.
We now will share with you a story from American Thinker on what may very well be taught (or not taught) in your public school.
Nearly half of American history teachers believe it is less important that their students understand the common history, ideas, rights, and responsibilities that tie the country together as Americans than that they learn to celebrate the unique identities and experiences of its different ethnic, religious, and immigrant groups.
Advocates of radical "social-justice" multiculturalism in many university schools of education -- the places where most K-12 teachers are trained -- continue to oppose assimilation with a common culture while instead seeking to radically transform an "oppressive" America.
It's time to understand what's occurring in public school curriculum. American history is quickly becoming irrelevant according to the Department of Education and the State Department (I still don't understand why the State Department is involved in education). While it is now becoming increasingly unimportant for their students to (1) understand such concepts as federalism, separation of powers, and checks and balances, and (2) know about the American Founding, the Civil War, and the Cold War, a whopping 76 percent (of teachers) deemed it critical for students "to be tolerant of people and groups who are different from themselves.
If you think about it, though, this is the philosophy of the progressive left. Isn't this how they approach the Constitution itself? Obama and his allies pontificate on how the Constitution is a "living, breathing document". According to Yale University, Supreme Court justices should be appointed if they can exhibit empathy in deciding interpretation of the law. When and why did this become a benchmark by which to nominate a Supreme Court Justice appointee?
The curriculum in terms of globalism and social justice is eroding American exceptionalism. If you have a student in public school today, you might just want to study the Constitution with your child yourself. Isn't it ironic the study and importance of American history has been reduced to this sentence in the last paragraph from the Yale Law School piece mentioned above:
As President Obama searches for Justice Stevens' replacement, he should bear in mind Justice Holmes's prescient observation that the life of the law is experience, not logic.
Substitute the word "history" for the phrase "the law", and you have discovered the stance of this administration, the Department of Education and State Department. The Constitution can be reinterpreted to rely on "experience" instead of "logic" at the Supreme Court level. Why should the study of history be any different? Revisionist history is acceptable in many schools today. This is the trio strangling the sovereign right of states to educate their children. After all, as American Thinker states:
Not surprisingly, only a little more than one-third of the teachers deemed it "absolutely essential" for their students to "know facts" (such as the location of the fifty states) or dates (such as the attack on Pearl Harbor). After all, why let facts get in the way of advocacy?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Keep it clean and constructive. We reserve the right to delete comments that are profane, off topic, or spam.