Report says schools are unfair to America

[Woodrow]

WASHINGTON (AP) --The nation's schools are telling an unbalanced story of their own country, offering students plenty about America's failings but not enough about its values and freedoms, says a report drawing support across the ideological spectrum.

Without a change of approach, schools will continue to turn out large numbers of students who are disengaged in society and unappreciative of democracy, the report contends.

Produced by the nonpartisan Albert Shanker Institute, "Education for Democracy" is the latest effort to try to strengthen the nation's underwhelming grasp of civics and history. Authors hope it will lead to curriculum changes and, in the short term, stir debate about today's social studies classes as people reflect on the terrorist attacks of two years ago.

Wide range of support
Beyond its provocative findings, the report is notable for the range of people and groups supporting it, from Republicans and Democrats to labor unions and conservative think tanks.

Those who have signed on include former President Clinton; Jeane Kirkpatrick, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and U.N. ambassador during the first administration of Ronald Reagan; and David McCullough, the historian and author. Dozens of scholars, professors, labor leaders and representatives of school groups have backed it, too.

"It really shows the depth of concern across the country about the status of our civil society," said one signatory, Lee Hamilton, president of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and a former Democratic congressman from Indiana. "How low voter participation can you have and still have a democracy?"

Too many classroom lessons and text books contribute to a sense of historical indifference by focusing on America's darker moments, the report says.

In a push to give a warts-and-all account of the struggles of democracy, schools have turned the nation's sins into the essence of the story instead of just a part of it, the new report says.

"Vietnam, Watergate, impeachment hearings, the rottenness of campaign finance, rising cynicism about politicians in general -- we've gone excessively in our society ... toward cynicism," said Larry Diamond, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.

"It's a call for balance; it's not a call for purging from the history books honest criticism of our failings."

"People have been so anxious to be self-critical, probably with good intentions," said Sandra Feldman, president of the American Federation of Teachers, the nation's second largest union of teachers. "But we feel that's just gone too far over in that direction.

"We definitely have had terrible problems as a nation, but we also have a society that is totally different than that of a totalitarian society. Children need to understand and value what has been built here," said Feldman, also president of the institute, which is endowed by the AFT.

Report: History, civics lost
Reg Weaver, president of the largest education union, the National Education Association, has also endorsed the report. So have leaders of the National School Boards Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers.

The report accompanies an earlier institute-sponsored study on civics standards, one that contends history and civics are often lost in the emphasis on reading and math.

The report says: "We do not ask for propaganda, for crash courses in the right attitudes or for knee-jerk patriotic drill. We do not want to capsulize democracy's arguments into slogans, or pious texts, or bright debaters' points."

But it takes aim at a lack of teaching about non-democratic societies, saying that comparison could show the "genius" of America's system. Sanitized accounts of real-life horrors elsewhere lead to the "half-education" of children, the report says.

The report calls for a stronger history and social studies curriculum, starting in elementary school and continuing through all years of schooling. It also suggests a bigger push for morality in education lessons.

"The basic ideas of liberty, equality, and justice, of civil, political and economic rights and obligations, are all assertions of right and wrong, of moral values," the report says. "The authors of the American testament had no trouble distinguishing moral education from religious instruction, and neither should we."

http://www.cnn.com/2003/EDUCATION/09/09/schools.democracy.ap/index.html


I've been saying this for years...

[Trauma-san]

Duh, LOL.

It all comes from this (warning: Trauma intelligence about to be displayed!!!)

I see clearly what many others don't.


Anyways, there's this big myth, that because democrats (liberals) are always pushing for more govt. sponsered assistance programs, that democrats are for the poor people, and that republicans (who simply don't like big government and would prefer that ALL people, rich or poor, get to keep more of their money, and not pay high taxes for govt. assistance programs!) are all bad, evil, rich white men who hate poor people and don't want them to succeed.

Teachers don't get paid shit.  Therefore, many of them are poor.  Many poor people are democrats.  Many teachers are democrats.  

When Republican, Conservative Ideals are put forth by conservative teachers, they largely go unnoticed, because they are NORMAL, rational ideals, that are instilled in kids from birth.  They're natural... things like family, responsibility, etc.

When liberal teachers spout off about liberal ideas, it goes against the natural grain we're all born with, and strike us as strange, or unique.  Young minds (Mine, for instance!) are often swayed by this new thought, even though it's not really new, it's the same old story, that has been CONSISTANTLY rejected for centuries in America.

Conservatism is the way to go.  Liberal ideas aren't new; they're just WRONG.  A young mind often doesn't realize that the conservative ideals that have been around in this country forever are there because they're time-proven.  As you grow older, many people find themselves growing more conservative, I did.  

[UnstoppableForce]

I believe that in order for the society to function with effect and success, and for it to grow and prosper, we need both liberal ideals and conservative ones. It all depends on the time and things they're being applied to. Some things just need to remain the way they are, and other things need to be changed to fit our times.
I respect each side's views. However, you can't say that Big Business doesn't gain more from a Republican president than it does from a Democratic one. The rich have more to gain.

[Trauma-san]

Yes, that's entirely true.  That's because the rich have more to gain FROM.  They're RICH.  Do you understand that at all?  I never get that from people.  Of course big buisness have more to gain then small business, or whatever, because they're BIGGER.  

For instance.  If you're a girl that weighs 95 pounds, and you work out, over a month, you're going to put on 1 pound of muscle.  You'll look great.

If you're a guy, and you way 200 pounds, 6'4.  You work out for a month.  You gain 4 pounds of muscle.  Why? Because you were bigger to begin with, you had more to gain, because you had more to work with.

It's simple math, I don't understand why people get so caught up in this rich/poor thing.  The only thing that poor people gain from democrats, vs. republicans, is government entitlement programs that are taken FROM taxes that rich people pay! Who says that's fair?  Who was the man who said that if you have more, you have to give more?  This isn't a socialist country, and should never become one.

No republican ALIVE wants needy people to go hungry.  If people need assistance, the government should provide it.  It's out of control right now, though.  

[UnstoppableForce]

Explain to me how millions of people being killed in another country and an oil company here at home making big bucks off that is fair?

You stated: "The only thing that poor people gain from democrats, vs. republicans, is government entitlement programs that are taken FROM taxes that rich people pay! Who says that's fair?"

Ok, this might come as a big shock to you Trauma, but POOR PEOPLE PAY TAXES TOO! It is for the general welfare of the nation that the poor is helped out. This is exactly what's so wrong about these right-wing notions. People like you don't believe that the money of the people (which yes, it does include the rich) should be spent on helping the poor. Everyone pays taxes. What's so wrong about helping the needy? Morally, isn't it a good thing that our tax money goes to help those who need it? I pay my taxes, and I would rather it go to help those who need it most, as well as our healthcare, education, roads, etc. I don't my money to help Bill Gates save a couple dollars, or to help finance a meaningless war.

[UnstoppableForce]

If we don't help out the poor, then we are filling our streets with homeless people and what-not. Is that a good thing? It will lead to a loss of jobs, more people, small business going down, or eventually being bought out by bigger business, at which point bigger business becomes even bigger.

About 80-90% of the countries wealth is in the hands of less than 5% of the people. Are you saying its better if that 80-90% increases? Why don't we just have ourselves a king.

[Woodrow]

In our modern open-market capitalist society, entrepreneurs get rich and the poor get better off as a result...

Of course they're not going to get as rich as fast ,So, of course the gap thereby gets wider ,but the top AND BOTTOM of the gap both rise to levels much higher than before. The gap is widening?? Super! Thats good for everybody, ESPECIALLY the poor!

"One of the sad signs of our times is that we have demonized those who produce, subsidized those who refuse to produce, and canonized those who complain." -- Dr. Thomas Sowell

[Woodrow]

Approximately Dollars 1.3bn (Pounds 900m) has been donated to benefit the victims of the September 11 terrorist attacks. While this is a considerable sum, it is consistent with Americans' generosity. According to the American Association of Fundraising Counsel, in 2000 Americans gave Dollars 203bn to charitable organisations, or 2 per cent of gross domestic product, far surpassing the contributions of any other nation. Further, those other countries that were runners-up in private philanthropy were nations that share US values and traditions.  
       
"Why are Americans such big givers? Some say this generosity is merely the outgrowth of the spectacular success of capitalism at wealth creation. And no one should argue with capitalism's success in generating wealth, or that possessing wealth beyond that required to meet one's immediate needs makes contributing to humanitarian causes easier.  

"But surely there is more to the link between capitalism and humanitarianism than wealth creation. After all, there are plenty of things one can do with one's wealth other than contribute it to meeting the needs of others. Humanitarianism rests not just on wealth but on an ethos. And two aspects of the ethos of capitalism - materialism and individualism - are what make humanitarianism possible.  

"Materialism is the belief that the quality of one's life on earth is important: that life should be more than a daily struggle to meet immediate needs. This is important, for if one does not believe that the material conditions of life are important, no value exists in meeting the material needs of others.  

"The individuals who commandeered the aeroplanes and flew them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon did not think the material conditions of life mattered. Indeed, they did not think life itself mattered. They willingly brought death to themselves and thousands of others and suffering to tens of thousands for a non-material purpose.

"Indeed, their acts and the rhetoric of their leaders are not just non-material, but anti-material. They believe in tearing down. Capitalism, by contrast, is the ideology of building up; it is the best ethos for making our dreams and aspirations concrete that mankind has ever found."

Lawrence Lindsey
Financial Times, London, Nov 22, 2001

[M Dogg™]

In our modern open-market capitalist society, entrepreneurs get rich and the poor get better off as a result...

Of course they're not going to get as rich as fast ,So, of course the gap thereby gets wider ,but the top AND BOTTOM of the gap both rise to levels much higher than before. The gap is widening?? Super! Thats good for everybody, ESPECIALLY the poor!

"One of the sad signs of our times is that we have demonized those who produce, subsidized those who refuse to produce, and canonized those who complain." -- Dr. Thomas Sowell

In practice, it has never worked. In Reagonamics, the poor grew poorer than before LBJ's Great Society.

[ITW [the irish boy]]

Firstly, the original topic.... maybe your textbooks are very critical, but critisism is usually a good thing, because you will then love your country for what it is. Like seeing your girlfriend without makeup, if you still think shes hot then its all the better. And as for huge cynicism towards politics, remember that this happens in every country, including ireland...here the books show all the problems of corruption etc so people can see how things should be, and taught that all politicians are not always good, and you should really take an active role in considering your vote.

And trauma...in weightlifting, when u are only 95lbs you will increase your muscle far more than someone heavier because you have a bigger capacity to grow. Anyway, more on point, i think that taxes should be used to prop up the lower half of the country. like with your friends, if you have a weak mate then you should look out for him, not just say its up to him to learn how to fight and stand up for himself. thats up to him, and until then youll have his back. Same with society, if you are rich and have money to spare, you should help the poor help themselves and give them the means to pprop themselves up. Its just plain selfish to say its their own fault...theyre born into that life, and very few will get the opportunitys, or have the capabilities to become an entrepreneur and make it work. The least we can offer them is a safety net in case they fail. If you happened to be on the street tomorrow, wouldnt you like to know the government will help you get back on your feet?

[Woodrow]

like with your friends, if you have a weak mate then you should look out for him, not just say its up to him to learn how to fight and stand up for himself.

Wouldn't you rather have your friend be able to stand up for himself so when you aren't around he can handle things for himself?

[UnstoppableForce]

Aren't we as a nation trying to look out for the general welfare and aim at equality of the entire population? Should we not help the poor get on its feet and raise their living standards to bring it a little closer to ours?

[Don Jacob]

^they got to meet us half way though

america has one of the most mobile class system, you can go from the bottom to the top IF you have the drive. people don't relise how much opportunity is out there if you quit feeling bad for yourself and strive for a better life. yeah i need help from the government to go to college right now.....but i'm meeting them half way by trying my best.

[UnstoppableForce]

^^ I agree... in no country does a person have more opportunity to make something of themselves as here in the U.S.  I don't expect the government to do everything for these people, or support them for the rest of their lives. I just think the government should give them a little push, you know what I mean? Some of these people just don't know what's available and out there for them, I think the government should help at making them aware. I don't know if what I'm saying is making sense to you, but in no way am I saying is that we should just throw money at these people so they can live better.

[ITW [the irish boy]]

like with your friends, if you have a weak mate then you should look out for him, not just say its up to him to learn how to fight and stand up for himself.

Wouldn't you rather have your friend be able to stand up for himself so when you aren't around he can handle things for himself?

Ironically, that is exactly my point. I believe that we as the stronger members of the group should both protect the weak guy AND try to help him get to the standard where he can stand up for himself (i.e help the poor bridge the class gap) The ultimate aim would be for this guy to longer be the weakest link, and to do that you need to both protect(not overprotect) and help them grow. Thats why I believe that not only do you need handouts, but you need re-education programmes etc (the equivelent of eradicating the guys fear of not being able to stand up for himself, and giving him lessons in how to fight) Would you agree that this would be a just system??