Rick Hess and his team at the American Enterprise Institute have produced a report documenting “continuing weaknesses in students’ knowledge of history and literature.” Seventeen-year-olds had a hard time knowing who Joe McCarthy was, what The Scarlet Letter was about, what the Renaissance was . . .
We’ve seen the problem before in NAEP history and civics exams, the ISI study of civic literacy, and other measures. But the authors here provide a historical explanation for the problem, and it’s not an ideological one.
It observes that in the years after A Nation at Risk appeared, “there was extended discussion about how to deepen the study of history, what literature to teach,” and “a few states developed solid, content-rich curriculum frameworks in history and literature.” But, “a decade later, the excellence movement was overshadowed by Congressional demands for accountability.” Congress required states to develop standards and test students against them, but only in the subjects of reading and math. “Almost overnight,” the report continues, “the emphasis in school reform changed from ‘excellence’ to ‘basic skills.’” That left history and civics, well, left behind.
