BvBPL
Pour Decision Maker
Proposing a unitary system of education isn't a viable solution. In addition to being a constitutional impossibility, I'm not convinced it supports multicultural or educational goal.
The US, like the United Kingdom, Canada, and Spain, is not a unitary nation state. What would work, and what would work well, in a nation state could be a complete disaster in a federated multinational state. We have a diverse set of cultures and voices that deserve to be heard. The Iroquois compact is important to our nation; it informed and helped to establish our democratic principles. The settling if the American southwest is important as is the Chinese experience on the west coast.
But those lessons from history are not equally important to all people. Local history is more important locally. A student in the mid Atlantic should have a basic understanding of the Chinese immigrant experience in the west, but she need not be taught it in the same manner and the same depth as one in San Francisco. A unitary system of education would limit our ability to discuss, and thus disenfranchise, locally important minority voices.
I'm not an educator, but it seems to me that one way to engage students is to make lessons pertinent to them. One way to do so is an emphasis in local history. "Hey, something important happened in our area," is more likely to interest students then talking about something that happened on the otherwise of the country. It would also enable appropriate local emphasis on events. Smith founding the LDS church is an important historical occurrence for all Americans, but the import, and consequently the way it should be taught, is very different for New Yorkers, Ohioans, and Utahans and so are the lessons one would use to engage students in those states.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The US, like the United Kingdom, Canada, and Spain, is not a unitary nation state. What would work, and what would work well, in a nation state could be a complete disaster in a federated multinational state. We have a diverse set of cultures and voices that deserve to be heard. The Iroquois compact is important to our nation; it informed and helped to establish our democratic principles. The settling if the American southwest is important as is the Chinese experience on the west coast.
But those lessons from history are not equally important to all people. Local history is more important locally. A student in the mid Atlantic should have a basic understanding of the Chinese immigrant experience in the west, but she need not be taught it in the same manner and the same depth as one in San Francisco. A unitary system of education would limit our ability to discuss, and thus disenfranchise, locally important minority voices.
I'm not an educator, but it seems to me that one way to engage students is to make lessons pertinent to them. One way to do so is an emphasis in local history. "Hey, something important happened in our area," is more likely to interest students then talking about something that happened on the otherwise of the country. It would also enable appropriate local emphasis on events. Smith founding the LDS church is an important historical occurrence for all Americans, but the import, and consequently the way it should be taught, is very different for New Yorkers, Ohioans, and Utahans and so are the lessons one would use to engage students in those states.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
). Then the next day, we had a quiz. This was years before I was old enough to vote - I was all of 11 years old. Most of us in that class maintained an interest in politics, and some of us went on to work for Elections Canada. And now that teacher is retired, but was elected to the public school board. It's been 40 years, but a few of us who stayed in this area still reminisce about "the Lemke School of Politics."
