|
|
|
|
|
|
Resources |
|
|
|
Reforming the Curriculum
| Article
# : |
13942 |
|
|
Section : |
BOOK WORLD
|
| Issue
Date : |
2 / 1988 |
3,700 Words |
| Author
: |
Stephen Ellenwood
Stephen Ellenwood is chairman of the curriculum-in-teaching
department in the School of Education at Boston University. |
Educating active, productive citizens is demanding and delicate work, and one key ingredient of an effective citizen is a command of history and literature. Of course, it is possible to exist in a democratic society with less than minimal knowledge of one's history and literature, but it is not possible to live well. To live productively, knowledge of one's cultural traditions and the ability to continue learning in light of those traditions is needed. In What Do Our 17-Year-Olds Know?, Diane Ravitch and Chester E. Finn, Jr. have rung an alarm with respect to American high school students' mastery of history and literature.
Evaluating the study
Finn and Ravitch have tackled a major area of ignorance in American education. Their examination of what present-day students know in the fields of history and literature is a kind of "end-product analysis" that many have urged for years. The research reported by Ravitch and Finn is from the first national assessment of high school students' knowledge of history and literature. The result? The students could correctly answer only 54 percent of the history questions and 52 percent of the literature questions. The results are not entirely surprising; they are dismaying, although what the scores mean is more complicated than it may at first seem.
The authors correctly point out that our enthusiasm for educational reform often begins in the realms of math and science. National energy wanes when we get around to history and literature. And they argue that at this time, the need for reform in these areas is desperate: Our cultural legacy may disappear within a generation unless a large number of
... (1992 of 22736 Characters)
Read Full Article
|
|
