By Michael Camarda

Michael Camarda is a senior History major in Yale’s Calhoun College and served as International Section Editor of The Politic.

“Yale’s distinguished History faculty—among the most eminent in the world—teach and write the histories of Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America, the Middle East, and the United States and Canada, from ancient times to the present, seeking to make its study as exciting and rewarding in the twenty-first century as it was when first introduced it at Yale before the American Revolution.”

So reads the introduction to the Yale Department of History’s webpage. However, in a recent Miami Herald, I came across a statistic that seemingly belies this statement of excellence. One-third of seniors at Yale could not answer how President Kennedy responded to the Cuban Missile Crisis. I am frequently reminded at Yale that the History department is second-to-none in the entire United States, and as a History major myself, I have found the curriculum excellent in imbuing a large overall depth and breadth in historical knowledge and, more importantly, argument. Nonetheless, this statistic cast into doubt my overall confidence in not only my college but in colleges, high schools, and overall educational structures whose responsibility it is to educate the next generation. I find several problems that these institutions must face, lest the statistics that remain affixed to my hippocampus sound more like one-half, or two-thirds, or more.

The Herald article by Natalie P. McNeal focused on the lack of historical knowledge among American college students; however, gaps in any kind of knowledge rarely begin in the echelons of higher education—for a hole in the knowledge base to be manifesting itself there is indicative of a larger systemic deficiency in the initial realms of education as well. The state of Florida offers prima facie evidence of a systemic relegation of the subjects of history and civics to a realm of secondary importance.

A recent statewide study conducted by the Florida Association of Social Studies Supervisors found that 66 percent of elementary school teachers reported spending two hours or less on social studies—history, civics, economics, or geography. On average, that’s barely 20 minutes a day devoted to giving Florida’s youngest the most basic grounding in responsible citizenship. One might wonder why our primary education system has made social studies a secondary priority. While any sufficient answer is sure to include manifold reasons for this failure, one seems to loom largest: the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) tests the skills in the core subject areas of reading, writing, mathematics, and science but excludes one other core subject area—social studies. In an era where school ratings and funding are closely tied to FCAT performance, not having the core subject area of social studies tested with the other core four areas creates a huge disincentive to teach thoroughly the subjects such of history, government, economics, and geography. In fact, only 14 states nationwide include social studies as part of their educational accountability systems. With priorities like these, should we really be shocked at the gross ignorance of our nation as a whole in terms of historical and governmental knowledge?

When this lack of emphasis starts in the elementary schools, it is not difficult to imagine the effects this subsequently has on our middle schools, high schools, colleges, and our citizenry as a whole. When secondary students lack the terminology and conceptual frameworks important to civics, we often find middle and high schools doing the jobs to which elementary schools now give a mere 20 minutes a day. Secondary students’ having only a limited primary education in civics combined with an oftentimes-continued lack of emphasis on civics at the secondary level forced the Florida legislature to pass a law requiring middle schools to offer a semester of civics—a step in the right direction, but a step where a long walk is required.

Along this journey, we must address an overlooked downside to this de-emphasis in social studies education that especially begins in middle and high schools and hurts society immensely—a deficiency in critical thinking skills. Questions and answers on historical fact, like the one that began this paper, easily show deficiency; simply put, facts are right or facts are wrong. There is far more to learning (and history!) than names, dates, and short answers; the ability to think critically is almost indisputably the most important skill any education can afford. Jobs come and go, and skill sets can be important one day and obsolete the next, but the ability to think critically using given facts is an asset that will never lose its value.

In 1999, the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs completed a national study on civic education. To thoroughly examine the intellectual skill levels necessary for a proficient citizenry, three echelons of skills were identified, from most basic to most advanced: identifying and describing—the ability to give meaning or significance to terms; explaining and analyzing—the ability to identify, describe, clarify, or interpret something, which often involves breaking down information into its constituent parts in order to clarify meaning or significance; and evaluating, taking, and defending positions—the ability to use criteria to make judgments about the strengths and weaknesses of positions on issues. When employed, one must select a position of his or her own and be able to offer evidence in defense of the taken position and attack opposing ones. This study charted each state’s focus on each level of reasoning. Nationally, 21 percent of attention went to the first level, 49 percent to the second, and 30 percent to the third. Appallingly, Florida’s educational focus did not in the slightest resemble this national schema. Statewide, 83 percent went to the first level, an unforgivable 0 percent to the second, and 17 percent to the third. How does a student make a successful intellectual jump from the most basic level to the most advanced, without there being any focus on the intermediate step?

How, too, do students make a successful jump from high school to college, where—ideally—the advanced-level skills are almost exclusively the only skills tested? In short, they don’t. Barry University Professor Tim Smith says he’s seen a marked decline in historical knowledge and critical thinking skills among incoming freshman. “Sometimes I feel like I’m working with a blank slate,” Smith says with regard to his new students. 7,000 randomly selected college freshmen were asked to answer 60 multiple-choice questions about basic history; they answered 52 percent of questions correctly. One question from the test: “‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal” is from the a) Constitution; b) Communist Manifesto; c) Declaration of Independence.” Another: “From what century does America’s first colony at Jamestown date? a)16th; b)17th; c)18th.” Surely colleges would correct the 18 years of neglect our K-12 education system has afforded our next generation. Sadly, these institutions don’t. As stated, college freshmen answered 52 percent of these questions correctly, whereas 7,000 college seniors who took the same test mustered a score of 53 percent. Fifteen universities, including UC-Berkeley and Johns Hopkins, earned a “negative learning” rank when their freshman class outperformed their senior class. Most shocking, in a study released this February, the Center for Survey Research and Analysis at the University of Connecticut found that 81 percent of college seniors scored at a D or F level in terms of American history. How could this be? Most students are required to take some form of social studies all four years of high school. Most state universities require that their undergraduates, save history majors, take only a few history classes in their four years. At Yale, a student can go all four years without once sitting in a history class. It is no wonder that one third of the supposed “best and brightest” could not answer correctly a simple question of American history.

The ramifications of this gross failure by our educational structures does not end with poor test scores or embarrassing results from studies; it takes a toll on all of society. As stated, Florida lags in several categories in terms of the civic education, but its real toll can be seen in statistics outside of the purview of our educational system: Florida ranks thirty-ninth in voter turnout, at 46.8 percent; it ranks forty-ninth in terms of volunteering; 66 percent of central Floridians cannot name one of Florida’s two U.S. Senators. Two out of five Floridians cannot name the three branches of government, and that same number could not properly identify the concept of checks and balances—both level-one skills.

Whither civic education? There is some hope. In 2004, in an effort to combat this cascade effect of ignorance and apathy on a national level, U.S. Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia got a piece of legislation passed establishing Constitution Day. The act mandates that all publicly funded educational institutions provide educational programming on the history of the American Constitution on that day. For Florida, the bipartisan pair of former U.S. Representative Lou Frey, a Republican, and former Governor and U.S. Senator Bob Graham, a Democrat, just released a report entitled “Enlisting a New Generation of Florida Citizens,” which is a veritable clarion call for a renewed emphasis on civic education in Florida, advocating for five major reforms in civic education: making civics an intergral part in the public school curriculum; including civics on the FCAT; better training future civics teachers; improving textbook quality; and establishing a statewide center for Florida citizenship. Their report is lucid, sensical, and if properly employed, might lead to the reduction of many of the aforementioned problems plaguing Florida in the teaching of history, government, geography, and economics. In the meantime, if we ourselves each took up a cause near and dear to our hearts and followed the properly proscribed civic path to further that cause, we would be putting the lessons taught to us by our junior high civics teachers into practice. Newer generations might just take note and become involved themselves, and that’s something three-thirds of Yale seniors would know is right.

---