[Ohiogift] No Second National Assessment after 1987....

[Will Fitzhugh]

"In fact, proponents of the humanities (and history and literature are the fundamental bearers of the humanities in the schools) 
were strangely silent.”


Diane Ravitch and Chester E. Finn, Jr. (2010-11-02). [1987] 
What Do Our 17-Year-Olds Know: A Report on the First National Assessment of History and Literature 
(Kindle Locations 165-190). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition. 


At the time planning began for this assessment, the nation was in the midst of a major education reform movement. One report after another appeared during the early 1980s, criticizing the performance of American schools and deploring the waste of human talent. Most of these reports and studies called on schools and states to strengthen their academic curriculum and to raise graduation requirements. State after state responded by increasing the number of mandated courses in science and mathematics, and occasionally in social studies, English, and foreign languages. 


Yet amid all this educational activism, it was rare that anyone spoke out on behalf of history and literature. The advocates of mathematics and science were not so reticent. They made their case with a bulging portfolio of evidence and an evangelical sense of urgency. They pointed to falling enrollments and test scores in these subjects as proof of the need to improve the quality of instruction, the training of teachers, and the time devoted to these subjects throughout the span of elementary and secondary schooling. It was not hard to convince the public of the importance of mathematics and science, in light of their presumptive utilitarian value. These subjects are linked directly to jobs and careers in engineering and other technical fields. The supply of engineers and technicians, as we have known since the time of Sputnik, also affects the capacity of the nation to keep abreast of technological developments and to maintain a strong economy. Ignorance of mathematics and science, it was rightly said, undermines the quality of the workforce and threatens our nation’s ability to compete in world markets. Several major reports went beyond the economic arguments to warn that widespread scientific and technological illiteracy would erode the public’s competence to understand complex policy issues, thus jeopardizing the democratic ideal of informed discussion. 


In the battle for public attention and curricular time, the humanities were scarcely contenders. No prestigious body of citizens called on American schools to reassess the teaching of history from the first to the last year of schooling, as others had for science. No concerned professors of English banded together to decry their students’ ignorance of major works of literature. The representatives of business, labor, government, and education who regularly issued edicts on the need for change in the schools had little to say about history and literature. In our books and conferences, we tried to argue the case for history and literature; so, too, did Ernest Boyer in High School; Theodore Sizer in Horace’s Compromise; and Mortimer Adler in The Paideia Proposal. But none of the national or state commissions recommended more time and attention for history and literature. Probably their authors supposed that these subjects are so fundamental that they are always taught, no matter what else changes. Perhaps those who cared about these subjects assumed that they would somehow benefit by any gestures made on behalf of social studies and English.


In fact, proponents of the humanities (and history and literature are the fundamental bearers of the humanities in the schools) were strangely silent. They could not argue that knowledge of history and literature is important in the job market, because they were not sure that this is so; nor could they claim that such knowledge strengthens the nation’s economy or contributes to its material well-being, because here, too, proof was lacking.


[The Concord Review was founded in March, 1987]


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osu.edu/pipermail/ohiogift/attachments/20160126/e4ac6181/attachment.html>