Pat on the Back for we Social Studies teachers?

The National Education Association (NEA) recently posted this report from the Higher Education Research Institution noting that more incoming freshman categorize themselves as being politically aware than at any point in the survey's history, surpassing the previous record percentage that was posted back in 1968 (when, note readers, the author was not to be born for another 10 years). While it may seem slight, the current percentage of freshman who discussed politics was 35%. What's more intriguing is that nearly 40% of freshman indicated that knowledge of current events was important, which was also a record high.

Is this cause for a celebration in our ranks? Have we, after seeing students bottom out back in 2000 (low score for students thinking current events was important), bring politics enough to the forefront of our courses that we should take a second to applaud the fact that we are seeing this gain? I know in my own classroom that I spent (and will continue to spend) a substantial amount of time discussing current events (that's actually what I use a blog for with my 11th graders). Most of my peers do the same, and with great statewide programs like the WorldQuest run by World Affairs Council (for world current events) and Classroom Law Project's regular events, it could be easy to see how we are making strides in approaching political issues.

Yet, I guess that one could argue that this is a mere anomaly of the past year. In earnest, this last election elicited a greater response from youth than I can remember, mainly because (I'm guessing) the youthfulness of President (previously candidate) Obama. And while students seemed very aware of political issues around election time, their knowledge and thirst for information on world events (healthcare...) seemed to disappear a little bit. There is also the obvious point to make that no survey is comprehensive, although it seems that HERI has covered its bases pretty well in terms of a data set.

What caught me in this as well is how many students already identify themselves as Liberal, Moderate, or Conservative, and I'm curious if our membership thinks they do a good job explaining what these different labels mean. I know that on several occasions I've confronted a student of a various persuasion to ask why they were what they were and usually I get a superficial response. How well do we teach those classifications, and is it a good thing to teach those classifications? Could one argue that we foster partisan bickering by helping students to "choose a side" rather than have them evaluate the issues based on their merits...

Sorry for the brief tangent there, but hopefully there is enough here to chew on -- a) should we feel good about such political leanings or chalk them up to President Obama, and b) how much should we work on discussing the various political classifications that exist in our political system?

The Curriculum We Teach

In the past few weeks, the Oregonian has run two articles by Portland educators. The first, by Franklin High School Social Studies teacher Bill Bigelow, and the second by Portland Public Schools Social Studies Coordinator Rick La Greide. The initial article, by Bigelow, began with Bill stating his concerns about what students are learning with regards to the Climate Change/Global Warming debate in their Social Studies classes. His fear was that in the textbooks that the Portland District implemented, the discussion of this issue, rather significant to he and many other social studies teachers, was given a very small treatment within the text. This led to the larger argument of how much time teachers are able to devote to issues that are significant to them, relevant to the present day, and within the purview of a given class to teach. Thus, a student would leave a history/social studies class with some knowledge, but little concept of a debate or issue possibly more important to their everyday life.

La Greide, who Bigelow did mention in his article, replied back a week later in a letter to the editor, and within his post discussed his concern that by having a Social Studies teacher focus on prevalent current events issues (or issues that they simply are very passionate about), they can leave high school without knowing about important ideas or events from history that they need as building blocks for success beyond secondary education. He cited how his social studies teacher spent weeks on Dante's Inferno because of a personal preference, and then when he got to college, he realized that he was out of the loop about many other events in history. Thus, while he could empathize with Bill's desire to teach global warming better, he felt that making sure students had those building blocks about all of history was more important.

So my initial query is whether individuals think that La Greide is correct or if Bigelow has the point. Bigelow's article can be accessed by clicking on the title of this post (I was unable to retrive a web link for LaGreide's letter, and a few emails to the Oregonian's editors went unanswered).

As I processed this debate, I couldn't help but consider what the implications of their two perspectives mean for those of us teaching social studies. To an extent, I find the debate slightly counter-productive, as sniping at each side doesn't resolve the larger issue -- that we simply don't have enough time to effectively teach high school social studies. 3 years of required education may simply not be enough to get through all of the material that we passionately feel that high schoolers need to graduate -- can we honestly and effectively teach Civics, Geography, Current Events, Economics, Government, U.S. and World History, even in the best of survey courses, in a mere 3 years? It almost seems as if our efforts would be better served (instead of attacking textbook companies and district curriculums) in petitioning for even more Social Studies to be tacked on as necessary to the Oregon Diploma. I graduated my New York high school with the equivalent of 5 years of required Social Studies, and to me, the idea of having to squeeze the same information into only 3 years is hard to live with.
Yet, maybe I've gotten ahead of myself. Maybe I should be resolved to considering those 3 years, and in which case, the Bigelow and La Greide "discussion" is the field on which we should focus.

So, in sum, does Social Studies need to allot time for those critical current events as Bigelow suggests? Or is LaGreide correct in asserting that we need to have a standard curriculum that allows for the creation of building blocks?