E Pluribus Unum: Are We Losing Our American Heritage?

Running head: AMERICANISM IN CONTEXT 1

Americanism in Context

Paula J. Baumgardner

Shawnee State University

Department of Teacher Education

Advisor- Dr. Patric Leedom

March 22, 2010

Candidate for Masters of Education, Curriculum & Instruction 2

Abstract

This paper explores the alarming concern that many who graduate from schools in Scioto

County Ohio, are not adequately familiar with United States history prior to 1877 and tThe United States Constitution. A three-pronged approach was conducted in order to garner this information. One approach utilized two surveys; the second approach explored the Ohio Department of Education (ODE) website. The ODE website was examined for social studies requirement and content. Furthermore, an analysis of the

Ohio Graduation Test (OGT) was conducted. In addition to the OGT results, an

Americanism test was given by the American Legion to students in participating schools.

This third approach compared the questions and the results from this test to that of the

OGT. Through these venues, ran the common theme of change in Ohio social studies requirements.

The changes in the Ohio social studies requirements could have a tremendous impact on the future of America. Will we, as a nation, lose our American Heritage over time? Will we no longer have a common understanding of how this country came to be, and why we are governed the way we are? By not exposing the next generation to the

Founders’ plan for our country, it could happen (Neal, Martin, & Moses, 2000).

According to Thomas Jefferson, “History by apprising [citizens] of the past will enable them to judge of the future; it will avail them as judges of the actions and designs of men; it will enable them to know ambition under very disguise it may assume; and knowing it, to defeat its views” (Spalding, 2002, p. 159). AMERICANISM IN CONTEXT 3

Keywords: American History, American Government, Ohio Department of Education,

Ohio Gradation Test, social studies standards, American Legion, United States

Constitution, founders, Americanism Test 4

Table of Contents AMERICANISM IN CONTEXT 5

Introduction

E Pluribus Unum: Are We Losing Our American Heritage? This nation is in a crisis. This consequence of this crisis could be at the expense of every citizen of the United States of America. Each year, schools in the United States graduate a generation class ignorant of American History and Government. This can have tremendous consequences for tThe United States. For instance, America’s heritage could be lost forever if students are not educated in the principles for which our the forefathers had fought for. Heritage, as defined by the Oxford English Ddictionary

(2010), is characterized by or pertaining to the preservation or exploitation of local and national features of historical,historical or cultural interest. Furthermore, the rights of

Americans could be usurped if Americans are not cultured indoctrinated in the rights and responsibilities enumerated in the Constitution.

It is imperative that this generation and subsequent generations are taught about the development of this country and the sacrifices that were made to make it the country that it was designed to be. The Our youth need to be educated in the fundamentals of

American History and Government, particularly the Ccolonial and Revolutionary periods.

Moreover, students need to be taught about the great accomplishments and the failures of this nation’s history. Without knowledge, people perish—in this case our nation will not continue to be a free nation if our present and future generations do not have a firm foundational understanding of the founding fathers’ principles of the United States.

James Madison, Father of the Constitution, stated the following: , “

A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it,

is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps both. Knowledge will

forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, 6

must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives” (Spalding, 2002, p.

Furthermore, students need to understand the relevance of holding on to

America’s founding principles so that this country can remain as one—United States of

America. It is to this end, that it is necessary that all educators need to help mold the children is and the next generation into citizens who know where they came from, know where they are going, and the possible implications if they are not secure in their national heritage.

Overview

The initial purpose of this study project was to analyze the possible causes attributing to students lack of knowledge in the area of American History and

Government. Upon conducting an examination of the Ohio Department of Education’s requirements for students’ to graduate, a few issues were brought to the forefront. FirstOn the surface, it would appear that students, for the most part, are achieving the required benchmarks according to the results from the 2009 & 2010 Ohio Graduation Test.

However, upon further investigation, the results are misleading as far as students’ knowledge of American History and Government.

Additional further examination was conducted in regards to students participating in the Americanism test that is provided by the local American Legion. The results that were collected do not correspond with that of the OGT. It appears that there is a vast discrepancy between the OGT results and that of the Americanism test.

In additionAdditionally, a web survey was given to teachers from the schools that participated in the Americanism test and to a few that did not. The survey was conducted AMERICANISM IN CONTEXT 7 to garner more information in regards to the curricula that is taught to Scioto County

High School students. It was also conducted to analyze students’ preparedness preparation for the Americanism test. Of the information collected from the survey,

Tteachers, according to the survey, did not prepare the students prior to taking the

Americanism exam.

Through a review of the literature, tThis paper will reveal through the literature the importance of teaching and learning American History and Government. In addition, a more comprehensive investigation and analysis of the Ohio Graduation Test, the Ohio

Department of Education requirements, the Americanism test, and the survey from local

Scioto County teachers will be discussed.

Research Questions

 1. Are Scioto County students meeting the social studies standards set by the

Ohio Department of Education?

 2. Do the questions on the Ohio Graduation Test support these standards?

 3. Are the questions on the OGT applicable to the founding of America and

the Constitution?

 4. Are Scioto County students taught learning about the United States

Constitution and American History pertaining to the founding of The United

States? 8

Literature Review

Literature Aarticles have been written to that expose the lack of education students are receiving in American History and Government and the effects of this lack of knowledge. In a study conducted by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, it was discovered that many college students graduate without knowing their American heritage (Neal, Martin, & Moses, 2000). Hess (2009) describes in his article that, “too many young Americans do not possess the kind of basic knowledge they need. When asked fundamental questions about U.S. history and culture, they scored a D and exhibited stunning knowledge gaps” (p. 5).

This literature review will address some of the underlying issues in hopes of gaining a perspective on this increasing trend.

 1. Why study the our national past?

 2. Why have our educational system are there changed the teaching of

history and government?s?

 3. What impact can/will these changes in education likely have on the

future of our nation?

Why study our National the past?

Carpenter (2004) points out that Thomas Jefferson, writer of the Declaration of

Independence and third president of the United States, “believed that the main purpose of an educated citizenry is to serve as the basic line of defense against any encroachment on AMERICANISM IN CONTEXT 9 their lives by a government” (p. 144). He continues by saying that Jefferson “thought it important to read such political works as the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist

Papers, and the Constitution of the United States” (p. 145). Nash (2009) concurs by stating that, “[Thomas] Jefferson, [Benjamin] Rush, and [Noah] Webster represent the desire to use schooling to create the ‘uniform America’ and ‘to create a new unity, a common citizenship and culture’ . . . and to create citizens who would be loyal to the new country” (p. 419).

Noah Webster, Father of American Scholarship and Education, had the same philosophy as the other founders in that he believed “It is an object of vast magnitude that systems of education should be adopted and pursued which may not only diffuse a knowledge of the sciences but may implant in the minds of the American youth the principles of virtue and of liberty and inspire them with just and liberal ideas of government and with an inviolable attachment to their own country” (Spalding, 2002, pp. 149-150). James Madison believed that “The best service that can be rendered to a

Country, next to that of giving it liberty, is in diffusing the mental improvement equally essential to the preservation, and the enjoyment of the blessing” (Spalding, 2002, p. 149).

Neal, et al. (2000) concurs by explaining, “The nation’s past unifies a people and ensures a common civic identity (p. 4). She continues to say that “the importance of a shared memory appears to have lost its foothold in higher education” and “what happens in higher education relates directly to what happens in K-12” (2009).

Neal further advocates that, “other than our schools, no institutions bear greater responsibility for the transmission of our heritage than colleges and universities” (p. 7).

Finally, Neal explains that, “citizens who fail to know basic landmarks of history and 10 civics are unlikely to be able to reflect on their meaning” and therefore, “fail to recognize

. . . the importance of preserving it” (p. 7). Spalding (2002) discusses that founding father Benjamin Franklin had reservations if the new republic would be preserved. After the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin was asked what kind of government was created. He was quoted to say, “A republic, if you can keep it” (p.

Hess’s (2009) study seems to articulate the same philosophy as Neal’s. Hess stated that, “ it is vital that schools familiarize students with the history and culture that form the shared bonds of their national community” (p. 7). Hess continues to address the issue that our forefathers regarded comprehensive education as the schools purpose. This is the schools’ primary mission, to “equip every young person for the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship” (p. 7). In order to achieve this goal one must be taught, “with the historical narrative and cultural touchstones that mark our national experience, schools provide the vocabulary for a common conversation that can render e pluribus unum” (p. 7). Spalding agrees by quoting John Adams, “. . . the longest liver of you all will find no principles, institutions or systems of education more fit in general to be transmitted to your posterity than those you have received from your ancestors” (p. 159).

Hess stated that, “Absent shared reference points, it may be more difficult for young

Americans . . . to find their common identity as citizens” (p. 7).

Spalding (2002) acknowledged that Thomas Jefferson believed all children should be provided “with the skills--reading, writing, arithmetic, geography, and history— necessary to live free and independently as adults” (p. 91). He further states that Jefferson believed all children “must be given a civic education that instructs them in ‘their rights, AMERICANISM IN CONTEXT 11 interests and duties, as men and citizens’” (p. 91). Moreover, Noah Webster believed that, “Every child in America should be acquainted with his own country. He should read books that furnish him with ideas that will be useful to him in life and practice. As soon as he opens his lips, he should rehearse the history of his own country” (Spalding,

2002, p. 159). Additionally, Spalding quoted Thomas Jefferson saying, “It is the duty of every good citizen to use all the opportunities which occur to him, for preserving documents relating to the history of our country” (p. 159). Gutierreze (2003) emphasized,

“In order for people to appreciate the legitimate claim of the polity and the

society from which the government came, they must be knowledgeable about the

origins of its professed values and beliefs. Therefore, as part of a government,

civics, and even history curriculum, the content should include historical study of

the origins of those ideals, especially in order to avoid an inaccurate or distorted

understanding of those origins” (p. 221).

Carpenter quotes Jefferson saying:

For this purpose the reading in the first stage, where they will receive their

whole education, is proposed . . . to be chiefly historical. History, by

apprising them of the past will enable them to judge the future; it will avail

them of the experience of other times and other nations; it will qualify

them as judges of the actions and designs of men; it will enable them to

know ambition under every disguise it may assume, and knowing it, to defeat its views (p. 141). 12

Carpenter (2004) continues to say, “The ultimate goal of Jefferson’s educational plan was, of course, effective citizenship education” (p. 142). In addition, “ . . . all citizens regardless of educational background, would be effective defenders of the new republic against threats to their personal liberty” (p. 142).

President George Washington summed the Americanism ideology during his farewell address:

. . . you should properly estimate the immense value of your national Union to

your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial,

habitual and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and

speak of it as of the Palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching

for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest

even a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned, and indignantly frowning

upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our Country

from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various

parts. (Spalding, 2002, p. 302)

Why has our educational system changed the teaching of our nation’s history?are

there changes?

According to Neal, et al. (2000), “The abandonment of history requirements is part of a national trend” (p. 6). She supports her statement by including a 1988 study completed by the National Endowment for Humanities. This study indicated “that more than 80 percent of colleges and universities permitted students to graduate without taking a course in American history while 37 percent of those institutions allowed students to avoid history altogether” (p. 6). Neal further explains that thirteen years later, the AMERICANISM IN CONTEXT 13 percentage increased to “One hundred percent do not require American history and 78 percent require no history at all” (p. 6).

Even though Neal’s primary focus was the college level, she stated that few students who leave high school have adequate knowledge of American history and that

“colleges and universities do nothing to close the ‘knowledge gap’” (p. 6). Robelen

(2010) concurs with Neal in that “efforts to rewrite social studies standards come as concerns persist . . .are getting squeezed out of the classroom because of the federal No

Child Left Behind Act’s emphasis on reading and math” (p. 18). In his study, Levine

(2007) found that by “ . . .limiting and sometimes eliminating civic education in schools and concentrating primarily on marketable and measurable skills in reading, math, and science, US educators are failing to ‘prepare the next generation of citizens with appropriate knowledge, skills, and values’” (Bole & Gordon, 2009).

On the other hand, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), as of 2006, claims “America’s twelfth, eighth, and especially fourth-graders know more

U.S. history now than in the past” (p. 1). This appears to be contradictory according to the Ohio Department of Education assessment results analyzed from various years (ODE,

2010). Furthermore, the analysis reported from the NAEP does not appear accurate when students will only need “ . . . a half unit of credit in American History and a half unit of credit in American Government” (p. 1) in order to graduate high school. The requirement from ODE outlines states the “course examines the history of the United States of

America from 1877 to the present” (p. 3). Lynne Munson, according to Robelen (2010), said, “scaling back the breadth of American history coverage in high school is a bad idea”

(p. 19). 14

In addition, the ODE, as other “proponents of the spiral curriculum, suggested that the fifth grade go from 1492 to the War of 1812 . . .” (Stotsky, 2004, p. 27). Stotsky continues by implying that “the average fifth grader is incapable of bringing much depth of understanding to our basic political principles” (p. 27). Robelen (2010) reported

Lynne Munson stating, “I do think once you’re in high school and your intellectual development and background knowledge . . .you can restudy the American past in a way that will bring more meaning than you might have been able to glean at earlier grades”

(p. 19).

Hess’s (2009) article indicated that the change to students’ knowledge of

American history is three-fold. First, he stated, “The nation is in thrall [sic] with testing and basic skills. We think this is a mistake” (p. 6). Hess’s concern with the Title I legislation was that, “Congress required all states to create standards and testing, but only in reading and mathematics” (p. 6). This new policy meant an increase in instructional time to those areas of testing and a decrease in instructional time for history (p. 8). The second issue is that “some children grow up in homes . . . in which parents are not conversant in questions of history and culture . . . and that schools are especially crucial”

(Hess, 2009, p. 7). Lastly, Hess emphasizes the change in our youth’s culture. He stated,

“American youth have more schooling, money, leisure time, and information than any previous generation, yet they devote enormous quantities of time to social networking websites, television, and video games” (p. 7).

Waters (2005), on the other hand, believes the changes are not only due to what students are taught, but their perception of American history is different depending on the grade level (p. 11-12). Secondly, Waters stated that curriculum changes occur in the K- AMERICANISM IN CONTEXT 15

12 level because of political correctness and that this correctness changes over time (p.

13-14). Waters continues concludes by stating, “Today’s textbooks will be criticized for having omitted issues which do not seem important today” (p. 13). DeRose (2009) concurs with Waters, by stating that there are “some factors affecting historical interpretation” (p. 233). For example, “emotion and feeling can influence our perceptions of current individuals and events” (p. 233). However, with some distance, our memories of the past will change (p. 233). However, Spalding (2002) reiterates

Washington’s Farewell address stating,

“ For this you have every inducement of sympathy and interest. Citizens by

birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your

affections. The name AMERICAN, which belongs to you, in your national

capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism, more than any appellation

derived from local discriminations” (p. 303).

Lastly, DeRose recognized that, “As society places greater or less emphasis on certain issues or becomes more accepting or even less tolerant of various groups or conditions, we might reinterpret the past to conform to these new social standards” (p. 233).

On the other hand, Stotsky (2004) examined presented that, “The history of

Western political thought is diminishing because of the comparative sociocultural approach now frequently used for the study of history” (p. 28). She continues, saying, to say that, “In effect, sociocultural approaches tend to obliterate the origins and development of our civic culture, to devalue the groups that advanced individual rights and to create sympathy for cultures, extinct or not, that don’t value individual rights” (p.

28). 16

Another concern Stotsky (2004) further addresses the concern is that teachers are not adequately trained. She states that

“In an application for a Teaching American History (TAH) grant from one of the

wealthiest counties in the country, school officials provided a chart showing that

52 percent of its eighth grade U.S. history teachers have neither a history nor a

social studies license, that 38 percent of its ninth grade U.S. history teachers have

neither a history nor a social studies license, and that a whopping 86 percent of

the English as a Second Language teachers who teach U.S. history classes for

ESL students at eight county high schools have not had a single course in U.S.

history” (p. 21).

What Impact Can/Will These Changes Likely Haveon the Future of our Nation?

Neal, et al. (2000) addresses three issues that these changes can have. First, “As we move forward into the 21st century, our future leaders are graduating with an alarming ignorance of their heritage—a kind of collective amnesia—and a profound historical illiteracy which bodes ill for the future of the republic” (p. 4). Secondly, if these

“graduates leave school without knowing the foundations of American society, children they teach will certainly do no better” (p. 7). Lastly, Neal quotes novelist Milan Kundera stating, “If you want to destroy a country, destroy its memory. If a hostile power wanted to erase America’s civic heritage, it could hardly do a better job—short of actually prohibiting the study of American history” (p. 6). Samuel Adams, Founding Father, projected a similar thought. He stated:

No people will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor can any be easily

subdued, when knowledge is diffused and Virtue is preserved. On AMERICANISM IN CONTEXT 17 the Contrary, when People are universally ignorant, and debauched in their Manners, they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders. (Spalding, 2002, p. 150)

Novak (2002) supports Neal by stating, “People are willing to kill us just for being Americans. So we ought at least to know what being American is. Yet many of our students have been taught painfully little about our nation’s history, purposes, or achievements” (p. 32).

Hess (2009) made an interesting discovery. He conducted a telephone survey asking simple multiple-choice questions of 1,200 17-year-olds about United States history. Hess discovered that, “teens on the cusp of adulthood earned a D overall” (p.

16). He further states, “A deep lack of knowledge is neither humorous nor trivial . . . also affects our contribution as a democratic citizen” (p. 6). He continues by saying, “Any reform idea that diminished the ability of schools and teacher to provide students with such an education is narrowing children’s futures, not expanding them” (p. 6).

Alabama Senator Jeff Sessons agrees by saying, “At the root of this despicable failure to grasp the ‘unique . . . blessings we experience as Americans,’ is mass ignorance about the American Constitution and the Founding Fathers, encouraged by insufficiently patriotic educators” (Street, 2002, p. 282). Sessons supports this claim by citing the

Department of Education’s report by saying, “sixty percent of U.S. high school students lack ‘basic knowledge of American history’ and ‘two thirds don’t even know that the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution are called the Bill of Rights’” (Streets, 2003, p.

283). Kovacs (2009) wrote about a survey conducted by the John S. and James L. Knight

Foundation. “The project surveyed more than 100,000 high school students, nearly 8,000 18 teachers and more than 500 administrators and principals” (p. 14). The results were astounding. “Given that the First Amendment is one of the bedrocks of U.S. democracy, their report is not encouraging: 49% of students believed that the government should regulate newspapers; 35% of students believed that the First Amendment goes too far in the rights it guarantees; an additional 21% did not know enough about the First

Amendment to state an opinion” (p. 14).

Shenkman (2008) states that, “Polls over the past three decades measuring

Americans’ knowledge of history show . . . dismal results” (p. 20). He gave a few staggering numbers that emphasized the grave reality of this increasing trend. For example, “In 1991, Americans were asked how long the term of U.S. senator is. Just 25 percent correctly answered six years” (p. 20). He furthers this quest point by emphasizing that “only 20 percent know that there are 100 senators” (p. 20). Amazingly, only 40 percent of “Americans . . . can correctly identify and name the three branches of government”

(p. 20).

Shenkman indicated, “What is needed is specifically an emphasis on civics.

Studies show that people who know civics are less easily manipulated by politicians”

(p. 177). He further emphasizes that “The time has arrived when we need to restore civics to school curricula.” He continues saying, “This is an argument in favor of doing more civics, not less” (p. 178). Bole & Gordon (2009) concur by “Calling for renewed attention to civics in public education and informed access to the democratic practice of deliberative democracy, a case is made for developing the kind of democratic minds capable and confident in engaged citizenship” (p. 274). Levine (2007) believes that “at AMERICANISM IN CONTEXT 19 the core of civil society is the art and practice of participation” (p. 21). Bole & Gordon agree “The kind of participation that nurtures a sense and vision of shared purpose”

(p. 274).

“In the country that gave birth to Jefferson’s conception of an educated citizenry,

[schools], colleges and universities are failing to provide the kind of general education that is needed for graduates to be involved and educated citizens”(Neal, et al. 2000, p. 6).

Thomas Jefferson’s quote, “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be” (Shenkman, 2008, p. 13) is very profound considering the future of America.

Conclusion

The articles’ common theme in regards to American History and Government is the fact that many Americans are not firmly grounded in their American heritage and governmental foundations. Several factors contribute to these deficiencies in the educational system. However, two things are certain, America had an influential past and

American history is always changing. Every day historical events occur. The challenge arises when we have to decide what is significant enough to place in American history curriculum, what is to be removed, and what is to be tested. We are made up of a diverse people, ideologies, and preexisting beliefs of our American history. It will always be a battle among those in charge of our curriculum and who presents the material as to how our children will learn and to what extent the material will influence them. According to

Neal (2000), “The most direct solution is a strong curriculum, with a broad-based rigorous course on American history required of all students. The course should include the breadth of American history, from the colonial period to the present” (p. 8). This will 20 not only give the students a “sense of where the country has been, but what it has meant”

(p. 8).

“Our first task is to return to teaching Americans about America and teaching immigrants how to become Americans. Until we re-establish a legitimate moral and cultural standard, our civilization is at risk” (Nash, 2001, p. 42). Stotsky (2004) concurs by stating, “No student should graduate from an American high school without an upper- high-school level understanding of such basic political principles as limited government, consent of the people, checks and balances, and an independent judiciary” (p. 30).

Gutierrez (2003) also agrees that it is important to “teach the constitutional foundations of the American people as defined by the founding generation” (p. 236). In addition,

Gutierrez believes, “ . . . a theoretical foundation that is part of our political and cultural heritage seems to be worthwhile place to start in building a renewed commitment to our commonwealth” (p. 240). Levine (2007) said that “ . . . the most viable potential approaches for maintaining unity in diversity in the US are crystallized in the call for reawakening civic engagement and the return to teaching the responsibilities of citizenship in democracy” (p. 21).

Spalding (2002) quoted Joseph Story’s urgency of passing the American legacy to the next generation:

Let the American youth never forget, that they possess a noble inheritance, bought

by the toils, and sufferings, and blood on their ancestors; and capable, if wisely

improved, and faithfully guarded, of transmitting to their latest posterity all the

substantial blessings of life, the peaceful enjoyment of liberty, property, religion

and independence. The structure has been erected by architects of consummate AMERICANISM IN CONTEXT 21

skill and fidelity; its foundations are solid; its compartments are beautiful, as well

as useful; its arrangements are full of wisdom and order; and its defences are

impregnable from without. It has been reared for immorality, if the work of man

may justly aspire to such a title. It may, nevertheless, perish in an hour by the

folly, or corruption, or negligence of its only keepers, THE PEOPLE. (p. 231). 22

Methodology and Research Design

The purpose of this research was to garner evidence of students’ knowledge of

America’s foundation. This research was conducted from a three-prongeddiversity of venues approach method. This paper is designed to analyze data collected from the Ohio

Department of Education website, data collected and analyzed from the Americanism and

Government Test Program and an analysis of a survey from local Scioto County social studies educators.

Many facets of tThe Ohio Department of Education’s website werewas explored in numerous areas. First, a search was conducted by analyzing the social studies standards for high school students. As it is written in the Social Studies Model

Curriculum Development (ODE, 2010), the social studies standards were organized into seven strands as of 2002. These seven strands consisted of History, People in Societies,

Geography, Economics, Government, Citizenship Rights and Responsibilities, and Social

Studies Skills and Methods (2010). The focus of this study will be confined to American

History and Government.

Next, an analysis of the Academic Content Standards Revision of High School

Social Studies Course Syllabi (ODE, 2010) was conducted. The American History and

American Government syllabi were thoroughly analyzed for content and for the historical timeframe that was applicable to this study. It was relevant to this research to determine the grade levels when high school students are required to take American History and

Government. Moreover, it was pertinent to this study as to what type of history and what time era’s students learn this information. AMERICANISM IN CONTEXT 23

A further examination consisted of determining the number of credits students need for American History and Government to graduate high school. First, one must understand what a ‘credit’ measures. The Carnegie Units “

was developed in 1906 as a measure of the amount of time a student has studied a

subject. For example, a total of 120 hours in one subject—meeting 4 or 5 times a

week for 40 to 60 minutes, for 36 to 40 weeks each year—earns the student one

"unit" of high school credit” (Carnegie Institute, 2010).

Additionally, the social studies portion of the Ohio Graduation Test was collected and analyzed from the years 2005 through 2010. The focus was on schools located within Scioto County Ohio. These schools included: Bloom-Vernon, Clay, East

(Sciotoville Community), Green, Minford, NewBoston (Glenwood), Northwest,

Portsmouth, Portsmouth West, Northwest, Valley, West (Portsmouth West)Clay,

Minford, Bloom-Vernon, Green, and Wheelersburg, and Sciotoville Community School

(East). The researcher analyzed the average scores taken from the item analysis portion pertaining to social studies for each year from 2005-2010. See Ppercentages of passage rates are located in table 3.1 for reference. Each Individual school has its own charts are available in the appendix. 24

Table 3.1

Table 3.1 OGT Social Studies Results

Furthermore, a detailed analysis was conducted within the OGT results.

Questions significant to this study were collected and analyzed from the OGT from the years 2005-2010. The Ohio Department of Education publishes the OGT questions and AMERICANISM IN CONTEXT 25 its results on a yearly basis. It is important to note that this portion of the analysis pertains to all students tested in the state of Ohio. ODE did not conduct an item analysis per question for each school district. Each question relevant to American History and

Government was evaluated. After the questions were analyzed for significance to this study, the percent responding correctly per question was documented for further evaluation. See table 3.2 for reference.

Table 3.2

After the initial investigation into the Ohio Department of Education website, further queries were raised. An extensive email was sent in mid-January to all social 26 studies coordinators for clarification about the OGT and American History/Government requirements.

Another approach to finding students’ knowledge of American History and

Government was an analysis of the 2010 Americanism and Government Test. The

Americanism and Government Test is provided by the local American Legion Post representatives every year. It is given to over 90,000 students in Ohio. The American

Legion provides “an opportunity for the high school student to evaluate himself, or herself, in American government and history” (American Legion, 2010). The purpose of the National Americanism Commission of tThe American Legion is to “realize in the

United States the basic ideal of this Legion of 100 per cent Americanism through the planning, establishment and conduct of a continuous, constructive educational system designed to:

(1) Combat all anti-American tendencies, activities and propaganda;

(2) Work for the education of immigrants, prospective American citizens and

alien residents in the principles of Americanism;

(3) Inculcate the ideal of Americanism in the citizen population, particularly the

basic American principle that the interests of all the people are above those of

any special interest or any so-called class or section of the people;

(4) Spread throughout the people of the nation the information as to the real

nature and principles of American government;

(5) Foster the teachings of Americanism in all schools (American Legion,

1997).” AMERICANISM IN CONTEXT 27

The American Legion publishes a Manual that defines Americanism as: “[the] love of America; loyalty to her institutions as the best yet devised [by] man to secure life, liberty, individual dignity, and happiness; and the willingness to defend our country and

Flag against all enemies, foreign and domestic” (1997).

In the fall of 2010, an interview meeting was conducted with Susan Frasher. Ms.

Frasher is the Scioto County district representative of the American Legion. She explained the process of how the Americanism and Government Test is distributed and collected. She further explained the purpose of the exam and the benefits of student participation. In November 2010, she distributed the Americanism and Government Test to the following schools: East (Sciotoville Community), Green, New Boston

(Glenwood), Northwest, Notre Dame, Portsmouth, Valley, West (Portsmouth West), and

Wheelersburg. Portsmouth, Portsmouth West, Valley, Notre Dame, East, New Boston,

Wheelersburg, Green, and Northwest. Minford, Bloom-Vernon, and Clay had chosen not to participate. There were a total of 523 participants. The representative grades were 79 ninth graders, 80 tenth graders, 81 eleventh graders, and 283 twelfth grades.

In December 2010, the Americanism and Government Tests were collected and analyzed. The first approach factor was to examine the content of the test for content.

Each question was analyzed for relevance to this project. Fifteen of the 50 questions were collected for data analysis. The second approach factor was to establish categories prior to examinationfor review and comparison. A document was created for recording the students’ school district, grade level, gender, and response to each question. Tally marks were placed in the correct or incorrect column per question. These tally marks were then converted to percentages per question. 28 AMERICANISM IN CONTEXT 29

Data Analysis and Interpretation

Analysis of Ohio Department of Education Social Studies Standards

The primary element of the analysis was to determine the content standards for

American History and American Government. In addition to the content standards, an inquiry was made into how many credits of social studies one needed for graduation and when the students take American History and American Government. This review incorporated the assets on the Ohio Department of Education (ODE) website and was conducted between the months of June 2010 to January 2011.

At the time of this research, the ODE was in the process of revising the standards for social studies requirements. It is important to define and interpret these changes for the benefit of this study. The 2002 standards will be discussed in this part of the analysis.

The 2010 Academic Content Standards Revision will be discussed in the Summary,

Discussion, and Application section of this paper. See Appendix A for the 2002

Academic Content Standards for socials studies grades 9-12.

According to the 2002 Academic Content Standards, the content for grades 9-12 was organized into grade bands. For example, gGrades 9-10 were a band and grades 11-

12 were a band. Within each band, these academic content standards direct the overarching goals and themes. The seven standards include: History, People in Societies,

Geography, Economics, Government, Citizens Rights and Responsibilities, and Social

Studies Skills and Methods. Listed Uunder each was a list of benchmarks students needed to achieve. These benchmarks were to monitor progress toward the academic content standard. Lastly, indicators were included within each benchmark. The indicators 30 determined what students should know and be able to do at each grade level. History and

Government benchmarks were analyzed in this study. See table 4.1 for reference.

Table 4.1 AMERICANISM IN CONTEXT 31

(ODE, 2002) 32

It is interesting to note that neither grades 9-10 benchmarks nor grades 11-12 benchmarks discuss American History prior to 1877. Nowhere do the benchmarks discuss the discovery of the United States, the Revolutionary War, the Founding Fathers, or the struggles of implementing the United States Constitution. It appears students are taught American History beginning with the Industrial Revolution. It is probable that this reduction in American History content in the classroom is directly attributable to OGT standards and constraints. A Center on Educational Policy (CEP) collected surveys from all fifty states in which the study showed that, “Thirty-three percent of the districts . . . reported reducing social studies in response to high-stakes testing” (Au, 2009, p. 47).

After collecting the data from ODE in regards to the social studies content, further clarification was needed. An extensive email was sent to all social studies coordinators in mid-January 2011. The social studies coordinators were asked to clarify information in regards to the Ohio Graduation Test (OGT) and more specifically American History prior to 1877 and The United States Constitution. The first inquiry was why high school students learn American History beginning with 1877. According to one of the coordinators:

While Ohio’s 2002 social studies academic content standards include the study of

American history from 1877 to the present, local districts are not obligated to

have their local curricula conform to this time period. However, local districts

should be cognizant of the requirements for passing the OGT when designing

local curricula and be satisfied that their instructional programs will prepare

students for success on the state assessments. It behooves districts to provide

instruction about American History from 1877 to the present since the OGT is AMERICANISM IN CONTEXT 33

based upon that time period. (W. Muthig, personal communication, January 18,

I furtherFurther inquiry persisted asked about the required social studies credits students need for graduation. Mr. Muthig (2011) replied, “The decision as to the length of instruction beyond what is necessary to earn the state-mandated credits in social studies is left up to the local districts. Districts must offer at least one-half credit of

American history and one-half credit of American government for students to graduate.”

Mr. Muthig did say that local districts could offer more credit if more instruction is provided.

Another area of needed clarification was to determine when students learn about the foundation of America. Mr. Muthig (2011) responded by stating:

The decision about when to teach students about the foundation of America is left

up to local districts. In the 2002 social studies academic content standards this

topic is addressed in grades five and eight. Once again, school districts need to be

cognizant of the state’s assessment program, which includes assessments

addressing this topic at grades five and eight.

Mr. Muthig responded similarly Wwhen asked about students learning the U.S.

Constitution,. Hhe explained said, “In the 2002 social studies academic content standards, this topic is addressed in grades five and eight” (2011).

Lastly, Mr. Muthig clarified when most high school students take American

History and Government sayingas being, “. . .tenth, eleventh, and twelfth grades depending on local district programs” (2011). 34

Analysis of the Ohio Graduation Test (OGT)

The Ohio Graduation Test (OGT) was analyzed for results from between the years

2005 through 2010. The Ohio Department of Education (ODE) website provides the test questions and the results. The focus of this study was isolated to the social studies component. Three elements of the exam were specifically analyzed. First, the scores for each school district in Scioto County were extracted. Second, questions pertaining to the

U.S. Constitution and questions specifically designed toward American History prior to

1877 were culled for evaluationed. Third, student responses to those specific questions were collected for study. The ODE provides an item analysis which reports how students score on each question. This item analysis is not broken apart for each school district. It is a collection of scores from all students tested in Ohio.

Scioto County has eleven school districts that partake in the Ohio Graduation Test

(OGT). It is important to reiterate that the social studies portion of the Ohio

Graduation Test is comprised of various questions that pertain to the different

courses of social studies. For example, students were tested on material relevant to

history, government, economics, geography, people in societies, citizenship rights

and responsibilities, and social studies skills and methods. A comparison of the

OGT results from Scioto County schools from various years will be discussed. See

Appendix B for OGT by school, year, and passage rates.

OGT results per school district from various years.

Bloom-Vernon school district, located in South Webster, Ohio, averaged 78.2% between the years 2005-2010. In 2006, they averaged 74.7%. However, the school AMERICANISM IN CONTEXT 35 district scored better on the March 2010 test; they scored 82.9%, this is a slight increase from the year before which was 81.7%.

Clay school district, which is located in Portsmouth, Ohio, averaged 82.4% between the years 2005-2010. In 2007, the OGT score was 75.4%. However, in 2009

Clay rebounded to 88.9%. On the March 2010 test, Clay dropped ten percent to 78.9%.

Sciotoville Community School (East), located in Sciotoville, Ohio, averaged, 74% on the OGT between the years 2005-2010. March 2005 was the highest scoring year, which was 79%. However, in March 2006, the average score for East was 68%.

Green Local school district, located in Franklin Furnace, Ohio, averaged 78% between the years 2005-2010. The highest scoring year was March 2006 in which the

OGT score was 86%. The OGT result from 2005 was much lower. Green scored 71.7%.

Minford Local school district, located in Minford, Ohio, averaged 78% between the years 2005-2010. Minford’s highest scoring year was March 2010; the score was

80.6%. On the other hand, they scored 69.4% in March 2008.

New Boston school district, located in New Boston, Ohio, averaged 77.9% between the years 2005-2010. New Boston scored 88.5% March 2009 and 65.6% March

Northwest school district, located in McDermott, Ohio, averaged 70.1% between the years 2005-2010. Northwest scored 84.8% in March 2009; however, dropped almost ten percent the following year. March 2005 was their lowest scoring year, which was

60.2%. 36

Portsmouth school district, located in Portsmouth, Ohio, averaged 60% between the years 2005-2010. The highest scoring year for Portsmouth was 2006, which was

73.9%. Portsmouth’s lowest scoring year was 2008 in which the OGT score was 54.8%.

Valley local school district, located in Lucasville, Ohio, averaged 80.1% between the years 2005-2010. Their highest scoring year was March 2006 with a 91.2% average.

In March 2005, Valley scored 69.4%.

Portsmouth West, located in West Portsmouth Ohio, averaged 71.8% between the years 2005-2010. West scored their highest (81.7%) in March 2009 and their lowest

(63.3%) in March 2005.

Wheelersburg local school district, located in Wheelersburg, Ohio, averaged 86% on the OGT between the years 2005-2010. Wheelersburg scored its highest, 90.7%, for the year 2008 and 76.9% for its lowest in 2007.

Selected questions from the OGT pertaining to this study.

There are approximately 135,000 students who take the Ohio Graduation Test

(OGT) in the state of Ohio on a yearly basis. This exam is given to all sophomores and to those who did not pass certain portions of the test the first time. The social studies portion of the exam consists of 44 questions. “Of these items, 38 are counted as part of a student’s test score and six are included for field testing purposes. Of the scored items, there are 32 multiple-choice items, four short-answer items, and two extended-response items” (Muthig, 2011).

This portion of the paper will focus onQ questions relevant to American History prior to 1877 and American Government, specifically the United States Constitution between the years of 2005-2009 were analyzed. The questions between the years of AMERICANISM IN CONTEXT 37

2005-2009 were analyzed. The 2010 OGT questions were not published at the time of this research.

The March 2005 OGT had four questions applicable to this study. Students were asked questions questions about restrictions against free speech, authority in government, voting rights, and such as: In the United States, a citizen’s exercise of speech and expression may be legally restricted when . . . The second question asked, In a democracy, the source of authority for the government is the . . . The third question pertained to the 19th Amendment. Lastly, the fourth question pertained to Jean-Jacques

Rousseau’s Social Contract in which he examined ideas about majority will and the common good. In

tThe 2006 OGT, had four questions as well. Sstudents were asked, about the branches of government and their relationships, another question about Locke and

Rousseau, voting rights, and freedom of the press. . . . what is the difference in the relationship between the executive and the legislative in the two types of democracies.

Secondly students were asked another Enlightenment question. Students had to know about John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s philosophy about government’s obligations to uphold peoples’ rights and how the government should be based on the consent of the governed. The next question pertained to the 19th Amendment. Lastly, students were asked the following question: In the United States, freedom of the press to report on certain matters may be restricted during wartime because . . .

On the March 2007 OGT, there were only two questions pertinent to this study.

These questions related specifically to the 1st, 19th, and 26th amendments. First, students were asked about the freedom of assembly that is guaranteed by the First 38

Amendment. Secondly, students were asked what changes occurred as a result of the ratifications of the 19th and 26th Amendments.

The March 2008 OGT had five questions relevant to this study. These questions dealt with the 18th and 19th amendments and ratification, as well as With the first question, students had to be familiar with the 19th Amendment to able to answer the following question. The question asked, although the 14th Amendment to the

Constitution extended the rights of citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the

United States, discrimination on the basis of gender still existed throughout much of the country during the late 1800s. Which was a consequence of this discrimination? For the second question, students had to be familiar with the court decision, Brown v. Board of

Education., and The third question pertained to the different forms of government -- .

Students needed to know the difference between a theocracy, democracy, constitutional monarchy, and a dictatorship. The fourth question pertained to the 18th Amendment and the ratification of it in 1919. Students needed to be familiar with the federal governments power into activities formerly regulated by states to accurately answer this question. With the fifth question,S students also needed know how citizens could achieve governmental change.

The March 2009 OGT had six questions applicable to this study. Freedom of the press, governmental change, and forms of government were queried. Further, The first question pertained to the freedom of the press under the First Amendment. With the second question, students had to know how to achieve governmental change. Students had to be familiar with the different forms of government to be able to answer the third question. The fourth question pertained to the court decision, Plessy v. Ferguson in AMERICANISM IN CONTEXT 39 which students needed to be familiar with and the 14th Amendment, the Enlightenment thinkers and the . With the fifth question, students needed to be able to know what the leaders of the American Revolution shared with the Enlightenment thinkers. And, again,

Lastly, students were asked how the Constitution changed as a result of about the 19th

Amendment.

As is common with any standardized test, the student response varied greatly year-to-year and question-by-question. Probably some of the more significant concerns raised from the evaluation include the dominance of the 19th amendment, student ignorance on rights enumerated in the 1st amendment, and the focus on court cases and the enlightenment thinkers. One must wonder where students are supposed to learn the details of the Enlightenment if American History is not taught prior to the Industrial period.

Students’ response to specific questions.

[[[[[ Do you think it will be redundant to type the same questions again with the students’ response? Suggestions???]]]]]]]

Analysis of The Americanism and Government Program

The Americanism test is a product of the American Legion. [[[EXPLAIN]]]

 End the analysis with that lovely graph explaining the OGT/12th compared! 40

Interpretation of standards applicability from the teachers’ view

An informal survey of Scioto County Social Studies teachers was conducted as variance in program by school became apparent. – EXPLAIN THE BENEFITS OF

PARTICIPATION! AMERICANISM IN CONTEXT 41

Appendix

Appendix A – OGT social studies content standards……………………………………x Appendix B – OGT by school, year, and passage rates...... x

Appendix C – Americanism participation...... x

Appendix D – Survey Information and Results...... x 42

References

Americanism and Government test. (2010). In The Chronicles of the American Legion.

Americanism Manuel. (1997). The National Americanism Commission. The American

Legion. Indianapolis, IN.

Au, W. (2009). Social Studies, Social Justice: W(h)ither the Social Studies in High-

Stakes Testing? Teacher Education Quarterly.

Bole, B. & Gordon, M. (2009). E Pluribus Unum: fostering a new era of citizenship by

teaching civic engagement and healthy civic discourse. Journal of Public Affairs,

9, 273-287. doi: 10.1002

Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (2010). Retrieved from

http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/faqs

Carpenter, J. J. (2004). Jefferson’s Views on Education: Implications for Today’s Social

Studies. The Social Studies, 140-146.

DeRose, J. J. (2009). Back to the Future with Textbooks: Using Textbook Passages

from the Past to Help Teach Historiography. The History Teacher, 42(2), 229-

Gutierrez, R. (2003). Our Federalist Roots: A Neglected Past? National Council for

the Social Studies, 31(2), 218-242.

Heritage, Second edition, 1989; online version November 2010.

; accessed 15 February 2011. Earlier

version first published in New English Dictionary, 1898.

Hess, F. M. (2009). Still At Risk: What Students Don’t Know, Even Now. Arts

Education Policy Review, 110(2), 5-20. AMERICANISM IN CONTEXT 43

Kovacs, P. (2009). Education for Democracy: it is Not an Issue of Dare; It Is an Issue of

Can. Teachers Education Quarterly, 36(1), 9-23.

Levine, P. (2007). The Future of Democracy: Developing the Next Generation of

American Citizens. Tufts University Press: Lebanon, NH.

Nash, G. B. (2001). The History Standards Controversy and Social History. Journal of

Social History, 29(1), 41-49.

Nash, M. A. (2009). Contested Identities: Nationalism, Regionalism, and Patriotism in

Early American Textbooks. History of Education Quarterly, 49(4), 417-441.

Neal, A. D., Martin, J. L., Moses, M. (2000). Losing America’s Memory: Historical

Illiteracy in the 21st Century. American Council of Trustees and Alumni, 4-32.

Novak, M. (2002). A Reckoning. Academic Questions, 16(1), 32-38.

Ohio Department of Education. (2010). Academic Content Standards Revision High

School Social Studies Course Syllabi, 1-21.

Ohio Department of Education. (2010). OGT Results 2005-2010. Retrieved October 14,

2010 and January 21, 2011 from

http://webapp1.ode.state.oh.us/proficiency_reports/ogt/csvtoasp.

Robelen, E. W. (2010). Rewriting of States’ Standards on Social Studies Stirs Debate.

Education Week, 29(27), 18-19.

Savage, T. V. (2003). Assessment and quality social studies. The Social Studies, 94(5),

201-206.

Shenkman, R. (2008). Just How Stupid Are We? New York, NY: Basic Books.

Spalding, M. (2002). The Founders’ Almanac. Washington, D.C. The Heritage

Foundation. 44

Street, P. (2003). By All Means, Study the Founders: Notes from the Democratic Left.

The Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies, 25, 281-301. doi:

10.1080/10714410390251093

Stotsky, S. (2004). When History Teacher Forget the Founding. Academic Questions,

17(3), 21-31.

SurveyMonkey. Retrieved data January 2011 from

http://www.surveymonkey.com/MySurveys.aspx.

U.S. Department of Education. (2007) The Nation’s Report Card. U.S. History 2006.

Waters, T. (2005). Why students think there are two kinds of American history.

The History Teacher, 39(1), 11-21.