Florida’s New History Curriculum Is Pretty Great By Charles Hilu
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/floridas-new-history-curriculum-is-pretty-great/
Ron DeSantis’s state of Florida drew controversy over the Fourth of July weekend after the Miami Herald released copies of slides that the government used in civics training sessions for K–12 public-school teachers, which it partnered with Hillsdale College to create.
The slides cover reasons for the American Revolution and the philosophical underpinnings of the Constitution, while sometimes wading into contemporary debates about American government. The material is mainstream, historically accurate, and not unlike other curricula. Personally, I learned a lot of it a few years ago in high school when I took Advanced Placement U.S. History and Government & Politics.
Overall, Florida’s syllabus is a good road map for teaching history. Most of the material is simply stating facts, and when it wades into controversy, it backs up its assertions solidly, for the most part. Nevertheless, some educators have complained that the instructional prescription was too Christian and conservative.
One of the central complaints centers on one of the presentations calling the idea that “the Founders desired strict separation of church and state and the Founders only wanted to protect freedom of worship” a misconception.
The state’s claim is certainly controversial, but it is true, nonetheless. While the Founding conception of separation of church and state protected freedom of worship, it was chiefly focused against creating an established church. The Framers did not view all public support of religion as illicit. After all, Congress held church services in the House chamber from when it first moved to Washington, D.C., until after the Civil War, with the speaker’s podium serving as the pulpit. That does not seem like an action of people who wanted religion and government in totally separate spheres.
For those who argue the contrary, the chief piece of evidence, which the Florida curriculum acknowledges, is Thomas Jefferson’s 1801 Letter to the Danbury Baptists, in which he wrote that the First Amendment creates “a wall of separation between church and state.” It is important to note the context of the letter. He was responding to a group of people who were fearful that the government would interfere with their free exercise of religion, and he was attempting to allay their concerns. In no way was he calling for the government to totally distance itself from religion. After all, he would often attend the services in the Capitol.
The other controversial part of the presentations was their outlining of Jefferson’s and George Washington’s moral opposition to slavery without mentioning their engagement in the practice. Notably, critics did not contend that the information in this section was untrue, nor would the state’s standards prohibit any instructor from teaching about the disconnect between many Founders’ beliefs and actions.
Instead, this section paints the correct picture of America’s relationship to slavery: that the country imperfectly lived up to its Founding ideals, but the greatest warriors for equality — Abraham Lincoln, Frederick Douglass, Martin Luther King Jr., etc. — challenged America to keep its promise.
We can nitpick our minor quibbles with the material. The presentation on the judiciary is more dismissive of the belief that the Constitution is a living document than was my high school education (which I hold in high regard). Though I believe this view to be of little merit, many of the liberal justices who hold it possess great minds, so we should take care to examine it well.
Even so, this curriculum is a good way of creating a virtuous citizenry, giving students an accurate and mostly balanced view of American history. It should serve as a model for other states.
Comments are closed.
