American Heritage 1
E Pluribus Unum: Are We Losing Our American Heritage?
Paula Baumgardner
American Heritage 2
Contents
Section
Page
Abstract
3
Introduction
4
Research Questions
5
Literature Review
5
Research Proposal
16
Research Hypothesis
18
Null Hypothesis
18
Research Methods
18
Findings
20
Summary
20
Conclusion
20
Appendices
21
Findings from American Heritage Survey
22
References
26
American Heritage 3
Abstract
It has become increasingly apparent that many in the United States are not
familiar with some of the basic principles or foundations of our nations
beginnings. Research indicates that revising American history curriculum has an
impact on students and their testing results, as does inadequate teaching of the
principles of our Founding Fathers. In addition, it has become a concern
among historians, politicians, educators, but most importantly our nation. Will we,
as a nation, lose our American Heritage over time? Changing our children’s
American history textbooks and not exposing the next generation to the
Founder’s plan for our country, it could happen (Neal, et al, 2000, p 4).
American Heritage 4
INTRODUCTION
My passion is learning and teaching American History and American
Government. I believe it is essential that every American citizen learn,
appreciate and become active in the American culture. I believe that we, as
Americans, are losing our heritage as a result of the many changes that have
occurred in the institution of education.
I hope to learn the reasons why many do not know about America’s
foundation and the importance of studying it. I hope by discovering the
underlying issues, I can help to rectify the deficiencies in the knowledge of
American heritage.
This area of study has a significant impact on my professional practice
because it is imperative that students are taught the full scope of American
History/Government, not just fragments of it. Not only is it significant in my
professional practice, but to others who have a great influence in educating our
youth to carry on the legacy of our nations founders. Without knowledge,
people perish — in this case our nation will not continue to be if our present and
future generations do not have a firm foundational understanding of the
principles of our forefathers. Not only is it imperative that the next generation
understand the significance of what our founders went through, but also the
documents they crafted that shaped our national foundation.
Undertaking this research project will bring a better understanding of how
important it is to educate students in America’s foundation and how it is still
American Heritage 5
relevant today. Without a strong foundation, the nation cannot stand. Students
need to understand the relevance of holding on to our foundations so that this
country can remain as one — United States of America. It is to this end, that it is
necessary that all educators who help mold our next generation into citizens
know where we came from, where were we are going, and the possible
implications if we are not secure in our national heritage.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Through my research I hope to discover answers to the following questions:
1. Do most Scioto County citizens have a basic knowledge of the principles the
founders of our nation had put into practice?
2. Do most high school seniors score well on the American history/civic section
of the state test?
3. Are most students taught about the United States Constitution and other
relevant foundational documents?
LITERATURE REVIEW
Are We Still a United States of America?
A Review of the Literature
Literature articles have been written to 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 (Neil, et al., 2000). Hess (2009)
American Heritage 6
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 exhibit 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 past?
2. What changes are being made?
3. What impact can these changes have on the future?
Why study the past?
Carpenter points out Thomas Jefferson “believed that the main purpose
of an educated citizenry is to serve as the basic line of defense against any
encroachment on 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 concurs by stating that, “Jefferson, Rush, and
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). Neal explains “the
nations 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
American Heritage 7
directly to what happens in K-12 (abstract, 2005). Neal further advocates that,
“other than our schools, no institution 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 civics are
unlikely to be able to reflect on their meaning” and therefore, “fail to recognize
. . . the importance of preserving it” (p. 7).
Hess’s study seems to articulate the same ideology 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” (Hess, 2009, p. 7).
Hess continues to say, “absent shared reference points, it may be more difficult
for young Americans . . . to find their common identity as citizens” (p. 7).
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,
American Heritage 8
especially in order to avoid an inaccurate or distorted understanding of those
origins” (p. 221).
Carpenter quotes Jefferson again 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).
Carpenter 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).
Why are there changes?
According to Neal, “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 percentage increased to “One hundred
American Heritage 9
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) states 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).
According to the Ohio Department of Education, students will only need “
. . . a half unit of credit in American History and a half unit of credit in American
Government” (p.1). ODE outlines indicate that 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). 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 points out that
“the average fifth grader is incapable of bringing much depth of understanding
to our basic political principles” (p. 27). Robelen (2010) quoted 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).
American Heritage 10
Hess’s article indicated that the change to student’s knowledge of
American history is three-fold. First, he stated, “The nation is in thrall 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 (Hess, 2009, p. 8). The second issue is that “some
children do not 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, 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-12 level because of political correctness and
that this correctness changes over time (p. 13-14). Waters continues by stating,
“Today’s textbooks will be criticized for having omitted issues which do not seem
important today. But again, this is where college classes should come in” (p. 13).
DeRose concurs with Waters, by stating that there are “some factors
affecting historical interpretation” (p. 233). For example, “emotion and feeling
American Heritage 11
can influence our perceptions of current individuals and events” (p. 233).
However, with some distance, our memories of the past will change (p. 233).
Lastly, DeRose points out 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 examined 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 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).
Stotsky addresses the issue from the perspective that teachers are not
adequately trained. She states, “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 these changes have?
Neal addresses three issues that these changes can have. First, “As we
move forward into the 21st century, our future leaders are graduating with an
American Heritage 12
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 not 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). Novak 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 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
American Heritage 13
educators” (Streets, 2002, p. 282). Sessons supports this claim by citing the
Department of Education 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 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).
Nash quotes Newt Gingrich saying, “ From 1607 to 1965 . . . there has been
a calculated effort by cultural elites to discredit the civilization and replace it
with a culture of irresponsibility that is incompatible with American freedoms as
we have known them” (p. 42). Nash agrees with Gingrich by adding,
“professional historians have indeed tried to discredit earlier versions of history
because history has been presented in a narrow and deeply distorted way” (p.
43).
American Heritage 14
“In the country that gave birth to Jefferson’s conception of an educated
citizenry, colleges and universities are failing to provide the kind of general
education that is needed for graduates to be involved and educated
citizens”(Neil, et. al, 2000, p. 6).
Conclusion
The articles common theme in regards to American history is the fact that
many Americans are not firmly grounded in their American heritage. 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 and what is to be removed. 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, “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 not only give the students a “sense of where the
country has been, but what it has meant” (p. 8).
Newt Gingrich believes “Our first task is to return to teaching Americans
about America and teaching immigrants how to become Americans. Until we
American Heritage 15
re-establish a legitimate moral and cultural standard, our civilization is at risk”
(Nash, 2001, p42). Stotsky 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 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).
“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, it expects what never was
and never will be.”---Thomas Jefferson
American Heritage 16
RESEARCH PROPOSAL
Subject Recruitment:
 Fifty adult participants from Scioto County Ohio will be randomly
selected and each participant will be given a confidentiality form.
Method and Procedures:
 Survey from at least 25 colleagues, parents, and administration using
Surveymonkey.com. Survey was conducted from June 12, 2010-June 20,
2010. Survey consisted of 10 question multiple-choice format.
 A paper survey using a 20 question multiple-choice format will be
administered to the 50 randomly selected participants. Survey will be
conducted one day in August for four-hour session
 Analysis of data acquired from the Ohio Department of Education.
 Analysis of standards required from the Ohio Department of Education.
Benefits:
 There will be no direct benefits for the participants.
 This study could benefit society by bringing public awareness to the
neglect of not adequately teaching the youth about American
History and Government. As a result of that neglect, individuals could
be subjugated to the possible governmental usurpations of their
rights as American citizens.
Risk To Subjects:
 There is no anticipated risk to any participants.
American Heritage 17
Informed Consent:
 There will be no involvement of children under 18.
 Consent forms will be given granting permission to use information
collected.
Confidentiality of Data:
 Information collected will not have any names associated with survey.
Basic demographics such as age, year of graduation, county where
one graduated and background information pertaining to history
courses taken
 Information collected from the Surveymonkey site automatically
provides anonymity.
 Paper surveys will be stored and locked in file cabinet.
 Any identifiable information will be shredded and destroyed.
Appendix:
 Survey for Surveymonkey.com
 Survey for adult participants
 Consent form
American Heritage 18
RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS
There is a substantial difference in the outcome from studying United
History/Government via the founder’s philosophies and today’s values.
NULL HYPOTHESIS
There is no valid difference in applying the study of United States
History/Government through the founder’s philosophies and today’s values.
Therefore, the teaching of the framer’s philosophies is insignificant
RESEARCH METHOD
At the beginning of my research, a survey was conducted using the
survey tool Surveymonkey.com. Ten questions in a multiple-choice format were
given. The survey was sent to 25 participants. The participants included parents,
colleagues, and administration. The intended purpose of this survey was to
have an idea if I should continue with my research hypothesis. The results
confirmed my original questions. Therefore, I have decided to conduct both
quantitative and qualitative research methods. The quantitative method, using
a twenty-question multiple-choice paper survey, will expose what knowledge
Scioto County citizens have about American History/civics. In addition to the
quantitative method, a qualitative method will be used. A study will be
conducted by examining historical documents as to the educational
philosophies of America’s Founders. An examination of history and government
textbooks used in Scioto County Ohio over the past 100 years will also be
American Heritage 19
conducted. The only foreseeable limitation is locating textbooks that date back
to the early 20th century.
American Heritage 20
Findings
The findings from American Heritage conducted through Surveymonkey. com is
in the appendix.
Awaiting results from paper survey
Summary
Awaiting results
Conclusion
Awaiting results
American Heritage 21
Appendices
 Findings from American Heritage Survey
 Findings from survey retrieved from 50 participants
 Copy of consent form
American Heritage 22
Survey Findings:
American History Curriculum Revision and Instruction
Paula Baumgardner
EDUC 5505
Professor Sturgeon
June 28, 2010
American Heritage 23
This survey was conducted on June 12, 2010 and concluded June 20, 2010.
The purpose was to identify participants’ knowledge of the changes that have
occurred in American History textbooks and the possible affects it may have on
American heritage. Twenty-five participants were e-mailed a link to
Surveymonkey.com. The participants consisted of educational colleagues,
former educators, parents, facilitators, board members and an administrator.
The participants were asked ten questions that consisted of simple yes/no
response to agree/disagree response. Sixty percent of the participants
responded to survey.
Respondents were first asked if they believed Americans are losing their
American heritage. Overwhelmingly, 93.3% said yes. On the other hand, 6.7%
responded to no. Further questioning should have been conducted to
understand why participants believe Americans are losing their heritage. Next,
participants were asked to respond to the following statement: Some states are
considering revising the American history textbooks to begin from 1877-present.
Do you agree with this change? Seven percent was not sure, 33.3% disagree,
and 60% strongly disagreed. This seems to indicate that this sample population is
concerned with the direction that curriculum changes will possibly have.
Participants were then asked if American history should be taught to all
grade levels. Forty-seven percent of the participants strongly agreed and 53%
agreed. This analysis indicates the importance of building a strong foundation
American Heritage 24
and reinforcement of American history. When asked if curriculum changes are
driven by policies instead of knowledge, the participants responded as follows:
Seven percent was not sure, 7% strongly disagreed, 40% agreed, and 47%
strongly agreed. Further questioning should have been conducted to have
participants explain why they chose the response that they did.
Further in the survey, participants were asked if high school students
should be required to take a minimum of two years of American history to
graduate. The purpose of this question was to examine if schools should focus
on requiring students to have a better understanding of American history
instead of having a diverse knowledge of all histories. Seven percent disagreed,
33.3% agreed, and 60% strongly agreed. Respondents should have had the
opportunity to explain their answer. The participants were then asked if they
thought today’s high school graduates appear to know less about American
history than their educational equal of five decades ago. The responses were
surprising. Thirteen percent were not sure, 7% disagreed, 20% agreed, and 60%
strongly agreed. It was assumed all participants would agree or strongly agree. It
would have been better if participants had the opportunity to explain why they
were unsure or disagreed with statement.
Participants were then asked if facts and historical events are spun or
omitted in textbooks in order to not offend any ethnic, religious, or racial groups.
The results are as follows: 13% were not sure, 20% agreed, and 67% strongly
agreed. Again, further questioning should have been asked of the participants
American Heritage 25
to explain their position. Next, the participants were asked if people sought to
transform our system of education from a means of creating ‘one people’ into a
means of promoting, celebrating, and perpetuating separate ethnic origins and
identities and will this ideology contribute to losing our American heritage?
Fourteen percent disagreed, 36% strongly agreed, and 50% agreed with the
statement. Follow up question should have had been conducted for the
participants to explain their response. Participants were then asked who they
believed should be responsible for deciding what changes, if any, should be
made to the curriculum. Twenty-nine percent thought licensed educators and
another 29% thought a curriculum committee made up of diverse professors
should be the ones to decide. On the other hand, 14 % were not sure and
another 14% thought none of the answers were correct. This question, it is
believed, should have been an open question. Participants should have had
the opportunity to voice their opinions without a list of answers to choose from.
Lastly, the participants were asked to grade the national education system for
preserving the American heritage. Seven percent gave a B, 29% gave a C, and
64% gave the national education system a D.
Analyzing the results of the survey confirmed my suspicion of the possible
affects of curriculum changes to the American history textbooks. However, I
would like to have had a more diverse population sample. My participant’s
average age is in the 40s. This may have affected my results. A more diverse
sampling may or may not lead to different conclusions.
American Heritage 26
REFERENCES
Carpenter, James J. (2004). Jefferson’s Views on Education: Implications for
Today’s Social Studies. The Social Studies, 140-146.
DeRose, John J. (2009). Back to the Future with Textbooks: Using Textbook
Passages from the Past to Help Teach Historiography. The History Teacher,
42(2), 229-237.
Gutierrez, Robert (2003). Our Federalist Roots: A Neglected Past? National
Council for the Social Studies, 31(2), 218-242.
Hess, Frederick M. (2009). Still At Risk: What Students Don’t Know, Even Now.
Arts Education Policy Review, 110(2), 5-20.
Kovacs, Philip (2009). Education for Democracy: it is Not an Issue of Dare; It Is an
Issue of Can. Teachers Education Quarterly, 36(1), 9-23.
Nash, Gary B. (2001). The History Standards Controversy and Social History.
Journal of Social History, 29(1), 41-49.
Nash, Margaret A. (2009). Contested Identities: Nationalism, Regionalism, and
Patriotism in Early American Textbooks. History of Education Quarterly,
49(4), 417-441.
Neal, Anne D., Martin, Jerry L., Moses, Mashad. (2000). Losing America’s
Memory: Historical Illiteracy in the 21st Century. American Council of
Trustees and Alumni, 4-32.
Novak, Michael. (2002). A Reckoning. Academic Questions, 16(1), 32-38.
American Heritage 27
Ohio Department of Education. (2010) Academic Content Standards Revision
High School Social Studies Course Syllabi, 1-21.
Robelen, Erik W. (2010). Rewriting of States’ Standards on Social Studies Stirs
Debate. Education Week, 29(27), 18-19.
Street, Paul. (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, Sandra. (2004). When History Teacher Forget the Founding. Academic
Questions, 17(3), 21-31.
Waters, Tony. (2005). Why students think there are two kinds of American history.
The History Teacher, 39(1), 11-21.