Britons living in Bulgaria. Guide to Bulgaria, Sofia and Varna

Elite: Teaching as a Worldwide Confidence Originate, Function One of Two - Domestic Confidence Matters

Elite: Teaching as a Worldwide Confidence Originate, Share One of Two - Ancestors Safety Matters Bush did?NoYesNo AnswerView resultsFebruary 24, 2009Exclusive: Education as a Global Security Issue, Part One of TwoTom Ordeman, Jr."I read the CIA world factbook, Christine. Slightly smaller than Oregon." - Tom Quinn, "Spooks" episode "Without Incident" Education is a tricky business. Most parents want it for their kids, politicians on both sides use it as a campaign issue, and no two philosophies are quite the same when it comes to the questions of what to teach or how it ought to be taught. Despite the need for a consistent standard by which to educate students, teachers in both the United States and abroad criticize standardized testing for forcing teachers to "teach the test," not the concepts and content that are meant to be tested in the first place. Meanwhile, not only do Americans routinely fail tests aimed at gauging civic or historical literacy, but Americans are not alone: a recent poll determined that nearly a quarter of British citizens believe that Winston Churchill was a myth. You read that correctly: nearly one quarter of Britons think that Winston Churchill, perhaps the greatest leader in recent British history, of whom video and audio recordings and photographs are prolific, was a mythical figure. While anecdotal evidence is seldom authoritative, it can be useful. This is not to say that I learned nothing worthwhile in high school English; I can thank Mrs. Humphrey for teaching me how to write and research a college level paper, and Mr. Monson for teaching me how to write essays quickly. However, the ratio of worthwhile to futile study was inordinately skewed – most students do not need four years of instruction in order to understand that J.D. Salinger was foul-mouthed and Ernest Hemingway's generation drank profusely because World War I was so bloody awful. Mathematics was even worse, and my grade point averages in both high school and college were highly reflective of my personal difficulties at advanced math. My lackluster high school math scores have become increasingly frustrating as I have come to realize that the subjects I was compelled to study had little benefit in college, and will have only benefited me had I chosen from a narrow cross section of specialized professions. Don't get me wrong: I can appreciate the strategic need for American students to be competitive in mathematics and hard sciences in comparison to the global community. That having been said, recent events will seem to indicate that requiring American students to pass a couple of personal finance courses will probably have had had more strategic value in the long run than requiring everyone to take advanced algebra or calculus. Again, I don't blame my teachers, most of whom were outstanding; I blame the system that compelled them to teach largely irrelevant material. The big exception to this trend was my American history coursework, which offered me more insight into a variety of subjects ranging from politics to economics to foreign policy than most of the individual courses I took on those specific subjects. Hartman, whose American history courses I took for three years – sophomore history by requirement, AP U.S. History by choice, and a third year as his teacher's aide so that I can sit through his lectures once more. Hartman's teaching that inspired me to declare a history major early in college, and by the end of my freshman year, it was Dr. Gary Ferngren's course on the history of Imperial Rome that kept me in – after that course, I never looked back. Even the history professors whose political views I disagreed with taught me critical thinking and research skills that I have found to be sorely lacking among many of my peers. Most of what I know about the world can be tied to history in one way or another, and to this day the most intellectually stimulating conversations I have, whatever the topic, are often with fellow history students. Don't get me wrong: I am neither bragging myself up as some sort of genius (I'm far from it), nor am I suggesting that everyone ought to get a history degree. One prime example of what a difference historical or geographic context will make comes from the British Broadcasting Corporation. Hardly a week goes by that the BBC, the world's most prolific broadcasting agency, does not feature several programs on either America's disproportionately negative environmental impact, or America's disproportionately negative role in global affairs. While the BBC tends to be the loudest among the collected voices, their perspective is often shared by both foreign and American press agencies. Unfortunately, those in Europe (and in the United States, for that matter) lack the historical and geographic perspective that most will hope from a high school graduate. Take, for example, the issue of pollution. Voices both foreign and domestic continue their calls for America and other Western nations to make drastic changes to their economic and environmental policies. While some studies compare emissions by a per capita measurement, many make direct country-to-country comparisons. Comparisons such as these represent egregious ignorance of both history and geography. When the United States won its independence from Great Britain in 1783, it was originally considered to be a confederacy of sovereign nations in the same way that the European Union exists today. This is because the United States began as a sort of alliance of nation-states – hence the name. By means of comparison, most who have traveled to the United Kingdom will remember traveling to specific counties, which mirror the county system in the United States. These are similar to departments in France, or regioni in Italy. The closest the United Kingdom comes to the structure of the United States is the distinct entities of England, Wales, Scotland, and the Ulster counties of Northern Ireland. If comparisons of the Scottish Parliament or the Northern Ireland Assembly to the Oregon Legislative Assembly or the Texas Legislature are any indication, comparing their level of autonomy to that of an American state is a bridge too far. This is not to pass judgment on the internal affairs or administrative divisions of European nations. Indeed, the way that these nations have come into existence and operate today is generally reflective of a long and rich culture and history. Europeans, Americans, and citizens of other nations and regions at large underestimate just how unique the United States is in both structure and history. Less educational emphasis on irrelevant topics and more emphasis on historical and geographic context might alleviate this underestimation. A further illustration of just how ludicrous such comparisons can be comes from examining the population density of the United States when compared to Europe. Due to the context of the United States and the various European nations as independent states, America is generally compared to other independent nation-states like Germany, or Turkmenistan, or Uruguay. When one considers the previously discussed factors, it becomes clear that a more apt comparison on such matters will be a comparison with the United States with Europe as a whole. With respect to geography itself, Europe comprises an area of around 3,930,000 square miles, as opposed to 3,794,066 square miles for the United States – rather comparable, really. When one factors in population, the difference is staggering: at approximately 731,000,000 and 281,421,906 people respectively, the population of the United States is less than a third that of Europe within an area of comparable size. Given this geographic context, is it really so surprising that Americans drive more and further on average than their European counterparts? And this neglects to even mention the simple matters of America's comparable economic dynamism, disproportionately large private and public humanitarian support to those in need around the world, and unrivalled contribution to global security. Furthermore, the division of 50 individual states sounds like a lot. Unfortunately, indications from both American and foreign media outlets will seem to indicate that little of this context is conveyed through world history or geography education. If it were, one can only assume that media outlets might moderate their coverage based on an assumption that the media consuming public will, for the most part, see through such slanted comparisons. International and domestic media pressure tends to go a long way toward compelling developments in government policy. Should it not follow, then, that the average reporter ought to have a better understanding of such complex issues than they tend to demonstrate? Assuming that you answered "yes" to both of these questions, allow me to ask a follow-up question: is society in 2009 anywhere near such a state? I believe that most will agree that the answer is a resounding "no." Educational expectations have a direct impact on issues that are tied to national and international security. Do they have a direct impact on that security itself? The answer is yes, and the follow-up to this article will address that connection. FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Tom Ordeman, Jr. Varna Guide