JUNEAU — Lawmakers on the House Education Committee on Wednesday approved a bill mandating that students learn the nation’s founding documents before graduating high school. It passed only after a testing requirement was removed from the proposal.
Bill sponsor Rep. Wes Keller, R-Wasilla, said he hoped the bill would improve student’s understanding of civics by requiring them to be taught and tested on the nation’s founding documents.
According to the bill, these documents include the U.S. Constitution, Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, first state constitutions, Federalist Papers, Bill of Rights and others “produced in the founding of our constitutional republic model of government.”
Some committee members objected to the testing requirement in the bill.
“I don’t think it’s going to be the most productive for every school board to have to develop a curriculum,” said Rep. Paul Seaton, R-Homer.
The bill does not specify how the test should be written and did not allow for waivers for students. Seaton said he feared schools would implement a watered-down test simply to get students to graduate.
Committee vice chairman Lance Pruitt proposed an amendment that would remove the testing requirement from the bill, which the committee approved by a 5-2 vote.
The amended bill now only requires school districts to develop a curriculum to teach the founding documents.
Keller said he opposed the amendment, saying it would weaken the bill. He said he hopes the testing requirement will be reinstated by a future committee.
House Bill 5 now awaits consideration by the House Finance Committee.
Comments (10)
Add commentcan't hurt
This is a step in the right direction. Many have a very poor understanding of the agreement between the sovereign 13 states that created the federal government.
And why many of the states would not vote for ratification with out the first ten amendments, the "Bill of Rights".
Also by studying the federalist papers, student will gain understanding of the INTENT of those that wrote our Constitution.
This legislation can not hurt in the ongoing struggle to save our Nation from those that believe the constitution is no longer applicable, or worse have little more than contempt for the contract between the feds, & the states.
I honestly think teaching
I honestly think teaching these kids this stuff is great. We should be showing what our founding fathers intended for the USA to look like.
Not the united states FOR corporations and struggling for power.
Maybe future generations actually will do something about it instead of whining and complaining. (I admit I am guilty)
I honestly think teaching
I honestly think teaching these kids this stuff is great. We should be showing what our founding fathers intended for the USA to look like.
Not the united states FOR corporations and struggling for power.
Maybe future generations actually will do something about it instead of whining and complaining. (I admit I am guilty)
Intent?
We already have those kinds of classes, apparently just not to your standards Pub. I really wonder if the testing standard isn't just a way of manipulating political propaganda on impressionable minds.
We already have blatant religion creep into the classroom, and this practically begs the next step "teaching standards" to ensure that the kind of Intent of the framers taught is what a particular group would make Fact. So, if you and I differ on some key aspects of our interpretation what makes you think teachers woudn't? And then why do you think your standard or train of thought should be more recognized than mine?
My opinion is this whole exercise is a waste of time. Can anyone imagine it anything short than a blatant opportunity for party politics from the teachers pulpit?
and then edict the course content
to insure the "right" things are taught. I can just imagine the views these conservatives expect taught. Everyone of our founders will be pure of heart and beyond reproach as we will not detail some of those obscure facts like those who fathered children from multiple mistresses, owned slaves or were just plane old drunkards.
It was a long time after HS when I learned a lot of the truths about our founders. Even sadder was the number of things I had learned about most American History that was far from the truth. There was only absolutes taught regarding everything and many of those absolutes were just plane wrong. Supposed scholars can not agree on many things in text books that depict this Civil War as being either a Slavery issue or a States Right matter. So I can imagine what will happen in this curriculum.
Further I still find it absurd that the Alaska Construction has not been included in this knowledge bowl of history curriculum.
Once ratified, the
Once ratified, the Constitution set the basis for the government we have today. Powers are divided between the federal (or national) government and the 50 states. The Founding Fathers knew they had to leave enough powers with the states when they were writing the Constitution. If they didn't, they knew the state legislatures would never ratify the Constitution. All states were granted the right to control certain things within their borders. They could do so as long as they "did not" interfere with the rights of other states or the nation.
Someone needs to bring Parnell up to speed on this.
That isn't a Parnell issue
That isn't a Parnell issue only. Not even close. The federal government is so much more powerful then the states. The system might have been set up for an evenly divided power but that is far far from what we have today.
The Feds micro manage the crap out of the states and what they leave for the states to decide is just fluff.
Everyones perspective is different and everything is viewed differently.
"Perception is (your) reality"
1) Before the constitution,
1) Before the constitution, there was the Articles of Confederation, which DID allow the states a ton of power. It didn't work out so well, as states acted more like separate nations than different states within one. The constitution set up a federal government that WAS supreme and gave it the tools to enforce it.
2) Most of the micromanaging the feds do is voluntary by the states. Speed limits, for instance, are mandated by the feds, but states can choose not to abide by them, and in return they will lose funding from the federal government. Much of the federal regulations work this way--the states are not FORCED to partake in them, but they will lose federal money if they do so.
And this really is largely a good thing. Imagine if slavery or interracial marriage were still a state-by-state issue. Or women's suffrage. Or civil rights. Or child labor laws. Most of the time when the federal government swoops in to make changes, it's because the states are unable to do the correct thing themselves, either because of corruption, stupidity, or a combination of the two.
I totally get having the gov
I totally get having the gov being there to keep things in check. But that's not how the lawmakers are doing it in Washington. Every issue is just fought and fought over until someone has enough power to push they're side through. Then it gets caught up in courts until it's made law. And then reversed when power shifts. I think up to a point the states should be much more independent. All of the horrible things you listed that might still be around wouldn't be because the states as a whole wouldnt allow it. On things that infringe on our basic rights given to us, those would definatly fall under the government to decide.
While the states DO have the option to make more decisions on they're own they won't because the among of federal funding is too much to pass up. We might be the only state that might actually make it. Probably not.
What about California, the say it's ok to have pot used for medical purposes, but the Feds still come in from time to time and shut dispencerys down. And the IRS won't recognize alot of they're business tax laws because they don't recognize that it's a legitimate place.
The states might have the option but not really.
akromper
Intent? That is why it is important to go to the source, i.e. the federalist papers, & other writings from the framers.