Taking this logic one step

further, I believe that the Scholastic Aptitude Test, which is the nationally-recognized

benchmark used by most experts in assessing the quality of a given state's

educational system, be used to identify those states that are the very

best.

In the 2002 election, Republican

candidates for governor and state school superintendent made Georgia's

dismal showing on the SAT a key issue in their successful campaigns. In

2003, Georgia finished 50th out of 50 states when the SAT scores were

released. On average, Georgia students underperformed the nation by 122

points.

Since I teach high school history,

I am particularly interested in the standards that impact my own discipline.

Recently, State Superintendent of Schools Kathy Cox unveiled the new history

standards for kindergarten through grade 12. While Superintendent Cox

described these standards as "world class," others criticized

the standards, suggesting that they represent a step backward rather than

a step forward.

McIntosh High School's

Joseph Jarrell concludes that our proposed high school history curriculum

is "nothing more than a dumbing down of world history and U.S. history

courses."

Georgia State University's

Clifford Kuhn states, "In addition to their dubious ideological underpinnings

and associated teaching exercises, many of the standards suffer from unclear,

sloppy phrasing and just bad history." So, who is right?

In an effort to make sense

out of the proposed high school history curriculum, I recently attended

a social studies conference eager to learn what research our own state

had done.

At this conference, the state's

coordinator for social studies education was asked which states Georgia

had based its history curriculum changes on. She cited three states.

I researched how these states

actually performed on the most recent Scholastic Aptitude Test by going

to the website for The College Board and printing the results of the 2003

SAT for all 50 states. Two of the three states in question finished in

the bottom five while all three states finished in the bottom 15.

Given that our state Department

of Education's curriculum changes were announced after these results

became public (Aug. 26, 2003), I am left wondering why Georgia would model

its history curriculum on three states that performed so poorly?

Suspecting that I lacked the

wisdom and judgment of our state's elected leaders and their trained

bureaucrats, I went to websites of several of the departments of education

of those states that finished in the top 10 on the SAT to compare their

curriculum with Georgia's.

When I examined their high

school history curriculums, I could not help but be impressed by how much

better their standards were than ours.

In states finishing at or near

the top, standards were expressed with a clarity and coherence sorely

lacking in our own state's high school history curriculum.

These top-performing states

standards do not suffer from what Clifford Kuhn describes as "unclear,

sloppy phrasing and just bad history." Rather, they outline a sweeping

vision of what their students need to know and what it will take to teach

it to them. Most importantly, these states set high expectations for all

students, which is something I believe our proposed high school history

curriculum fails to do.

I do agree wholeheartedly with

Superintendent Cox when she states, "Yes, there has been a 'dumbing

down' of Georgia's students; it has been taking place over the

last 20 years."

If, however, we are to end

this "dumbing down," the question we need to be asking is: Why

not the best?

I question the logic and the

wisdom of a high school history curriculum that omits so much historical

content of such critical importance such as all history prior to the age

of exploration in world history and the period from the origins of our

nation to the end of reconstruction in U.S. history.

Our state superintendent writes,

"We have incorporated more world history than ever before."

What she fails to explain is why high school history teachers, such as

myself, who have taken graduate-level courses to develop our knowledge

base and enhance our students' understanding, are being asked to

teach less while elementary teachers, who have less background in these

content-rich subject areas, are being asked to teach more. I do not see

this same logic at work in those states whose performance puts our own

to shame.

Having had the privilege and

the honor to teach some of Georgia's young adults, I believe them

to be capable of rising to whatever challenges we set. It is the job of

our elected leaders to set the bar as high as possible. We should not

settle for moving from 50th place to 49th, or 48th, or even 47th. Yet

this is what I fear will happen if we emulate those states whose own practices

place them near the bottom.

We can do better. Our elected

leaders can do better too. The time to begin is now. In the words of Abraham

Lincoln, "Let us think anew." The state Department of Education

needs to set high expectations for all and the place to begin is with

a comprehensive examination of the standards and tasks outlined by those

states that have already made excellence their benchmark.

Tony Pattiz

Peachtree City, Ga.

[Pattiz is social studies chairperson

at Sandy Creek High School in Tyrone, Ga.]