[Bogeygolfer]

Interesting post. Could you elaborate on why they chose the civil war period and the trade offs involved. For example there are only so many history classes you can take in high school with a great deal of territory to cover. Is the idea to focus on post civil war a way to get some depth as opposed to a broad view with little detail. I'm not seeing this as a conservative v liberal issue at all despite the effort to galvanize support for this teacher from the conservative side. The use of the civil war creates a gut reaction that I don't think is true. If they touch on our earlier history in middle school I'd be more inclined to write this off. Additionally it seems college is where you pick your history classes from a broad offering to suit your tastes.

[H. Paul Pressler IV]

They teach US before 1877 in Middle School. So therefore it is covered but done so so that your average 8th grader can pass. It is not more difficult than Who was the First President or how the Bad White Man killed all them Indians.

My take on why 11th grade US History only covers 1877 to the present is that early US History is more difficult for the kids. They would have to know 'boring' stuff about the Articles of Confederation and all those boring Presidents before Lincoln.

In US 1877 to present I cover a little about Reconstruction, the Progressive Era, WWI, the 1920's, the Depression, WWII and so on. The subjects are much more relevant and we want the Kids to score High on their Standardized Tests so that the Educational system does not look like it is failing.