LOL, no, that's why we teach that at home!!
To their credit, some teachers teach it, following the exhortation of Walter McDougall's The Three Reasons We Must Teach History, whose first few paragraphs follow:
“If we act only for ourselves," wrote Samuel Johnson, "to neglect the study of history is not prudent. If we are entrusted with the care of others of others it is not just."
"Prudence" and "justice" are often two words conspicuous by their absence in our otherwise verbose debates on how, why, and what to teach to American children. The infamous National Standards for History, for instance, were criticized from many perspectives, but to my knowledge I was the only reviewer to question the strength of those Standards as well as their weakness. I found them altogether too inclusive, demanding, and sophisticated for high school teachers and students. For instance, I considered the Standards' repeated invitations to debunk the sainted image of Woodrow Wilson entirely legitimate, but asked whether "it is wise to teach grade-schoolers that Wilson was foolish or hypocritical to proclaim democracy, disarmament, self-determination, free trade, and a League of Nations to a war-ravaged world?" A college seminar should take a critical stance toward the icons of American history. But is it prudent to turn 11th graders into cynics with regard to the values their nation holds dear?