This is a parable about sugared sodas and a Benedictine scribe.
Beginning in the fall of 2025, to graduate, Mississippi high school students will be required to pass a state exam in Algebra 1, biology, and English language arts. On June 19, 2025, the State Board of Education voted to remove the U. S. History exam as a requirement. However, according to the Associated Press (AP), “Department officials reiterated … that high schoolers would still have to take and pass history classes to graduate.”
Paula Vanderford, the education department’s chief accountability officer, had previously stated that removing the history test requirement would save the state money. Still, the board would support districts that wanted to create their own U.S. History assessments.
The AP also quotes Dr. Lance Evans, the state superintendent of education: “Though the U.S. history statewide assessment will be eliminated starting next school year, it’s important to emphasize that students will still learn U.S. history and will be required to complete the course to graduate successfully. Having fewer state tests required to graduate should be less taxing on educators, students, and families alike.”
From Goodreads: “The classic guide for the college-bound student on how to acquire and maintain good study skills. Originally published in 1956, but just as useful and relevant today, this book covers everything from developing a vocabulary to taking tests and using libraries.”
Since Dr. Evans has earned a terminal degree, he understands, as William Armstrong presents in his 1950s book, Study is Hard Work, that any studying is taxing, even stressful. And anyone who has had to concentrate mentally will agree that mental exertion is often as much or more taxing than physical labor. Following the stated logic of Dr. Evans, all tests should therefore be removed because they are taxing. Of course, that won’t or should not happen, but removing the history test will save Mississippi money, as noted by Paula Vanderford.
Fortunately, not everyone in the state agrees. Mary Werner, a board member who voted against the move, co-authored an editorial opposing the removal of the U.S. History test with U.S. Senator Roger Wicker. In it, they wrote: “Our state has been making remarkable strides in education, and this progress is equipping the very Mississippians who will lead our state into the 21st century. As they take on our future, we believe they should be as knowledgeable as possible about our past.”
There are many reasons to have a thorough understanding of American history, but the last quoted sentence above from the Weber/Wicker editorial states it well enough. I argue that passing a standardized test on any subject demonstrates what a student has learned about that topic.
I think Mississippi, as well as other states, should add more state-required assessments for high school graduation, not remove them.
For instance …
–A test for each state’s particular history and government would improve students’ preparedness for citizenship.
–A test for the U.S. government (civics) would help all our students become well-informed citizens.
–A test for basic economics would help our graduates become better consumers.
And those are only a few standardized assessments that would help our students “take on our [and their] future.”
In 2005, Shenandoah County, Virginia, public schools, the county in which I live, stopped teaching cursive writing. It seems that the advent of technology was a driving force behind this decision, and the later adoption of the Common Core standards solidified the opposition to cursive. According to teachers I questioned, teaching cursive was too time-consuming and, as a parent told me during a meeting, “The Internet will translate everything into print. They [children] won’t need to read cursive or write it.”
However, as Dr. Drew Faust discovered while teaching history at Harvard, her young scholars, having not learned cursive, could not read the Declaration of Independence, other important primary documents, or even notes from their grandparents.
I don’t doubt that every parent or educator has the best intentions when making changes to educational policies. “Seeing” what skills our students will need in the future is challenging, especially with the influence of the Internet and AI on our lives. However, it seems to me there are certain “givens” to this discussion.
But what are those skills that every parent and educator thinks or believes our children will need? How should our public schools prepare our children for a future that we are not certain of?
These questions and others are important, but I suggest that we acknowledge some of the “givens” that will help our children navigate whatever they encounter. And, as Paula Vanderford reminds us, the cost of all educational policies is a matter. However, I would remind Vanderford and others that ignorance is more expensive than education.
Whatever subjects we teach will be debated. And while we are all sincere, we are not all correct in our opinions. If we were, then our educational policies would not move back and forth like a huge pendulum. However, innovations and discoveries require that we remain somewhat flexible in these policies, but it seems to me that by accepting certain tenets, our system would better serve our children. After all, we “have” them for twelve or thirteen years.
The question of what we should teach our children is, for me, always answered by the science teacher who tells of chaperoning a large group of teenagers at a pool party. As a chaperone, he was a passive observer; however, he did note that they did not enjoy the diet sodas that floated on top of the large plastic tub filled with ice water, except for one guest who was enjoying a sugared soda. The teacher looked at the student who said without being prompted, “Physics class, sir. Sugar is heavier than water.” They both smiled in understanding.
A simple story that, like any worthy story, carries a message. We don’t know all that our children will need or rely on later in their lives. But we can teach those “givens” mentioned earlier. In 1997, while observing Mary Quinet’s history class, I read the following in the textbook: “He who does not know how to write imagines that it is no labor, but though only three fingers hold the pen, the whole body grows weary.” (Benedictine scribe) The scribe is telling us something of value.
First, let’s require all students to be capable readers who can read and think through complex presentations. Our students should be able to write a competent paragraph. As a friend of mine who teaches at Barnard once told me, “I don’t care if my students have read Moby Dick, but I hope they can write a coherent paragraph.” A solid understanding of arithmetic provides students with the foundation needed to progress to higher mathematics, which is a valuable language for their future. And the more science disciplines they learn, the richer their lives. Ultimately, every person with a thorough knowledge of history and the workings of governments will be a more valuable citizen of their country and the world.
After all, twelve or thirteen years is a long time to educate our most precious resource. Let’s not shortchange them.
