I took history in High School in the 70s. Except for U.S. Government it was a rehash of the history we were taught in Junior High. I never was satisfied with the depth of what was taught, so along with others like me, I did my own research and studied and read history on my own. By the time I was in a junior in high school the teachers were asking me questions. When I graduated, my schools history classes only covered to the period ending with World War II. There were complaints then. What is clearly happening is a bureacratic reaction to that missing late period history. I am opposed to this "throwing the bath water out with the baby" approach to squeeze in later events. Our history must cover it's most important periods, those periods which define and cover our birth as a nation. The change to the art of American history came in the 60s-70s when political and social history interest took over from the traditional type of history built around inspiration and accomplishment. I tried reading my daughters American history books when she was in high school a couple of years ago, and I didn't understand what they were teaching, it made absolutly no sense. The lessons were configured around trying to get the students to understand what people were thinking and felt in the past, and how this made American feel now and not about what actually happened then. What is taught in high schools on American history today is the physcology of Americans over time, not our fundamental beliefs and deeds,...I couldn't imagine sitting through a boring class like that, my mind would be mush; and I'm sure our country is going to pay for this tragic mystake in the future.

_______________________
David Upton