I got a 66.67%. Love the cartoon. Some of the questions I totally guessed on. I had no freaking idea.

78.33%. I too, TOTALLY guessed on some of them. Like what is junta? WHO KNOWS!

Junta is a Spanish word, so I bet BethAnn got that one. By the way, you were supposed to tell me what you thought about the questions, not just your score! Did the questions address areas that its important for all Americans to know? Were any of the questions leading? Did you ever think more than one answer might be approporiate? What is the purpose of teaching history/civics?

I really didn't think the concepts covered in the quiz were important for Americans to know. Some of them could have been opinion questions. A lot of them could have had more than 1 answer. Have to get back to you on the last one.

I (Brad) got 51/60 (85%). Two of them I missed by being too much in a hurry and not reading the question. But a lot of them were educated guesses ... like seeing a negative word in the question and finding the answer that matched. Agree with BethAnn that the questions aren't that relevant to life. I mean, does it really matter that you know the decade of Jamestown's founding? The battle that ended the Rev. War? (btw, I got those 2 right). I think the best questions covered themes, like 'what was purpose of X?' Isn't that the purpose of civics/history? To learn from the past? And not make their mistakes? In that regard, themes and 'big picture' topics become most important. Miles, what do you think? You're our "resident expert" ;-)

I got 83,33% right - or 50/60. Not too bad for a Norwegian, is it?

Anyway, about the purpose of teaching history/civics: in general, I would say that the intended purpose and the actual function of history/civics in schools may not always be the same thing. Instead of uniting people of different backgrounds, the "traditional" way of teaching history may cause superficial sense of unity. History/civics is a way of creating and maintaining the meaning of national symbols, but the thing about symbols is that their meaning differ according to the perspectives of different people. And, there is the issue of what is worth knowing, which is an issue too large for a brief comment between work. The report reminds me of a book I hastily skimmed through before an exam a couple of years ago - "History on Trial" by Gary Nash et al about the conflict over the National History Standard in the 1990s and the role of history in national identity. Pretty interesting, with an international perspecitve as well.

Way to go Norway! I think I would get a zero on Norwegian history unless is was a question about how many womens' world cups they've won. Does Norway have national history standards?

In general, I like Gary Nash as a historian and his book, Urban Crucible, is a model for my future work, but I did not enjoy History on Trial. Still, Hilde, you're right that the national history standards have been a battleground that has divided history departments for years, and they're central to the question of how to teach history in our schools.

I'm no expert, despite rumors to the contrary, but if I were designing a standard curriculum, I would work toward a civics class that emphasized civic participation, and a two-year American history track so teachers could cover a more diverse range of topics, and so they would be able to get past WWII before the end of the course.

But even with the extra year of coursework, I'm not sure a student would do any better on this quiz, because it seems to test the knowledge of a common American "meta-narrative," which might as easily be complicated or deconstructed by a more comprehensive knowledge of history.

Miles, you probably know more about Norwegian soccer than I do...

The Norwegian educational system is centralized so all students have the same curriculum from grade 1 through grade 13. Each school can choose their own teaching material, but they must cover the themes set by the Ministry of Education. We're only 4.5 million people here, and we're a pretty homogeneous society (or that's what we've been taught in our history/civics classes...), so we have less controversies over what to teach our kids.

A major problem in Norwegian history/civics classes, in my opinion, is the lack of international perspectives on our ideas and our values, and that attempts to contexutalize our history often meet heavy criticism. For instance, a couple of years ago, there was a highly disputed reform in the National Gallery. Art has played a vital role in the creation of a Norwegian national identity and art history has focused on the great romantic masters of the late 1800s, so when the director reorganized the exhibition and showed how Norwegian painters were influenced by French and German artists, the Norwegian public was very upset. (The fact that the director was a Swede didn't help...)

On another note, right now we're in the middle of a major reform - and in the middle of a major debate on what knowledge is and what is worth teaching our kids. In more genereal terms, the reform highlights a major division between socialist and conservative groups. While the conservatives stress basic academic skills such as reading, writing, and maths, the socialist minister of education actually said it does not matter if Norwegian kids do not know much about maths or WW2, because they're so good at collaborating with and helping each other - and that's what important in today's world... (NOT my favorite politician...)