> This is just political posturing. This is often the case as I see it due to the differences between the perceived methods of teaching/learning history and th

> This is just political posturing. This is often the case as I see it due to the differences between the perceived methods of teaching/learning history and the actual methods (coupled with the differences in value too). Once reasonable comprehension can occur in youth, knowledge is obtained these days from a multitude of sources. Also history teachers, more than others, tend to deviate based on personal preferences making centralized bullet points only as valuable as their disseminators. While this may sound scary, good teachers like historical orators of the past can do wonders with narratives. Regardless, children obtain so much from the internet, documentaries, and other avenues of self learning that specific textbook statements are often overvalued simply out of fear of misrepresentation.