4/CHRONICLESnA recent report issued by the NationalnEndowment for the Humanities raisesnserious questions about what our childrennare learning in public schools.nWhat Do Our 17-Year-Olds Know?ncompiled by Assistant Secretary of EducationnChester Finn and ColumbianTeachers College Professor Diane Ravitch,nis based on a cultural literacyntest administered to nearly 8,000 highnschool juniors.nThe study revealed that only 31npercent of the students can identify thenMagna Carta, and nearly a thirdnthought that the Spanish Armada wasndestroyed in the Spanish AmericannWar! The authors describe the students’nanswers to the history section asn”a shameful level of performance” andncall for a beefed-up humanities curriculum.nThe only surprise in the report hasnbeen the reaction of the public. Wenheard all this 20 or 30 years ago fromnpeople like Jacques Barzun and RussellnKirk, who took pains to remind usnof our heritage. Once upon a time innAmerica we thought we knew whatnwas important. We celebrated marriage,nhard work, and patriotism, andnwe recognized that certain books andncertain types of knowledge were centralnto our civilization: Shakespearenand Homer, the Bible (in the authorizednversion), Vergil’s Aeneid, and thenessays of Dr. Johnson. Those of usnwho cared about such things expected -nour children to have read these authorsnand to know about things like thenMagna Carta or how to count backwardsnwhen the dates are B.C.nAll that was some time ago, beforenthe smart professors of educationnfound out that what our children reallynneeded was not Latin and French andnancient history but Health and Guidance,nDrivers Ed, Sex Ed, Drugs Ed,nand “Social Studies.” The same smartnprofessors told us that educationnCULTURAL REVOLUTIONSnshouldn’t be parochial, that our childrennshould learn about all the culturesnof the world, not just the narrowncorridor that runs from ancient Greecento modern America.nSo, between the 1930’s and then1960’s we overhauled our entire systemnof public education. To no one’snsurprise, it turned out that many modernnstudents don’t even know whonHomer (much less Dr. Johnson) were.nWhat’s more, they act as if they’vennever heard of Magna Carta andncouldn’t name the second President ofnthe U.S. to save their lives.nWe knew all this at least 20 yearsnago and decided to do nothing aboutnit. We had more important things tonworry about—Vietnam, Watergate,nthe Superbowl. Now a whole string ofnsmart professors—Allan Bloom, E.D.nHirsch, and Finn and Ravitch—arenfront-page news for repeating the familiarnstory.nStill, What Do Our 17-Year-OldsnKnow? is unsettling for a number ofnreasons. First and foremost, it remindsnus that our schools are failing miserablynat one of their primary tasks: Quitensimply, they are not preparing youngnAmericans to take their place withinnour civilization. It is worse than annational disgrace. It is a nationalnemergency, and we should be gratefulnto the authors—and to the NEH—forndrawing our attention to an urgentnproblem.nHowever, the report is disturbing innless obvious ways. The students werenasked multiple choice questions onnwhat we used to call “nickel knowledge”ntopics. Most of the questionsnhave obvious answers, although somenof the choices were bafHing. Sincenwhen, for example, is Raisin in thenSun a classic that could be regarded asnrequired reading. A man who knewntoo much might also be troubled bynsome of the oversimplifications. Evennnnif the questions were masterpieces ofntest design, though, the multiplenchoice format is highly questionable innitself Indeed, such tests were once innthe vanguard of the attack on culturalnliteracy.nBack in the 1950’s, when the CollegenBoard was shifting from essay testsnto multiple choice, the decision wasnjustified on a number of grounds—thenease of administration and scoring,n”scientific” accuracy. Just as importantnwas the contention that essay testsnencouraged the teaching of standardn”classics” in high school—obviously anbad thing. Now a new set of multiplenchoice tests reveals the students are notnlearning the classics. What a surprise!nBesides, the whole idea of scientificnaccuracy in teaching the humanities isnpreposterous. Standardized tests andnscientific surveys serve no useful purposenfor either the students or thenteachers. The only group that benefitsnare the educational researchers whonreceive government grants to collectnand analyze the test data.nThe classics of Greek, Latin, andnEnglish literature are the only realn”basics” of a humanities education.nThey cannot be taught or tested as thenlatest edition of trivial pursuit. Wenneed to throw away all the canned andnprogrammed learning — literaturentextbooks, workbooks, and standardizedntests. Until we do, and until wenbegin teaching the real thing again, wenwill continue to pay more and morensmart professors for documenting justnhow far wrong we have gone.n”It is not fair, “said Ms. Holley Rauennof the no-fault decision in husband S.nBrian Wilson’s mishap at a Navynweapons depot in California. Mr. Wilson,na protestor against U.S. policy innNicaragua, was bumped by his colleaguesnwhile scrambling out of then