I have a few conjectures.

More children are have difficulty with reading comprehension. As children are more visual/image trained, the word/symbol part of the brain is underdeveloped.

Then, when reading comprehension becomes work, the children complain bitterly about the material being "too hard". Parents who don't want to listen to the endless complaints, in turn complain and campaign to have material in the classroom that isn't so hard for their children. Teachers and administration give in under the pressure.

Add to the mix a short school year and an emphasis on "hands-on" learning, the students are exposed to less and less material.

There could be another, more ideological issue at play. History education, especially in the public arena, is often in the hands of people who have some extremely odd perspectives about fact and truth. (Howard Zinn anyone?) Also, finding material to include in text books that is unoffensive to the "oppressed" is difficult. Therefore history textbooks have increasingly featured minor players from "oppressed" groups at the expense of white males. There is a lot of environmentalism worked in as well. (Did Winston Churchill recycle?)

If you think about it, Robin Hood was a good socialist so he would be taught and Winston Churchill was a white male so he gets dumped.

Sorry for the rant. Your post hit a teacher's nerve!

__________________
~Carolyn Martinson~
Covenant Presbyterian - OPC (Baldwin, WI)
River Falls, WI