Glenn Beck and David Barton Reminisce about Alternative History

Lately, Glenn Beck and David Barton have been pushing their summer internship program. In a brief spot Monday, Beck and Barton claimed education was great until progressives took over in the 1920s. From the article:

Prior to the 1920s, students completed school through eighth grade and each year had to pass a written exam that involved understanding the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, George Washington’s Farewell Address and their state constitution, Barton explained. The older system of education was called “spiraling” because students would revisit the same topics while expanding on them each year.
Today, students learn history in discrete chunks with the “tri-division” method, studying Christopher Columbus in one grade, the Civil War in the next, and so on, Barton asserted. Because students are learning their history piece by piece, they never go back to the same period again and don’t retain the information in a real way.

In response, historian John Fea provided a citation from 1917 which contradicts Barton’s claim.

Surely a grade of 33 in 100 on the simplest and most obvious facts of American history is not a record in which any high school can take pride.

This quote comes from a 1917 article in the Journal of Educational Psychology by J. Carleton Bell and D.F. McCollum. Bell and McCollum surveyed Texas schools and learned that history education wasn’t doing well. The 33% figure is an average of history knowledge scores at a sampling of high schools in Texas. Please note that I said high schools. Contrary to Barton’s claims, students went to high school before progressives took over, whenever that happened.*
The context for the quote is telling. According to Bell and McCollum, some Texas school districts didn’t start teaching history until later in elementary school if at all. Barton’s golden age wasn’t as golden as he described it. Bell and McCollum write:

The final average per cents, of the five high schools are Austin 30, Brenham 33, Houston 33, Huntsville 24, and San Marcos 31. With the exception of Huntsville the schools present about the same general picture—wide variations in the responses to particular questions, but these variations balancing each other. In the elementary schools the final average per cents, are Austin 10, Brenham 18, Houston 12, Huntsville 17, and San Marcos 23. It must be noted that for San Marcos we have only the sixth and seventh grades. Comparison of the results grade by grade shows that Austin and Houston are in the same class and that the other three schools are distinctly in advance, making at least fifty per cent, better showing. Column one, however, shows the reason. In the Austin and Houston schools no work in history is given before the seventh grade, while in the other schools the pupils begin history in the fourth or fifth grade. In view of the fact that pupils who have begun history later make as good a showing in the high school as those who began it earlier (compare Houston with Brenham or San Marcos) it might be argued that the study of history by elementary school pupils is a waste of time. The case, however, is by no means so simple. The high schools of Houston and Austin have the reputation of being very well administered and of having an exceptionally high grade of teachers. If the other cities had as well organized and equipped high schools perhaps their pupils would have made a better showing. Surely a grade of 33 in 100 on the simplest and most obvious facts of American history is not a record in which any high school can take great pride. (pp. 267-269)

Reading the Bell and McCollum article provoked my interest in education before 1920 and so I looked up several reports on education during that time period. None of what I have read so far provides support for Barton simplistic analysis. For instance, Barton makes it seem like education was done one way – students all learned history the same way and all went to college after eighth grade. However, the reports from that era make it clear that there was little uniformity of teaching methodology. For instance, a report on history education dated 1898 says:

In all of our work we have endeavored not only to discover any agreement or common understanding that may exist among American teachers, but to keep in mind the fact that local conditions and environments vary exceedingly; that what may be expected of a large and well-equipped school need not be expected of a small one, and that large preparatory schools and academies, some of them intentionally fitting boys for one or two universities, are in a situation quite unlike that in which the great majority of high schools are compelled to work. We have sought chiefly to discuss, in an argumentative way, the general subject submitted for consideration, to offer suggestions as to methods of historical teaching and as to the place of history on the school programme, being fully aware that, when all is said and done, only so much will be adopted as appeals to the sense and judgment of the secondary teachers and superintendents, and that any rigid list of requirements, or any body of peremptory demands, however judiciously framed, not only would, but should, be disregarded in schools whose local conditions make it unwise to accept them.

A report (The Committee of Ten) dated 1894 says:

The traditional age for beginning Latin is about fifteen and the average for entering college is nineteen.

Nineteen would be old for an eighth grader. The 1892 Committee of Ten (convened by the National Education Association) recommended that all school districts provide instruction through the 12th grade.
Graduating high school students wanting knowledge of history could consult this list of books or attend a college with a good history program (write and ask, I can name several).
 
*Early in American education, many students only went through 8th grade in anticipation of entering the work force. Barton’s contention that students went to school through 8th grade has some truth to it. However, college was not the end result for most of them (on Beck’s audio, Barton claimed students just went on to college after the 8th grade).

Instead of Spending $375 on a Mercury One/Wallbuilders Intership, Buy These Books

Yesterday, Right Wing Watch reported that Glenn Beck and David Barton are planning to offer internships this summer to pre-college students via Mercury One. In addition to travel, food and lodging, Mercury One will charge $375 for the experience. Since David Barton is involved, one simply should not trust that the history will be accurate. Why Glenn Beck continues to hitch his wagon to Wallbuilders still puzzles me.
Here is an alternative. Instead of spending money on travel and expenses and even a penny on tuition, consider buying the following books for yourself or your children in order to get an accurate view of American history. This list costs far less than $375 and will leave you plenty of funds to buy coffee, ice cream floats, or whatever you prefer to drink while reading good books.
Was America Founded as a Christian Nation? Revised Edition: A Historical Introduction by John Fea
American Exceptionalism and Civil Religion: Reassessing the History of an Idea by John Wilsey
The Religious Beliefs of America’s Founders: Reason, Revelation, and Revolution by Gregg Frazer
Faith and the Presidency From George Washington to George W. Bush by Gary Scott Smith
God of Liberty: A Religious History of the American Revolution by Thomas Kidd
One Nation Under God: Christian Faith and Political Action in America by Mark Noll
The Search for Christian America edited by Mark Noll, George Marsden and Nathan Hatch
One Nation Under God: How Corporate America Invented Christian America by Kevin Kruse
The Jefferson Bible, Smithsonian Edition: The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, Smithsonian Edition, by Thomas Jefferson
First Freedom: The Fight for Religious Freedom by Randall Balmer, Lee Groberg, and Mark Mabry
And of course, Getting Jefferson Right: Fact Checking Claims about Our Third President by Warren Throckmorton and Michael Coulter
This Gospel Coalition piece by Justin Taylor adds a few more good books (see especially the books by Finn and Green).
I am sure I am overlooking many other good books. I hope commenters and authors alike will send me suggestions and additions via email and in the comments section. The above is just a start and will reward your $375 with a much better foundation than the Mercury One internship.

Glenn Beck Wants Transparency at Mercury One; Here's How He Can Start

Today, on the second hour of his radio show, Glenn Beck spoke briefly about the charity he founded, Mercury One. Listen:

Transcript:

We’re just going through an audit and I said to, Mercury One, I want the toughest auditors you can possibly find. Now that’s Mercury One, I’m not even on the board of Mercury One but I went to the board and said, ‘you guys should have the toughest audit and I want to see every page ’cause I’m raising most of the money for you. I want to see every page. And if there’s something wrong, I want the audience to know. If there’s something right, I want the audience to know. I think they should publish it on the website. We have to be transparent in everything we do and that means you too.

The audit may be in part a reaction to my recent articles about changes at Mercury One. Mercury One changed their donation allocation policy to avoid designated funds. Now all donations go into a general fund which may be spent as the leadership decides.
naz signAn issue which may have raised the need for an audit is the question about what David Barton did with the $104,000 given to him by Mercury One while Barton served as board chairman. Mercury One gave Wallbuilders (Barton’s charity) $204,000 in 2014 and 2015 combined.  The IRS 990 reporting form for one of those years said Barton used the funds to help people with “unforeseen disasters.” Historically, Wallbuilders has not been engaged in disaster relief.
On transparency, I have asked Mercury One several questions but there has been no response.
If Glenn Beck wants to be transparent, he could start by getting David Barton to acknowledge academic fraud. Over six months ago, Barton claimed on camera that he had an earned degree. As it turns out, the degree was given by a diploma mill.
He could also have Barton admit that he never played Division One NCAA basketball for Oral Roberts University.
If Beck really wants transparency, he could start with Mercury One’s chairman of the board.

Via Glenn Beck and David Barton, Mercury One Declares War on Education

David Barton has been at war with higher education for many years. Glenn Beck gets involved from time to time but has decided to throw in with Barton’s war in a big way via his charity Mercury One. For $375, students (18-25 years old) can go to Mercury One and learn history from Barton and Beck. According to Beck, when it comes to having historical answers, “I guarantee you the professors in college will have the wrong answer.” Watch:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEsIu6qCPzc[/youtube]
According to the Mercury One website, students will be taught about the following topics:

  • A Biblical Worldview
  • The Truth in History
  • America’s Godly Heritage
  • Early Education in America
  • How the Bible Influenced America
  • American Exceptionalism
  • God and the Constitution
  • Reclaiming the Land

When I first began to examine Mercury One, I had respect for Beck’s willingness to use his platform to help rescue religious minorities from ISIS held territories.  However, of late, Mercury One has shifted the focus of charitable work to education. Donations are no longer accepted strictly for rescue work. With Barton and Beck trying to expand Barton’s influence through miseducation, I can’t see any reason to donate to the organization.
For students thinking about attending the program, please consider the other skills you could learn during your stay at Mercury One.

Former Mercury One Donors Speak Out About Recent Changes

naz signIn response to my series of articles on the changes taking place at Mercury One, I have been contacted by Mercury One donors. Two such donors, now former donors, agreed to comment anonymously about the changes in focus and donation allocation policy.
Lack of Communication
One source of frustration for the former donors is the lack of communication from Mercury One. Without my posts, these donors would not have become aware that the changes had been made. The former donors said, “We did not receive any notification that restricted funds would be moved to a general fund.” Since the policy changes are buried on the websites, I can understand how donors would feel this way. If Mercury One is serious about going in this direction, they need to alert all donors and display the changes where they can be easily seen.
Reasons Questioned
Furthermore, the reason for the change did not ring true. “The focus of our giving is to support humanitarian initiatives and that is why we could align with and completely support The Nazarene Fund. The statement that Mercury One made concerning donations will be made to one fund because it allows them to give funds more quickly/easily just doesn’t make sense,” claimed the former donors. These individuals said Mercury One portrayed their response to past disasters as being rapid. The donors did not recall any mention of this limitation in the past.
History Museum
One of the reasons declared by the former donors for not giving relates to solicitations for a history museum by David Barton and Glenn Beck (see this post). They said, “We saw the history museum presentation by David and Glenn and will not be giving to this cause. We believe a donation to the museum fund does not effect change in the lives of hurting people but rather benefits Mercury One.”
Financial Statements
Now that donations are not being taken for the Nazarene Fund, the former donors would like a financial accounting. They said, “Another concern we have is that to date we have not received nor have we seen financial accounting on the Nazarene Fund.” In fact, there is very little reporting about funds received and spent on the websites. Donors might be more confident in Mercury One if fund balances were published on the website.
New Donation Allocation Policy
The former donors added, “Then we saw the posting of Mercury One’s new fund allocation policy, which causes us great concern. In our opinion that is not a decision to be made by them, that is a decision that donors should make. Since their organization has decided they will be in charge of placing our monies where they think best then we will not be giving to Mercury One. We are very concerned with the changes we have seen and can no longer support their initiatives.”
Overall, these donors expressed disappointment and confusion about the change of focus and the change in donation allocation.
I have reached out to Mercury One via their website, email and Twitter without response. Other donors who wish to share their experiences should feel free to contact me.