Just some observations about historical education:
In Canada, I had to take 1 course in 4 years of high school. The course was VERY shallow, just some introductory history, basic concepts, etc. The course itself was a very basic course, mainly focused on names, dates, and locations. The tests and stuff kind of felt like Mad Libs
ex: [person] killed [person] in a bunker in Berlin in [year], his replacement [person] negotiated peace with the allied forces.
In China, most high school students don't learn history, but in middle school, history comprised of two courses, history class, and political science class. In history class, we were stuck with mad libs style tests and basic names, dates, and locations cramming style teaching. Than, we had political science, a course filled with time spent teaching and hand held analysis of political and historical issues. It is really biased, and the "analysis" was never more than just "memorize what this famous politician had to say about communism!"
Yeah, history education for most students is really lacking. I mean, the issue comes down to, most students don't enjoy history, or feel that they need to learn it. History is often looked down as "do this course if you want to be stuck studying liberal arts in university" (especially in china, where people believe that the only 3 courses worth doing is Math, Physics, and Chemistry).
I learned more about history arguing with people on the internet than I ever did in a class
