Lets skip Middle Ages!

[Sir Nate]

I went to a private Catholic school, so we had a medieval history and a Church history class that covered the era. The medieval history class was mostly a list of dates and events, memorization of maps, and several short essays to make sense of it all. However, it tended to be biased in favor of Catholicism and a bit anti-Islamic. The Church history class touched on the Church's hegemony during the Dark Ages and the power struggle between secular rulers and the Pope. That was about it. I left high school with a general, but biased knowledge of the politics of the age, but practically no knowledge of Medieval arms, armor, warfare, way of life, etc. It wasn't until a few months ago I had even heard of the Oakeschott typology.

Lucky..

[Aiden of Oreland]

I think schools should teach about multiple religions too. Actually in my school we went from history, to todays social studies, back to history. Idk why for one year we had to learn about todays conflicts and stuff like that, just to go back to history the next year. That whole year could of talked about the middle ages. Go UD!

[Sir William]

I think it depends on when and where you grew up; for my part I don't recall anything about the Middle Ages being taught, or the Crusades for that matter.  Fall of Rome, fast forward past dark, middle and high middle ages to a smattering about Mayans, Incans and Aztecs, 1492, then the Renaissance; a touch of Napoleon and then right to the American Revolution, iirc.  It was called 'social studies' for me too- not a word about history (or the apparent lack thereof).  To be fair, I never paid much attention in social studies since what was covered was of zero interest to me.  These topics were included at some point from grades 7 - 10; 11 and 12 were more about current events and politics, those classes appropriately termed 'Government'.

[Sir Nate]

How do they expect our generation to make a better future if we don't know about the past.