Remembering history is more than keeping in mind selected bites from the Evening News. Remembering history means having a clue what we've come from, so we can have some idea where we're going.
One thing about this badly edited, deadly-boring subject that passes as History: The people who are spotlighted are then glossed to the point where all you see is the sheen of the writer's ink, and nothing of the person him/herself. A lot of "just because." One phrase I still remember from 7th grade is, "Abraham Lincoln was one of the Nation's greatest Presidents, even though he was plagued with the great Civil War." Lovely words- the work of a poet. But what if a student asks, say, how he was "plagued" with a war when he was in command? The Federal armies, understand, were on the offensive, on Southern land, in every battle but Gettysburg, and that was two years into the campaign. If that campaign were a plague to him, would he not have considered Davis's offers of surrender? (Remember, it took every other American conflict from the Revolution through Viet Nam to approach the loss of life in those four years!)
Not to be selling a partisan pitch, but using that bit of tinder to catch this spark: Historians research history, and find out the details that make up the picture, and they do tend to have opinions which guide what they know or don't know. Textbook writers make up a gloss from parts of that picture they choose, and package it for boards and committees who generally have little interest in what happened when, or why; and in the end , between Don't Know and Don't Care, the students wind up with even less. If we are doomed to repeat the history we have forgotten, then we are headed back to the dark ages: but then, who knows enough history to recognise them?