Interesting. In my grade school education, we covered Amerigo Vespucci and Leif Ericson as well as Christopher Columbus. One year of my high school history was devoted solely to European History and one was dedicated to World History (which was essentially just European History, until wars brought other countries into the dialogue. I learned extensively about the Civil War in both Junior High School as well as in High School in my US History class. I believe we spent two weeks on the Civil War alone, which was probably primarily because my teacher really loved teaching about the Civil War.
I'd say it wasn't too hard to fit ol' TJ into History, especially since he was the third president of the United States and was one of the primary motivators of the Louisiana Purchase, which doubled the size of the United States.
So, yeah, I'd say he's important. Also, when they replace Thomas Jefferson with other material, they're not replacing them with content that expands our knowledge of history outside of the United States, they're filling it with religious and conservative propaganda.

Yeah, I remember learning all about Amerigo Vespucci, Leif Ericson, and the Civil War. We switched back & forth between US History & World History throughout elementary & junior high school. In high school, we had US History & Government for sure, but I don't remember if anything else was required. Maybe it was different for other people because of when we went to school. I don't know.

In brief, the so-called math wars have heated up recently, although they are over two decades old. The issue at hand is basically a fight over the best way of teaching math to kids. There's the traditional approach; focusing on practice, rigor, algorithms, and teacher-centered learning. Then there's the "new" way; focusing on underlying concepts and student inquiry. In face of continued declining scores in the US, these wars have flared up again with the release of contested curriculum guidelines and, in one case, a lawsuit.
Last October for example, the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics released a document ,"Focus in High School Mathematics: Reasoning and Sense Making", which calls for the new approach. It is said that these guidelines will teach students how to "apply mathematical reasoning in a variety of contexts" instead of just simply "carrying out procedures in a rote way".
The problem with this is that it favours "reasoning" to such a high degree that it doesn't matter if the actual reasoning is flawed any longer. They also purposefully downplay the link between actual reasoning and "traditional" math. Some of the most elegant math problems are deemed useless because they don't involve any real-world application. Courses such as geometry in high school have already been gutted and are no longer proof based. Instead students are drawing shapes, using predefined algebraic tools, and building models out of toothpicks and pretending they're actual construction and design problems.
Mathematics is a rigorous science. On university level, you're getting nowhere fast if you're not adept to remembering key connections, adapting extreme rigor at every turn, and have a good grasp of the algorithmical nature of current scientific thinking. Even if you're "just" doing a three-year engineering setup you need this, who wants an engineer that bases his decisions on flawed reasoning instead of infallable proof? It seems then, that the high school boards are moving against this in an attempt to make math "easier", hence increasing test scores. Then let those snob, elitist university people deal with the problems they're creating.
Well, at least I don't have to worry about competing with americans for my scientific positions in the global economy of the future.

In the spirit of the "Contrast and Comparison Essay" from grade school - Since we're on the subject.
Is it fair to compare a "news outlet" like O'Reilly to a comedy show about news while utilizing metrics based on critiquing news journalism? One claims to be news and the other clearly presents itself as comedy. Considering this, which of the two would you think has more of a responsibility to be ideologically neutral?

Actually, both claim to be commentators and talk shows, really. it is just that people who hate O'Reilley's opinions (and/or can't stop laughing at his sexual harassment escapades :p) accuse him of trying to be a news source.
But I digress. Both basically serve similar purposes. They present humorous and insanely biased perspectives on current events. Jon Stewart tries to pretend he is always joking, O'Reilley tends to avoid smiling and sticking his tongue out until Dennis Miller stops by for his weekly bit. Both shove the same amount of their bias down the throats of the viewer.
And honestly, I think they both shouldn't have to present the facts and pretend they have neutrality, but they do. Because O'Reilley tries to pretend that he is "fair and balanced" (to be fair, he DOES manage to present the other side. He just makes sure he finds the most militant person he can :p) and Jon Stewart is the only source of news that a large portion of his viewership ever sees.
It is sad when a comedian has to try to inform his audience, but that is the state of the world. And honestly, I suspect that at least 40% of the animosity toward the previous administration is squarely on the shoulders of people like Jon Stewart. Because it is one thing to make a REALLY stupid move, but it is another to have it constantly brought back up every single time a bunch of comedians need an easy target because they forgot to prepare a new bit :p
Oh, fun fact: If you want to see something REALLY scary, go watch Hannity (sans Colmes). That guy makes Bill O'Reilley seem like a pinko commie who wants nothing more than to line the conservatives up and shoot them :p

I learnt everything I needed to about modern history from Billy Joel.

It's true. Everything you need to know is here

Also, this. Makes me sick.
I basically ranted on Twitter about how this is just insane.

"The way I evaluate history textbooks is first I see how they cover Christianity and Israel. Then I see how they treat Ronald Reagan—he needs to get credit for saving the world from communism and for the good economy over the last twenty years because he lowered taxes."
LOL
There's just ... no words for this kind of hick stupidity. Is the US moving back into the dark ages?
Edit: Oh god ...
"This critical-thinking stuff is gobbledygook,” grumbled David Bradley, an insurance salesman with no college degree."
I want a general purge of the human race. Now. LAUNCH THE DAMN MISSILES.