In grade school we had a year of US history and a year of civics. In high school, another year of US history and a semester of government.

Kennedy was a leading member of the bipartisan team that wrote the controversial No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, which, according to both Kennedy and President Bush, was a compromise. He then worked to get it passed in a Republican controlled Congress, despite the opposition of members from both parties.

It seems to me that math/science involve a more specific set of skills or ability which only a slender minority of people will use to any great extent as they become adults.  And what they don't know in math can be easily done on electronic gadgets we carry around in our pockets.  Science, well that's mostly (from what I recall the way it was taught in school) a broad set of facts and data points which "facts" are constantly being updated and modified as the yrs go on.  

All too easy to get very bored sitting back passively in a course which is so heavily fact-driven, the way it's taught traditionally.  All too easy in both these subjects to suffer from use it or lose it syndrome as we get older.

Whereas learning our system of gov't/history involves no more than general ability, and are subject areas which, unlike math/science, we continue to use and draw upon as informed involved citizens regardless of our chosen profession or individual strengths and talents.

Teachers and schools ought to be measured on how well they do with the raw material they are given. Are the kids at an average of, say, 87 IQ? Then if the teachers manage to get the kids reading at the 9th grade level by the end of 12th grade the teachers ought to be given cash awards, medals, and congratulated by notable dignitaries. If the kids have an average IQ of 130 then the kids ought to be reading at 12th grade level by the end of 8th or 9th grade or else there is something wrong that needs fixing.

The failure to consider differences in innate cognitive abilities means the whole NCLB debate is based on a massive lie. You won't see "IQ" or "intelligence" mentioned in the vast bulk of articles about failed schools and low student test scores. The elephant is in the room, it is in plain sight, and the vast bulk of our commentariat will not mention it. What passes for education policy debate in America is intellectually bankrupt. What would Orwell make of this?

Sure, a basic understanding of science and math is useful,

But as important as science and math may be

Useful? May be?

The more complex the world becomes the more important is for people to know enough science and math and logic to know when they are being lied to.

Algebra as useless time lost?  Look here (link):

Algebra
This is where it all goes wrong. Here's a quote from Roger Schank who looked into the dodgy history of why algebra became so embedded in curricula, "I'm a math major and a computer science professor, and algebra has never come up in my life, maybe it has in yours." I'd argue that little or nothing in algebra is useful for the vast majority of people in work. In fact it is so conceptually difficult and of such little practical use that most of us who master it forget it soon after we've passed the exam. When was the last time you used a simultaneous linear or quadratic equation?

There is a formalized method for teaching rational thought processes, here (link):

How, then, should students be taught to reason better? For a variety of reasons, no traditional university course is likely to do this job well enough, especially for students whose potential is not already quite well developed. There is a long history of claims that courses of instruction in particular subjects will enhance thinking skills. When I was at school, geometry was regarded as having that power. When my parents were at school, it was Latin! None of these claimants were supposed to do the job independently of any particular subject matter.

Covering more practical materials like engineering or science (esp. physics) is more fun and motivates all the math you need (including algebra through classical mechanics for example).

There's nothing more boring in the universe than arithmetic. And really math for it's own sake is really boring for most everyone except people that want to study math in college. But when you get to geometry and algebra, suddenly things get interesting. And I don't think a zillion years of arithmetic help you one lick for that, so start the fun stuff earlier anyway.