Posted on 03/20/2004 6:44:04 AM PST by johnny7
ARE TODAY'S students knuckleheads when it comes to American history? Is democracy endangered as a result? Pointing to the dismal results of the latest National Assessment of Educational Progress, educational watchdogs across the political spectrum say yes. As president of the Organization of American Historians, which will hold its national convention in Boston next week, I'm glad to see history education get the attention it deserves. But how useful is it to bash the younger generation for what they don't know?
The current brouhaha over students' poor scores is only the latest round of hand-wringing about "historical illiteracy" and "civic ignorance." The problem is that no one bothers to "think historically" about these test results. When we look back at a century of large-scale tests of historical knowledge, we find little difference between today's high school students and their parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents. The reason, says Stanford education professor Sam Wineberg in the current issue of the Oral History Association's Journal of American History, is that the "system is rigged." Testing companies devise multiple-choice questions to guarantee that only a few students do well, a few badly, and most fall in the mediocre range. The National Assessment of Educational Progress is supposed to be different. But, according to Wineberg, these practices are so entrenched that they affect these results as well.
And yet alarmists continue to use these tests to whip up crises which, they argue, can only be resolved by more standardized tests and rigid state standards mandating what every child should know. We can all agree that students need a core knowledge of American history. But for that knowledge to stick, it must have some connection to their lives. The real challenge is to use what students do know -- the sense of history they glean from family stories, museums, historic sites, films, and television to engage them in the lifechanging process of learning to "think historically."
Historical thinking involves analyzing evidence, weighing conflicting interpretations, discerning casuality, developing arguments, and contextualizing the present in the light of the past. Beyond that, history is a great human drama, filled with conflict, contingency, transcendence and tragedy. But if most adults remember history as the most boring subject they studied in school, they obviously missed out on both the skills and the drama. And yet Americans in record numbers are engaging with the past as visitors to museums and historic sites, viewers of the History Channel, and the like. It is not history that bores them, but the teaching of history in the schools.
One problem is obvious: More than 80 percent of those who are assigned to teach history at the middle and high school levels did not major, or even minor, in history. Many become creative and effective history teachers nonetheless. But we need teachers with a deep understanding of their subject matter. Then we need to make sure they aren't handcuffed by deadly textbooks and unwieldy, mandatory standards. Instead of joining forces with dedicated history educators to push for such policy-level changes, too many pundits use "historical illiteracy" to stoke the culture wars. They claim that college professors are brainwashing future teachers into teaching "critical thinking" instead of facts and ignoring the Founding Fathers in favor of women, blacks, and working people. In fact, numerous studies show that the vast majority of teachers still spend too much time drilling students on names and dates. Moreover, the problem is not that K-12 teachers have been indoctrinated by rogue college professors, but that most never studied history at all.
A second problem is the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, which mandates high-stakes testing in math and reading but not history. This puts history educators in a bind. The pressure to "teach to the test" threatens to squeeze history out of the curriculum altogether. But nothing could do more to kill students' interest than adding a history test that relies on formulaic writing and memorization. Massachusetts will soon confront this dilemma, when its US history standards are incorporated into the statewide MCAS. The K-12 teachers, students, professors, and public historians who will gather in Boston will debate these issues and more. They will also weave the stories and narratives that allow us to make sense of the social world.
The convention theme is "American Revolutions," and one goal is to use the revolutions in historical knowledge that have occurred in the past 40 years to enliven the teaching of American history. A true education requires far more than prepackaged tests and a box of No. 2 pencils.
Jacquelyn Hall is president of the Organization of American Historians and a fellow at the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study.
U.S. History Teaching Units These teaching units are co-produced by the Organization of American Historians and the National Center for History in the Schools. The following teaching units were co-developed by the Organization of American Historians and the National Center for History in the Schools (NCHS) at the University of California, Los Angeles. Units are based on primary documents for U.S. history at the precollegiate level and were written by teams of teachers and historians. Each contains reproducible images and lesson plans for use in the classroom.
New! The Vietnam War: An American Dilemma
This new teaching unit explores in depth the key individuals and events, through the use of primary source documents, that played a role in America's entry into, escalation of, and final withdrawal from the war in Vietnam. The unit includes five lessons which begin with the roots of French colonialism in Indochina, and end with the signing of the Paris Accords, and the fall of Saigon. This unit may be placed in the U.S. history curriculum in a number of logical places within the existing scope and sequence, ranging from the post-World War II or "Origins of the Cold War" period to the 1960s and 1970s.
New! The Philippine-American War
In 1898 a bloody conflict broke out on the Philippine Islands between Filipino forces battling for independence and American troops sent to quell what they and many other American citizens viewed as a rebellion. This new teaching teaching unit, with its four lesson plans which should be taught as part of your larger unit on United States imperialism in the period from 1890 to 1914, examines the causes of the long and brutal conflict between the U.S. government and the Filipino independence fighters, the arguments for and against annexation of the Philippines, and the nature and impact of the resulting military conflict. This unit should prepare students for examination of American foreign policy during the Progresive Era and World War One.
Causes of the American Revolution: Focus on Boston
By focusing on the Stamp Act riots, the Boston Massacre and other fiery incidents, students will use documentary materials to examine the events that defined British colonial relations between 1763 and 1775. The unit is designed so that it can be easily modified for use in a variety of secondary classroom situations. Drawing on testimony from court records newspaper reports, private correspondence, Paul Revere's engraving of the Boston Massacre, and contemporary cartoons, the lesson plans will give students a "you-are-there" approach to the causes of the American Revolution.
The Great Depression and the Arts
Students use a variety of documents to examine how the Great Depression and the New Deal impacted artistic expression in the 1930s. The lessons in the unit explore the film script of The Plow that Broke the Plains, a New Deal documentary on the drought and Dust Bowl; John Steinbeck's The Harvest Gypsies, feature stories on the condition of migrant workers; John Ford's classic movie The Grapes of Wrath based on Steinbeck's popular novel; and the New Deal's "Living Newspaper" plays "Power" and "One Third of a Nation" promoting New Deal programs. Students also read excerpts from witnesses called before the House Un-American Activities Committee examining allegations that the Federal Theatre Project used government funds to produce propaganda plays and promote socialist programs. Students assess the degree to which government agencies used the arts to propagandize New Deal Programs and are challenged to debate issues relating to government's role in supporting the arts.
The Antebellum Women's Movement, 1820 to 1860
This unit examines how the industrial revolution and the abolition movement led to changes in women's roles both within and outside the home. Letters of a young woman employed in Lowell, Massachusetts, interviews with former slaves, handbills, songs, and resolutions from abolitionist and women's rights conventions help students fathom the experiences women faced in laboring to achieve equal status in antebellum American society. Students analyze and evaluate the impact of the women's rights movement in the antebellum era and link past and present by drawing connections to contemporary society.
Early Chinese Immigration and the Process of Exclusion
Students use statistics, legislation, personal letters, and political cartoons to examine the challenges that early Chinese immigrants had to overcome in order to make a significant contribution to the industrial development of late nineteenth-century America. Students read translated works of early Chinese immigrants who describe their experience on "Gold Mountain." Poems and letters express the hope and dreams of immigrants as well as their shock and frustration at their treat meet. Each of the selected documents give students the opportunity to explore the historical context of popular sentiment and local and national policy that isolated and excluded early Chinese immigrants from the mainstream.
U.S. Indian Policy, 1815-1860: Removal to Reservations
The cultural interaction between Euro-Americans and the original inhabitants constitute one of the most compelling and defining conundrums in American history. This teaching unit plumbs the depths of nineteenth century ideology as it manifested itself in prevailing public attitudes, justifications for actions and the formation of government policy. Opposing viewpoints are presented on the policy of Indian Removal as well as a variety of Native American responses providing substance for discussion and debate. Specific attention is paid to sifting attitudes among the Cherokees as their circumstances changed. The teaching unit concludes with an examination of the transition in U.S. policy from Indian Removal to concentrating the remaining eastern Indians on reservations.
Asian Immigration to the United States
Since 1965 the rapid growth of immigration from Asia has contributed to the tremendous diversity in the racial and ethnic composition of the United States population. In the 1990 census, Asian Americans represented the fasted growing group of immigrants, but the diversity among Asians is even more complex than indicated by the census data. This unit provides a study of the new Asian immigration in historical perspective, an analysis of the forces that have governed U.S. attitudes toward Asian immigration in the past, and an examination of the reasons why Asians immigrate to the United States. Primary and secondary sources presented in this unit will complement U.S. history textbook content on late twentieth-century U.S. history, including Cold Ware competition with the USSR, the impact of U.S. military involvement in Indo-China, and the impact of technological innovation on Asian immigration to the United States.
"The Hardest Struggle:" Women and Sweated Industrial Labor
Industrial expansion by 1900 created multiple problems for American wage earners. Women, in particular, were struck the hardest: considered expendable by managers and factory owners, most were employed at unskilled and difficult labor, earning substandard wages, in the sweatshops of the garment industry. Meant to supplement the curricula on the Progressive Movement of 1900-1920, this unit provides critical insights into the period by examining the political, economic, and social aspects of women in the industrial work force in early twentieth-century America.
Oh yes, those standards are always poison, aren't they?
Heard this drivel from the SDS, Black Panthers, and all of the rest of that lot when I was in college; "Da Man is Keepen Me Down Man!"
Nice to see that a few of them did manage to get good jobs in Boston.
As to the course material synopses, well lets just say that it makes it readily apparent that it is done from the view that all "White American Males" are oppressors of anyone else and the revolutionary struggle must continue.
Ummmm...well, yeah. That's pretty much called "doing their job correctly." The vast majority of people are average (which is why they call it that), a few are exceptionally smart and a few are exceptionally stupid. How would she rather they devised tests?
I guess we know where that would place the author on the bell curve, don't we? Statistical stupidity abounds...it is no wonder people can be bamboozled by some "statistics" with a little sideshow hocus-pocus from the MSM.
"Between 1890 and 1920 a sudden host of licensing acts closed down employment in a wide range of lucrative work, rationing the right to practise a trade much as kings and queens of England had done."
The quote may not be word for word. But the intent of licensing acts and the motive and the means says much about the history of this country and its willingness to misapply science for a political agenda contrary to the Constitution.
I don't know but I think 'self-esteem' is a key element. The crap they peddle is a marxsts view on capitalisms alliance with racism. Lenin and Trotsky would be proud!
Not only do we have a problem in the History department, we also have one in the Editing department. Anybody else think that what was intended was 'causality'?
BTW, here's a link to the article that may work (for the next couple of days, anyway): Boston Globe
The Arts? Hell! What about the way it really was! My parents and Grandparents (et al) lived it. I well remember the stories they told.
(I was born during the "tail end" of the Depression/WWII generation. That is to say I'm a tad older than the "baby boomer" generation.)
Nothing against Steinbeck or his books, etc. But, that's it. Just some fictional writing during that time of history. The "Arts" didn't put meat on my families tables during the Great Depression. Hard work did.
When Thomas Jefferson was writing the Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom in Virginia, one of the phrases he used was that our civil rights have no dependance on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry.
Government has no more to do with the religious opinions of men than it has with the principles of the mathematics. John Leland
Given the hostility displayed toward anyone who voices a religious belief, why do we take it for granted that anyone who voices a scientific belief should be afforded special privilege to run roughshod over anyone with whom they disagree? If the framers of the Constitution saw fit to limit the use of religion to influence, why have we given science free reign while religion is limited?
Given the license that government has been afforded what is there in the Constitution that prohibits government from taking a compelling interest and using science to coerce individuals? Hitler did it; what limits our government from doing the same?
I'm a teacher of history in an inner city high school. Although I did minor in history in college, it was because I loved the subject and not because I ever dreamed I'd wind up a teacher! In fact 15 years ago, I sorta stumbled into the job by marrying an English teacher. Then in 2001 I was voted as the Social Studies Teacher of the Year at my school. Go figure. I have the heart of a teacher and I'm damn good at the job. I think this is where GOD wants me and I'm doing my best just to keep on, keepin' on.
Make no mistake there is a definite AGENDA at work in this nation. It is no accident that social studies education is becoming revisionist. If you don't know a thing like the true narrow meaning of the Bill of Rights, when you get older, you'll be unlikely to vote to keep it and even less likely to fight for your freedoms. How many times have we heard cops and politicians say to the public, "Don't resist criminals....nothing is worth sacrificing your life...." We can see the results of this 40 year long AGENDA everywhere: In cops and soldiers who don't believe in the 2nd Amendment as a framework for our freedoms. They are given the awesome responsibility of protecting us from a rogue President. Think they will, now?
I drill my kids on just three dates to illustrate how important only one of them is: April 19th 1775; April 19th 1993; April 19th 1995. Anybody out there care to relate the significance of those dates? What is the final and intended result of the cumulative effect of these dates? (Hint: The last two forever transcend the first).
I'm ALWAYS in trouble for not following their agenda in teaching revisionism. I once had an Assistant Principal forcibly YANK me into his office (he let go before I had a chance to deck him) and scream at me: "You're teaching these kids HOW to think!"
"So?" I innocently reply.
"SO you don't teach them HOW to think....you teach them WHAT to THINK. What I want them to think!
That's a direct quote word for word of what happened about twelve years ago. I have never forgotten it and I have vowed to always fight that mindset. Thus far, I have been fairly successful. But I'm just a drop in the ocean/ Read my "about" page.
""They claim that college professors are brainwashing future teachers into teaching "critical thinking" instead of facts..."
One more thing...teaching "critical thinking" IS a critical skill. These kids (at least in the inner city) are NOT getting it for a reason. Critical thinking is just how to solve problems by being creative and working "outside the box." But the powers that be want drones. Worker bees to do as they're told, to vote without analyzing, etc. SEE?
Yes, that might be interesting. If they "stick to the facts".
But, since this article comes from Boston, I have little hope of that.
(Btw, My Father and both of my Grandfathers hated FDR and his "New Deal" and we are a family from the South. Unusual back in those days. In fact, FDR's "New deal" politics helped to put my maternal grandfather out of business (A very honest and legitimate business, dairy farming), as it were)
I read a question given to high school students a while back. It was a sentence in The Constitution and the student was given 4 or 5 different answers that he/she could assign as the origin of said sentence. The answer that most students chose was MLK's 'Letter from a Birmingham Jail'.
I am glad to see that this moron enunciates a principle which is directly opposite of my principle for choosing history texts about American history: Never get any book written after 1965 unless one has very good grounds for making an exception.
This prinicple is reliable for extension to many other fields as well. The "new left" grew up and did their best to destroy American education. It is a pity to witness the products of such education who are the real victims of the establishment's cowardly response to the challenge of the 1960's and 1970's.
That just shows how far they are from discernig causality. Guess these people were liberated from standards and boring rigor about spelling and meaning.
So, we not only intensify the politically correct brainwashing, but we teach no history earlier than 40 years ago.
Let's see. What happened 40 years ago? Could it possibly be--the Hippy Revolution? This is what happens when aging, brain-dead, drugged out hippies and their cohorts take over the academy and throw the truth out like old rubbish.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.