Sometimes you’re just in the wrong conversation altogether.
That’s the vibe I got as I read a recent article in Education Week about how history is taught. Even though the arguments in the piece are largely plausible and totally defensible, I got a sense that the debate was altogether needless: the blame is completely misplaced, and the wrong questions are asked.
The article, by volunteer tutor and grant writer Vicky Schippers, stands as a polemic that history shouldn’t be taught as “a litany of disconnected names, dates, and events to be memorized before an exam.” Rather, teachers should take her example and make history connect with students.
As a tutor, she has the rarefied opportunity to work one-on-one with a student, in her case a 20-year old named Tony with a four-year-old son. She uses Tony’s situation, his fears, and his worries as a struggling young parent looking for work to connect with American government, the development of American democracy, the need for taxes, tariffs, and especially the abortion debate, which troubled this young father.
Schippers ends by stating that:
“History is not boring. More important, it is relevant to the lives of every student, but none more than our most disadvantaged. Rather than teaching it as a series of eye-glazing events, it should be presented in a way that affords students the opportunity to delve in; question; and, above all, see in history’s unfolding, how we, the people, have traveled from there to here; and how that journey is relevant to all of us.”
To regular readers of the Neighborhood, this isn’t Earth-shattering.
A slew of comments followed, mostly from history teachers sneering at Schippers’ lack of “real” classroom experience, her rosy-glassed view of history education, her complete lack of understanding of the realities of teaching in the secondary classroom.
I’ve got to be honest. Both sides are kind of full of shit.
The slew of educators slamming this poor woman are rightfully swamped, but they shouldn’t crucify her simply for stating what all of us history guys already know—that the parade of names and dates is a better anesthetic than chloroform.
Then again, Schippers really should’ve taken a look around.
If she really took a hard look at how history teachers, good history teachers, are plying their craft today, she would notice that nary a one bothers with textbooks, outlines of dates, events, names of old white men, etc.
We already know how history should be taught. We’ve been trying to do it for years now, and anyone who hasn’t realized it is either past saving or a complete ignoramus.
The question to ask isn’t “How is history taught?”
The real question is “Why does the education establishment not give a shit about how history should be taught?”
History teachers, often in isolation or in small groups, have been reinventing history education for a while now. Our classrooms are our laboratories, where lessons, units, projects and assessments are tested, re-tested, evaluated, and celebrated—often to the bewilderment of administrators perplexed at how learning how to think critically could ever get those state test scores up.
The powers that be, the education policy idiots and the talking heads in charge of education administration in this country, were never too swift on the uptake.
Programs that can really reach out and spread our skills and knowledge are first on the chopping block. Anything related to social studies, especially history, is shoved way to the back burner History is often forced to “integrate” into other subjects where the content and ideas are buried in reading skills and long division.
We know how the past should be taught. Why not share the secret so that everyone can teach history the right way?
Schippers herself addressed this in a rebuttal comment on the Education Week site. Obviously not wanting to shit on veteran teachers, she realized the limitations of the classroom and that “You all do what you must do to get your kids through their coursework. It’s up to education policy makers to make the changes that will allow you to teach history differently.”
Knowing how those policy makers think and operate, I doubt any change is coming soon. Their conversations will never involve history in a serious way. They see it as a means to an end—an end that can be charted and graphed.
Again, the wrong conversation is going on…and I’m skeptical about any chance of change.
So…we better teach history the best way we can, as long as we can.