Last week the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation released yet another report indicating that the states are neglecting the study of history and that students find history dull. Chester Finn, Jr., one of the authors of the report, identified one of the problems as the absence of rigorous state standards:

In an era of "standards-based" reform, we now understand that the subjects most apt to be taken seriously and taught well in our schools are those for which the state sets high-quality standards that make clear what teachers are expected to teach and children to learn; where the statewide assessment system regularly appraises how well those things are in fact being learned; and where the "accountability" system confers rewards and sanctions—on students, educators, and schools alike—according to how well they have succeeded in this teaching and learning.

In that context, however, U.S. history has not fared well. While almost every state requires students to sit through at least one course in this subject (typically in eleventh grade), history seldom even appears in statewide testing and accountability systems. Of the 24 states that have or intend to have high school exit exams by 2008, only nine include social studies among the subjects tested and, of the nine, just two (Mississippi and New York) test specifically in U.S. history.

The consequences of indifference to history? Brendan Miniter argues in the Wall Street Journal this week that students who are ignorant of history make bad citizens. They don't vote and don't appreciate American triumphs.

Our HNN poll this week: Is our democracy in trouble because students aren't taught enough history?

From Brendan Miniter, "Why Doesn't Johnny Vote? Blame It on Social Studies," Wall Street Journal (Sept. 29, 2003)

Social studies, depressingly, is the course American students do not want to take. Beginning in the 1970s--and in an apparently irreversible trend--the education establishment downsized history and the like into dull-witted subjects, gutted of all passion and focused on seemingly value-free events. Heroes? Pooh! Nationalism? Bah! Western civilization? You've gotta be kidding!

Yet the Sept. 11 attacks may have changed all that. A nation at war--one compelled to ask existential questions of itself and of others--has begun to rediscover the courage, the conviction and the energy long said to be dead in America....

It's about time. After the terror attacks it was clear that educators had fallen far out of step with the rest of country. The National Council of the Social Studies designed a curriculum that urged teachers to stress "tolerance," and as its first lesson recommended looking at the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. While Americans were flying flags, a speaker at the council's annual meeting--only a few months after the attacks--warned against singing patriotic songs like "God Bless America."

While disconcerting, this behavior is hardly new. Fordham's essayists suggest points in the 1920s and '30s for when social studies first turned down the wrong path. It likely began with the promise of efficiency in stripping out "useless" information for children of factory workers who would never go on to intellectual careers. A body of ideas was then constructed on how best to teach social studies--and an elite has patronized our children ever since.
The new social studies often rests on "student-centered instruction" which allows students to be their own learning guides. The starting premise is that students can learn only what is familiar and directly relevant to them. Thus social studies in kindergarten through the third grade teaches students first about family, then local public servants like firemen and policemen. It also holds that members of a racial minority aren't immediately capable of learning about people who are of a different race, so black kids read about the Great Zimbabwe kingdom, not Columbus. This concentric-circle approach leaves students unprepared for serious analysis. But mostly, students find it boring. To combat boredom, teachers use pictures, videos, music and other "hands on" tools to displace reading and writing. We might call it dumbing-down.

All of this serves a larger purpose. Social-studies theorists seek to create social activists. Students need not know the facts to be effective change-agents; they're taught that facts are a matter of opinion. Indeed, they need only believe that they are correct as they reject the tenets of society. The result? Elementary-school lessons that use Thanksgiving to teach that we owe redress to American Indians.

The results have been disastrous. Young Americans are ignorant of history and are increasingly poor citizens (old-fashioned term!).

Related Links

• Albert Shanker Institute: Democracy, Teach It

NYGuy - 10/6/2003

Josh,

I stand by my comments. If they wanted to be constructed they should have drawn up a list of those who should be "censored" and petition HNN to limit discussion to only they approve of. Seems reasonable since historians are know for their policy of petition when they beleive there are wrongs in the world.

One still learns even if the posts are stupid, unintelligent, etc. The purpose of the board is to present your arguments to get to the truth.

But, perhaps censorship would make this an ole boy and girls website so that their propaganda could be exchanged. So much for tolerance.

Josh Greenland - 10/6/2003

"Foreign relations history and Peace History too have been segregated -- that is, relegated, to specialty courses and curricula."

I understand from recent discussion on political discrimination in academia in the blogosphere (referenced by Ralph Luker's blog here on HNN) that military and diplomatic history are specialties that mostly only conservatives go into. Is this related to your point?

"A substantial essay can be written on this,and I await the invitation."

If you want to write something like this, why not ask HNN if they would be willing to post it?

Josh Greenland - 10/6/2003

"What an arrogant, phony post."

Aw, you're just unhappy because the authors didn't think you for participating. And perhaps you suspected that they were referring to you among others when they talked about "those here and elsewhere who seek to distort history for partisan, polemical, and personal purposes, or to promote notions that historical 'facts are a matter of opinion' (see remarks in the article above) or historical perspectives reducible to debates between 'left' and 'right'." I agree with the signatories of that comment that the posters, article writers and people at the management level who do those things are a if not the major problem with this site.

"You are achieving one positive effect, however, you will make HNN a better site."

Maybe ultimately if the site changes in response, but not in the near future.

Josh Greenland - 10/5/2003

Good luck to you all who "signed" the post at the beginning of this thread. Thank you for including me in your list of worthwhile posters here! I have my moments of wondering why I'm here and just what HNN's purpose is anyway, but I'm not ready to leave, at least not yet....

Josh Greenland - 10/5/2003

I flipped through the Shanker Institute report. It was interesting how anti-communist it was. It made a big deal of comparing the US with "unfree" societies, but didn't bother to say much about those repressive regimes created or supported by the US. The approving quote of historian "and poet" Robert Conquest said it all.

Web searches of Albert Shanker or American Federation of Teachers, combined with CIA, make for interesting reading.

I tried to get the other link to come up, but all I got was a blank new browser window, no measurable network traffic and no report.

john horse - 10/4/2003

Jon,I don't think Kija was saying that this was part of a "vast right-wing conspiracy". She does correctly identify the views expressed as being from the right (Chester Finn is a respected conservative educator).

I wholeheartedly agree with Kija's observation about social studies textbooks. The publishers of these textbooks don't want to offend groups from the right or left, so they publish textbooks which are boringly neutral. Diane Ravitch also has identified the problem of unqualified people (such as the football coach) teaching social studies. What this shows me is that the problem is not that the organizations representing social studies teachers are too powerful, but too weak.

The difference that I notice between what you advocate for social studies ("emphasis on America's positive triumphs") and what Kija describes in her classroom is this, it appears that she is promoting critical thinking skills. Isn't this what should be taught in social studies?

HISTORIANS: KNOW THY GAPS AND ASK WHY - 10/2/2003

"Integrating" history should not be confined to remdying the exclusion of much of race relations history, labor history, women's studies etc.
Foreign relations history and Peace History too have been segregated -- that is, relegated, to specialty courses and curricula.
A substantial essay can be written on this,and I await the invitation.
FOR EXAMPLE:
Lucia Ames Mead
moved from feminism to internationalism as advocate of international arbitration and then a World Court, she was active in writing and agitating on these for half a century; she wrote in 1907 (Approx) in PATRIOTISM AND THE NEW INTERNATIONALISM:

"The teacher of history who knows where to place the emphasis....will not hesitate to say with General Grant that "the Mexican War [of 1846] was an 'iniquitous war' and teach that the English statesmen who 'rejoiced that the colonies had resisted'[in the American Revolution] were loyal in a fashion higher than loyalty to king or party, and that while emphasizing our counry's noble inheritance...and dwelling espcecially upon the glorious principles and achievements of the founders of the Republic, the patrotic teacher will indicate the points wherein we have failed and fallen short of our ideals, as well as those in which we have excelled"
That was then. NOW the examples should stress our performance in regard to treaty obligations, (the U N Charter is a treaty) and deal respectfully with those (for example) who "rejoiced" that the Vietnamese resisted. International law and its obligations should not be the exclusive concern of international lawyers.
[ON ALL THIS SEE MY BOOK OF 2002 "THE WORLD COURT IN ACTION" which includes the story of Lucia Ames Mead and her quote above.

Howard N Meyer

James Long - 10/1/2003

Bill Clinton is a liberal? Now that is revisionist history.

Lisa Kazmier - 10/1/2003

Good post. Reminds me of how Thatcher wanted to teach imperialism in schools "without apology" -- that is, defend imperialism. Apparently it's never occured to these folks is that Hitler would have done the same thing.

Best,
Lisa

Lisa Kazmier - 10/1/2003

Seems to me the few responses show all the more reason why you should post and speak your truth, rather than let others dictate what you do or don't do. Otherwise the Nazis et al. win by default.

xxL

Lisa Kazmier - 10/1/2003

While this WSJ guy had a point about the dearth of history, he simply uses this as an excuse to lambaste a political position that is not mutually inclusive to the problem of history and lack of knowledge making for bad citizens. Look at any "Jaywalking" segment. The kids are ignorant of a lot of things that do not appear in video games, movies or TV. The writer has an axe to grind in laying this problem at the feet of someone who says it is a problem to sing "God Bless America." To understand that position apparently requires more historical knowledge than Miniter himself has anyway. In any case, his finger pointing is polemical and unhelpful, which is a shame because the issue needs thoughtful review and critical thinking skills he obviously lacks.

Best,
Lisa Kazmier

Visiting Professor, European History
Washington University (St. Louis)

george bush - 10/1/2003

ya gonna leave me here to defend history all by myself? well, pickles can help me. she can write history real good.

Jon Burack - 9/30/2003

Regarding this, Kija ...

"The stories of history are not boring, but let me tell you what is boring. Propaganda. The right wants history to be taught as though America never made a mistake -- except for electing Bill Clinton ; ) -- ignoring genocide, ignoring our errors and our sins out of the desire to instill mindless patriotism"

... I invite you to actually read the report referenced in the Wall Street Journal article by Brendan Miniter.

I am one of the contributors to the report, "Where Did Social Studies Go Wrong." I won't try to persuade you that I do not want history teachers to teach students that "American never made a mistake," but I don't. What I would recommend is that you start with the Albert Shanker Institute's excellent recent statement "Education for Democracy," which you can access here:

http://www.shankerinstitute.org/education.html

This statement criticizes current practice and calls for a new emphasis on America's positive triumphs and on the core of its civic ideals as essential to any correct assessment of its negatives. The ASI is an off-shoot of the American Federation of Teachers, which i assume you realize is not a member of the vast right-wing conspiracy. The report was signed, it is true, by a neocons like Norman Podhoretz. However, it was also signed by none other than Bill Clinton (and some others whose liberal smarts are a good deal more rigorous even yet than his). After you read that report, perhaps you will then return to "Where Did Social Studies Go Wrong" which you will find far more meaty, varied and complex, but in exactly the same spirit. You can link to it here:

http://www.edexcellence.net/foundation/publication/publication.cfm?id=317

(The HNN link is to another report of Fordham's actually which is also worth your while). In any case, I believe you will not find confirmation of your knee-jerk biases against conservatives in this report, but you will find food for thought. You sound like you could use a good meal.

Kija - 9/30/2003

I think the history curriculum described above resides more in the minds of critics than in reality. Having taught history in high school, I can assure you that I have never seen such a curriculum. Moreover, I cannot imagine teaching it. My theory of teaching history is exposing the great soap opera that it is. It's filled with plots, romances, hatreds, scheming, good guys and bad guys. It's full of wonderful stories. However, those stories do illustrate great themes and ideas - such as action-reaction. relative deprivation, etc. So my students got to enjoy the soap opera aspect of history while being required to identify historical theories to explain why what happened the way it did...and it was student-centered.

I get so sick and tired of right-wing distortions of curriculum. The stories of history are not boring, but let me tell you what is boring. Propaganda. The right wants history to be taught as though America never made a mistake -- except for electing Bill Clinton ; ) -- ignoring genocide, ignoring our errors and our sins out of the desire to instill mindless patriotism. On the other hand, some on the left want to focus exclusively on our errors and ignore the things we did right. Both approaches are boring.

I preferred letting students make up their own minds. For example, when studying WWI, I had my 10th graders read the documents that the French, Germans, Russians and British presented at the Treaty of Versailled arguing over who was responsible for the war. I know folks might think that was over their heads -- and technically it was -- but they loved working with the primary materials and the most particularly loved being allowed to choose for themselves who was responsible. I was surprised that they decided to blame Britain -- because I thought their decision-making would be influenced by our official textbooks clear, unqualifed statement that Germany was at fault, but they recognized that textbook for the blatant "history is written by the winners" propaganda that it was.

If you want to make history interesting, burn all the textbooks and get rid of the statewide textbook selection process that turns all our textbooks into propagandistic pabulum.

NYGuy - 9/30/2003

Goodby,

What an arrogant, phony post. No wonder some people are leaving HNN.

But, as Truman has said, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."

You are achieving one positive effect, however, you will make HNN a better site.

NYGuy - 9/30/2003

Goodby,

What an arrogant, phony post. No wonder some people are leaving HNN.

But, as Truman has said, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."

You are achieving one positive effect, however, you will make HNN a better site.

James Jefferson - 9/29/2003

We, the undersigned, have to take a collective leave of absence from the HNN comment boards. Before doing so, we would like to say farewell to those other submitters whose insightful comments here are helping to protect the study and appreciation of history from political manipulation. Thank you Jesse Lamovsky, Gus Moner, Jonathan Dresner, Peter Clarke, Josh Greenland, Jerry West and all the others like you who have helped to expose the shortcomings of HNN and to rebut those here and elsewhere who seek to distort history for partisan, polemical, and personal purposes, or to promote notions that historical “facts are a matter of opinion” (see remarks in the article above) or historical perspectives reducible to debates between “left” and “right”. Often feeling compelled to “fight fire with fire”, those of us bidding adieu here hope we have assisted you in your efforts to achieve positive and informative dialogues about history and contemporary issues.

Best wishes,

James Jefferson
Albert Madison
Thomas Gallatin
Sam Adams
Frank Lee
Jake Lee
Jack Spratt
J. Bartlett
T. Herzl
Horace Mann
Dewey de Small