School Library Journal Mobile
Log In  |  Register          Free Newsletter Subscription
Subscribe to SLJ Magazine
Email
Learn RSS

Nonfiction Matters   



Link This | Email this | Blog This | Comments (5)


Tell Me Why We Teach History to Kids Anyway?

June 16, 2008

American Idle

What is the purpose of trotting through town, state, US, ancient, US, world, US history in schools? What are we hoping students are going to get out of it? At one time there was a civics argument -- future citizens of our nation needed to know the history of democratic ideals, values, and responsibilities so that they would be prepared to vote, sit on juries, make their voices heard in their communities. I am not sure that parents, teachers, and certainly students still believe that. Our past is much more checkered, not the march of democracy. Voting on American Idol captures far more of our national attention then almost any political election. The loudest voices on nearly any issue are extremely well-heeled lobbying groups -- the voice of the individual is rarely heard.

I am exaggerating, certainly. This political year has engaged more people, and more young people, than in a long while. Popular culture is always, well, popular -- that is nothing new. There is the famous case of Babe Ruth defending the fact that he got paid more than the President by saying, correctly, that he "had a better year."
But even so, I see little evidence that we as Americans really believe that knowledge of history -- ours, our neighbors', the world's -- is necessary to citizenship. We test knowledge of facts we no longer care about,  we teach expository writing (supported by three facts), and we completely miss the point.

If history matters, as I believe it does, it is only because it teaches us a way to think -- to hunt, study, search, judge, research, formulate theories, and defend them. History gives us an endless field of play to exercise those skills of diligent search and fresh thinking. That is why we need it -- and why it does not matter whether we like or dislike the Founding Fathers, whether we study national heroes or expose their feet of clay. The goal is the search -- and students do need those skills no matter what history we come to care about today or tomorrow.


Posted by Marc Aronson on June 16, 2008 | Comments (5)


Email
Learn RSS


June 25, 2008
In response to: Tell Me Why We Teach History to Kids Anyway?
Deborah Bryson commented:

What a provocative essay, generating much thought. If one accepts the premise that teaching history is solely for the purpose of teaching research skills, then why bother with history in particular? Why not research any subject? I think we teach history because it is a record of human ideas and values, a treasure trove of human thought and resultant action. It presents kids (and adults!) with a realm of possible choices from which to formulate a personal system of values or principles. There's a tremendous arrogance, isn't there, in assuming that each of us can arrive at these ideas naturally. Studying history gives us a wealth of ideas to consider, helps us to understand how others have formulated principles of thought and action, and allows us to make our own choices from a wider pool than just our own feelings or ideas. Perhaps our Founding Fathers (and Mothers) were flawed, but history is not just a cult of personality but a synthesis of ideas, a collective reasoning based on experience and all that has come before. I'm hoping that the lack of comment on this essay is merely a stunned response to the nihilistic tone, and that others will soon leap into the debate.




June 25, 2008
In response to: Tell Me Why We Teach History to Kids Anyway?
Marc Aronson commented:

Deborah:

Well said. The tone of my piece was, at least in intention, not nihilistic but rather realistic. Over and over again I hear from librarians and even teachers that they do not like history, find it boring, think of it as names and dates. I say just the opposite, it is an opportunity to think.




June 25, 2008
In response to: Tell Me Why We Teach History to Kids Anyway?
Marc Aronson commented:

Deborah:

Well said. The tone of my piece was, at least in intention, not nihilistic but rather realistic. Over and over again I hear from librarians and even teachers that they do not like history, find it boring, think of it as names and dates. I say just the opposite, it is an opportunity to think.




June 26, 2008
In response to: Tell Me Why We Teach History to Kids Anyway?
Gary Hemmingway commented:

If Mr. Aronson's question was simple to poke a stick at a hornet's nest I hope he is successful. As a teacher responsible for social studies and English is a diploma completion program in whioh students must be at least 18 and the 'original class' graduated without them my experience is that while English still gets a bad rap historical studies are catching on. Our social studies elective curriculum is rich and tries to focus on the story not just dates, names and places.




July 30, 2008
In response to: Tell Me Why We Teach History to Kids Anyway?
Patti Gorham commented:

Ideally, children are given ample opportunities to construct meaning and to make sense out of the life lived, the war fought, the idea envisioned and tried.

And, let us not forget Vygotsky and his attention to the dialogue--for it is in the discouse that the "...diligent search and the fresh thinking..." can be challenged and informed.







POST A COMMENT
Display Name or Registered Users Login Here.
Please restrict submissions to less than 7,000 characters (including any HTML formatting).

Change Image
Before submitting this form, please type the characters displayed above.
Note the letters are NOT case sensitive.

Advertisement

Advertisements





©2009 Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
All rights reserved.
Use of this Web site is subject to its Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
Please visit these other Reed Business sites