The Issue
In my professional life I have many passions, but one stands above all the rest. My true passion, my true professional love, my true professional calling is one that all too often is overlooked, ignored, disregarded, underfunded, undervalued and only begrudgingly accepted by academia: History Education. The reasons for this are many, but in today's academic world I believe the prevailing reason is the fact that history is not a tested subject on state or national standardized tests. This fact further illustrates the fallacy and damage that standardized testing has done and continues to do to American education. But that is another, longer conversation.
The fact that history is not a tested topic on state or national tests is both a blessing and a curse. It is a blessing in that history teachers are not subject to the irrational, blistering criticisms that Math, Science or English teachers are subject to when students don't score well on any of the numerous capricious and preposterous standardized tests. Furthermore, because of this ignorance by standardized tests on History, history curriculum's are not completely geared towards nor driven by increasing the passing rates on these mercurial tests. It is a curse because it seems to give licence to individual schools as well as entire school districts to slight or otherwise grant inattention to the subject and study of History simply because they are not tested.
I have, as a parent as well as a professional, been witness to and experienced this apathy towards the study of History. There have been times when, as the all-important "testing season" was approaching, my children had their Social Studies time in elementary school replaced with "test prep" or reading lessons. I have had students as well as teachers tell me that in Middle School, it was not unusual for Social Studies to be all but nonexistent. Certainly "Social Studies" or "History" would appear on the students schedule but they would instead receive a double dose of reading or math. The rationale for this? Because Math and Reading are tested and Social Studies or History is not.
The Start
At one time the focal points in American education were Social Studies, with an emphasis on American History, and the acquisition of and ability to use English. Certainly Math and Science were also taught and were deemed important as well, but Social Studies, specifically American History, and English ruled the proverbial roost in American education.
October 4, 1957 changes everything forever. The Cold War is in full swing. Tensions, worries, suspicions, and fears are at an all time high. Americans are fairly secure in the knowledge that they are safe from nuclear attacks from the Soviet Bloc as well as confident that American technology is far superior to anything the Soviets could produce. On that fateful October day in 1957, the USSR was about to erase the supreme American confidence. The Soviet Union successfully launched Sputnik into orbit. The first man made object sent into space. Suddenly the worst fears of Americans were realized. Were the Soviets spying on us? Might this satellite be able to deliver Soviet nuclear weapons to the United States? The Soviets have surpassed us in technology!
Since it was now seemingly apparent that the U.S. had fallen behind the Soviets in technology (in all actuality we had not) a decision was made that the US must not only catch but pass the Soviets in all things technology and especially in space. Out of this irrational fear NASA was created and the US realizing that more scientists and engineers were needed in order to best the Soviets on the technological front the focus of American education flipped from being American History and English driven to Science and Math being at the forefront.
So began the slow slide of History education in American academia.
So What and Now What
Over the past year I have read three books that have heavily influenced my thinking on this matter; The Soul of America: The Battle for our Better Angels by Jon Meacham, Why Learn History When It's Already On Your Phone by Sam Wineburg, and The American Spirit: Who We Are and What We Stand For by David McCullough. All of these books touch on the importance of historical education and knowing our past. The Wineburg and McCullough books in particular also touch on the declining interest in historical education and the inherent problems with this trend.
In order to understand who we are as a society and where we are going as a people, we must know our history. The answer to understand the present and where to go in the future lies with the past. In a society such as ours in which we get to choose our leaders, and in a larger sense, the direction of our society knowledge and understanding of our history is imperative. In his book McCullough eloquently makes this point, "History isn’t just something that ought to be taught, read, or encouraged only because it will make us better citizens. It will make us a better citizen and it will make us more thoughtful and understanding human beings. It should be taught for the pleasure it provides. The pleasure of history, like art or music or literature, consists in an expansion of the experience of being alive, which indeed, is what education is largely about...We’ve got to teach history and nurture history and encourage history because it’s an antidote to the hubris of the present- the idea that everything we have and everything we do and everything we think is the ultimate, the best."
We have to make history education just as important as Math and Science because it is just as vital to society's well being as are those subjects. History is the basis of society, it is the guardian of our future, and it is the story of our humanity. History education must be treated as it is; a separate subject whose content stands alone. It must not be used as a means to teach reading or writing or otherwise be used as a support acting as a stand-in for other subjects. Reading and writing are important to be sure, and other than English there is not another subject in academia in which you are required to read and write more than in History. However, the content of history is as equally important as is the content in a math or science class. We certainly wouldn't expect a Biology class to read an account of Florence Nightingale and her revolutionary care for wounds and the sick, then ask the students to focus on the causes of the Crimean War. To do so would be disingenuous and just plain wrong. We must hire teachers who are specialists in the content. We must leave behind the age old practice of hiring coaches who happen to teach social studies and instead hire teachers who may happen to coach. If we make the presentation of history important, then the topic will be viewed as imperative.
My proposal would be this: In high school require four solid years of social studies and three and a half of those years must be history. Currently, most, if not all, school districts require two years of history. However, my proposal would be radically different from most requirements. Three years of history would be "History" in which both World and American history would be taught. History I would span the dawn of humans to say 1700. The following year History III would be both World and American from 1700 to 1900. History III would be "Modern History". The final half credit would be state and local history, for knowledge of your community will help lead to increased civic pride.
In my district American history in high school is from 1900-present with the insistence that students learn Early American History in 5th grade, the 1800's in 8th Grade and then the rest in high school. However, as I pointed out earlier this is not necessarily the case as history education is at times relegated to the background in favor of other subjects. Furthermore, do we really expect a 5th grader to understand the importance and the complexity of the Federalist vs. Anti-Federalist debates? Why, you may ask is this topic important? Because it was this very debate that is the foundation of our government and to a larger degree our society. The prevailing argument against including American history before 1900 in high school is that there is too much to adequately teach within one school year, yet we somehow believe that we can teach all of World history (which is much more vast than American history) within the confines of one school year in high school. I believe if all of history were taught as a three year continuous class these issues would be solved. However, to do so would require academia to fully embrace history education as an equal member of the academic world.
History is my story, it is your story, it is our story. Without historical knowledge and understanding, nothing else matters.
