History in schools.

rick_chasey

nolf wrote:

In reference to the original point, while the modern "liberal" agenda , may not like it, isn't it blatentely obvious that Americas founding was significantly influenced by religion?

Ineed even the Historians the Guardian interviews agree that "Religion was an important force in American history". Surely this justifies its teaching?

I'm sure the Texan school board is probably taking this too far, but then the idea of attempting to re-write History to suggest that religion was not a significant force, is rubbish too.

"On the education board, Dunbar backed changes that include teaching the role the "Jewish Ten Commandments" played in "political and legal ideas", and the study of the influence of Moses on the US constitution. Dunbar says these are important steps to overturning what she believes is the myth of a separation between church and state in the US." (Quote)

When addressing an issue such as this the approach of "the study of the influence of Moses on the US constitution", seems legitimate. While I can understand it causing consternation, isn't it obvious that the 10 commandments were probably used as a basis by the religiously fundamentalist founding fathers in their drafting of a constitution?!

However what is important when teaching that is to look at different views. So those who say that Moses was influential, and those that say Moses wasn't influential. You should look at both sides, and foster a culture that encourages individual interpretation of the evemts.
But it is a legitimate area of study, with implications for the wider question of the impact of religion on the creation of the American state, a pretty significant issue!

I think it's ironic someone mentioned the abandoning of the study if Isaac Newton to look at religious areas, when Newtons primary reasoning behind the use of mathematical laws as a govern of nature was that God had created the Earth, and everything, and God's consistency would have filtered down to his creation. Therefore mathematics COULD be used to describe the world only because God had made it consistent.
God was the proof and justification used to turn mathematics from an irrelevant subject, into the basis of Science.

How's that for irony?

I think the issue is that in the states, the emphasis is on learning one narrative, rather than opening the issue up as significant and worthy of discussion.

They're not teaching kids the debate, or to debate it. They're just saying "this is how it absolutely was".

rick_chasey

johnfinch wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I don't think so. It's more learning the tools of history. Not looking at the use or the value of those tools. You can't do history without those tools. Schools however, don't make students do history like that, but instead spend most of their time focussing on "what happened" and "how it happened", specific to the period.

Could you give us an example of how you would like a history lesson to be taught to, say, a class of 14yo students?

It's a bit hard to see what you're proposing while it's all abstract.

OK. Let's take the obvious example that always used in schools. Nazi Germany.

Now, the subject is on considering primary sources < something they sort of do already.

You open the discussion up with how do we know what happens in the past?

Eventually someone hits on "people write stuff at the time".

Then you ask what affects what people write about. Some kid might come up with "bias" or something similar.

Then you shove a text in front of them, say, of a Nazi based in the UK, writing about Nazi Germany. He's all saying how great it is, blah blah.

The kids then say "eer, he would say that, he's a Nazi", illustrating the point that the motives of the writer are important, and should be taken into account. Give them more examples, blah blah.

They then, very simply, learn, formally, to consider the motives of the writer when writing something.

I'm no teacher, but that's a lesson that I see as adding value or at least, more value than "Hitler was born in blah".

finchy

Rick Chasey wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I don't think so. It's more learning the tools of history. Not looking at the use or the value of those tools. You can't do history without those tools. Schools however, don't make students do history like that, but instead spend most of their time focussing on "what happened" and "how it happened", specific to the period.

Could you give us an example of how you would like a history lesson to be taught to, say, a class of 14yo students?

It's a bit hard to see what you're proposing while it's all abstract.

OK. Let's take the obvious example that always used in schools. Nazi Germany.

Now, the subject is on considering primary sources < something they sort of do already.

You open the discussion up with how do we know what happens in the past?

Eventually someone hits on "people write stuff at the time".

Then you ask what affects what people write about. Some kid might come up with "bias" or something similar.

Then you shove a text in front of them, say, of a Nazi based in the UK, writing about Nazi Germany. He's all saying how great it is, blah blah.

The kids then say "eer, he would say that, he's a Nazi", illustrating the point that the motives of the writer are important, and should be taken into account. Give them more examples, blah blah.

They then, very simply, learn, formally, to consider the motives of the writer when writing something.

I'm no teacher, but that's a lesson that I see as adding value or at least, more value than "Hitler was born in blah".

That sounds like what my stepdad says happens in history teaching today. He prepares all of the source material, gets the kids to analyse it and then try to come to their own conclusions. It's also pretty much the way we studied when I was doing my ancient history A-level.

Maybe you just had crap teachers? Could be in the same boat as me when I was at school - the teacher just read all the facts and we had to write down what she was saying. My stepdad was fairly angry when he heard about that - but then he says that there are a lot of very bad history teachers out there.

ride_whenever

evolution versus intelligent design is another good example of this. Why can they not just be taught from a proper perspective, here is a body of supportive evidence for both theories, evolution seems to fit the current data better however both are theories as it is unrepeatable science.

I'd teach history in the same way, two opposing sources and then consider the merits of both, their bias etc. and then try to determine the truth.

rick_chasey

ride_whenever wrote:

evolution versus intelligent design is another good example of this. Why can they not just be taught from a proper perspective, here is a body of supportive evidence for both theories, evolution seems to fit the current data better however both are theories as it is unrepeatable science.

I'd teach history in the same way, two opposing sources and then consider the merits of both, their bias etc. and then try to determine the truth.

I'd say when it comes to debates and points of contest, it's all too easy to boil them down into a black and white "either or"argument, which they rarely are.

But yes, in principal.

rick_chasey

johnfinch wrote:

That sounds like what my stepdad says happens in history teaching today. He prepares all of the source material, gets the kids to analyse it and then try to come to their own conclusions. It's also pretty much the way we studied when I was doing my ancient history A-level.

Maybe you just had crap teachers? Could be in the same boat as me when I was at school - the teacher just read all the facts and we had to write down what she was saying. My stepdad was fairly angry when he heard about that - but then he says that there are a lot of very bad history teachers out there.

Could be. It's been a good while since I've been in a secondary school.

finchy

Rick Chasey wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

That sounds like what my stepdad says happens in history teaching today. He prepares all of the source material, gets the kids to analyse it and then try to come to their own conclusions. It's also pretty much the way we studied when I was doing my ancient history A-level.

Maybe you just had crap teachers? Could be in the same boat as me when I was at school - the teacher just read all the facts and we had to write down what she was saying. My stepdad was fairly angry when he heard about that - but then he says that there are a lot of very bad history teachers out there.

Could be. It's been a good while since I've been in a secondary school.

I had an excellent ancient history teacher - he introduced us to all of the major sources, we discussed bias and reliability, etc. The exam marking criteria was also based mainly on how we interpreted evidence (although we did have to know the why, when, etc as well) - is it not like this in modern history as well?

When did you leave secondary school? I left in '98 so you should have been there more recently than me.

rick_chasey

johnfinch wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

That sounds like what my stepdad says happens in history teaching today. He prepares all of the source material, gets the kids to analyse it and then try to come to their own conclusions. It's also pretty much the way we studied when I was doing my ancient history A-level.

Maybe you just had crap teachers? Could be in the same boat as me when I was at school - the teacher just read all the facts and we had to write down what she was saying. My stepdad was fairly angry when he heard about that - but then he says that there are a lot of very bad history teachers out there.

Could be. It's been a good while since I've been in a secondary school.

I had an excellent ancient history teacher - he introduced us to all of the major sources, we discussed bias and reliability, etc. The exam marking criteria was also based mainly on how we interpreted evidence (although we did have to know the why, when, etc as well) - is it not like this in modern history as well?

When did you leave secondary school? I left in '98 so you should have been there more recently than me.

'03.

There was only one source based paper, and that was so chronically done that any attempt to do above and beyond what was offered in the mark scheme would lose you marks.

redddraggon

Rick Chasey wrote:

'03.

There was only one source based paper, and that was so chronically done that any attempt to do above and beyond what was offered in the mark scheme would lose you marks.

If you finished school in '03 how come it took you so long to graduate from university then?

rick_chasey

redddraggon wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

'03.

There was only one source based paper, and that was so chronically done that any attempt to do above and beyond what was offered in the mark scheme would lose you marks.

If you finished school in '03 how come it took you so long to graduate from university then?

I graduated in '08?

How do you know when I graduated anyway?

redddraggon

Rick Chasey wrote:

redddraggon wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

'03.

There was only one source based paper, and that was so chronically done that any attempt to do above and beyond what was offered in the mark scheme would lose you marks.

If you finished school in '03 how come it took you so long to graduate from university then?

I graduated in '08?

How do you know when I graduated anyway?

I guess you took a gap year, and did a masters then. How did I know? Well you posted loads about your education on here Teager.

rick_chasey

redddraggon wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

redddraggon wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

'03.

There was only one source based paper, and that was so chronically done that any attempt to do above and beyond what was offered in the mark scheme would lose you marks.

If you finished school in '03 how come it took you so long to graduate from university then?

I graduated in '08?

How do you know when I graduated anyway?

I guess you took a gap year, and did a masters then. How did I know? Well you posted loads about your education on here Teager.

:?:

redddraggon

It's not like Teagar to play dumb, you normally want to show how much of a genius you are.

rick_chasey

Think you need to chill out. All that head banging's doing something to your head!

nolf

redddraggon wrote:

It's not like Teagar to play dumb, you normally want to show how much of a genius you are.

Where did that come from :?:

Fascinating idea though.

I'm doing a module at the moment called Issues in Historical Thought. It's based around the idea of the history of history, and involves discussion of significant historical ideas, and the basis for History over time.

We were actually discussing this isssue in a seminar today, and whether this was a legitimate topic. Are there areas that are taboo for modern day historians?
Should teaching be based around the Historical consensus? Why shouldn't you be allowed to disagree with the historical consensus? On a fairly arbitrary historical issue such as this, why can't you teach kids 1 interpretation, just because there's not universal approval doesn't make it less valid. (You can even take it to the whole, can you discover the truth of the past (is there a truth of the past??), or is it an unobtainable ideal, that is fruitlessly searched for, and therefore all interpretations are equally vali due to the disconnected nature of historical study?)

I would say the obvious response is teaching multiple sided arguments, but it is an interesting point.

Interesting event at any rate. Reminds me of the Kershaw trial, and some similar ideas are being covered here.

Westerberg

redddraggon wrote:

It's not like Teagar to play dumb, you normally want to show how much of a genius you are.

justresting

Trouble with history is its just one thing after another.

nolf

justresting wrote:

Trouble with history is its just one thing after another.

Actually it's not.

That's called a narrative, and is a self perpetuating modern idea, that by compiling events in a "systematic" order you can gain insight into the events themselves, by placing them within their context.

While that could be valid, the contextualisation of an event is an arbitrary choice by modern scholars, rather than an accurate portrayal of past events. This makes it only of limited use, hence the modern affiliation for the study of the history of historians, cultural studies and the such, as a more reliable way of gauging the past.

justresting

Sorry nolf but I'd rather go along with Arnold Toynbee ( less soporific & was probably more fun at parties )

Seanos

ride_whenever wrote:

evolution versus intelligent design is another good example of this. Why can they not just be taught from a proper perspective, here is a body of supportive evidence for both theories, evolution seems to fit the current data better however both are theories as it is unrepeatable science.

There's no body of supportive evidence for intelligent design! It's creationism with a bit of window dressing and ultimately boils down to 'the god(s) I believe in made the universe and I'm going to ignore any evidence that says otherwise'.

Also, ID isn't a theory in the same way the evolution is theory. Evolution is a scientific theory. ID is just an idea (albeit not a very good one). There is a big difference between the two:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

And evolution isn't 'unrepeatable science', how do you think viruses keep changing? You can observe evolution in a lab pretty easily.

ride_whenever

oh you can observe evolution, I don't debate that, but it is none-the-less unrepeatable. Go and do some science in a biology lab and have viruses repeatably evolve exactly the same solution to any problem...
doesn't happen

nolf

justresting wrote:

Sorry nolf but I'd rather go along with Arnold Toynbee ( less soporific & was probably more fun at parties )

I'm assuming you mean J Toynbee?

Based on a cursory wikipedia glance his work does look interesting, and worth a study, but more for the Historiographical perspective, rather than the Historical content. A history of the World, written by one man is going to be fundamentally flawed. Sure a comprehensive narrative will give you a complete picture, but one so flawed that its factual use seems somewhat limited.

If you want less soporific, read "Armageddon" by Max Hastings.

Seanos

ride_whenever wrote:

oh you can observe evolution, I don't debate that, but it is none-the-less unrepeatable. Go and do some science in a biology lab and have viruses repeatably evolve exactly the same solution to any problem... doesn't happen

I think you're confused about what 'repeatability' means in a scientific context. It's important in certain types of experiments but irrelevant to proving that evolution happens. You don't have to have a virus evolve in the same way to the same set of pressures in an external environment every time, even though they could. It's enough to just observe that random mutations occur and are selected for or against in a particular environment. There are plenty of examples outside of the lab as well.

finchy

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010 ... culum-role

Rick Chasey - you're heads going to explode reading this one.

nolf

johnfinch wrote:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/30/niall-ferguson-school-curriculum-role

Rick Chasey - you're heads going to explode reading this one.

I love the headline. Nicely balanced and fair.

In fairness Niall ferguson is a pretty decent historian. Interesting ideas, and some of his economic history provides an interesting context for more detailed studies.

A curriculum emphasising the importance of Europe seems justified. While we may be in the early stages of a focus on Asia, and emerging economies/powers, Europe has long been the center of importance.

For the past 300 years the events in Europe have significantly impacted the rest of the world, dispraportionate to its population base/geographic area/resources. Having a curriculum exploring why a disunited Europe triumphed over a united China, or the Turks, or Ottomans is both fascinating and incredibly relevant.

Not just is the West arguably more significant, but surely it makes more sense for the West to study... the West?

finchy

nolf wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/30/niall-ferguson-school-curriculum-role

Rick Chasey - you're heads going to explode reading this one.

I love the headline. Nicely balanced and fair.

In fairness Niall ferguson is a pretty decent historian. Interesting ideas, and some of his economic history provides an interesting context for more detailed studies.

A curriculum emphasising the importance of Europe seems justified. While we may be in the early stages of a focus on Asia, and emerging economies/powers, Europe has long been the center of importance.

For the past 300 years the events in Europe have significantly impacted the rest of the world, dispraportionate to its population base/geographic area/resources. Having a curriculum exploring why a disunited Europe triumphed over a united China, or the Turks, or Ottomans is both fascinating and incredibly relevant.

Not just is the West arguably more significant, but surely it makes more sense for the West to study... the West?

Yeah, but it's got every single one of Rick's pet hates stuffed into one article - grand narrative, imperialist apologism, etc

Whether the Guardian's article is balanced and fair or not is another matter, and one upon which I can't give my tuppence worth, seeing as I only know this man by name.