Will Fitzhugh created The Concord Review to publish exemplary historical research by high school students.
He has long waged a struggle to persuade teachers and schools to assign histories by leading scholars, not just cut-and-paste, pedestrian textbooks. Since many state standards emphasize coverage, not depth, this has been a hard sell. Real histories are exciting to read, but they take time. Few teachers, unless they teach advanced students, have the time for 400-page books.
The immediate problem, for both teachers and students, is time but the deeper problem is our vision of teaching and learning, which now values the right answers on standardized tests, not the ability to read a book or construct an essay based on research. Changing books does not solve the problems inherent in a cramped and narrow vision of what education should be.
This is what Will wrote last spring:
History Books
Will Fitzhugh
The Concord Review
10 April 2012
I majored in English literature at Harvard, and had such wonderful professors as B.J. Whiting for Chaucer, Alfred Harbage for Shakespeare, Douglas Bush for Milton, Walter Jackson Bate for Samuel Johnson, and Herschel Baker for Tudor/Stuart Drama. In my one year at Cambridge after graduation, I had the benefit of lectures by Clive Staples Lewis, F.R. Leavis, Joan Bennett, and R.T.H. Redpath.
But in high school and in college I didn’t read any history books and I didn’t think twice about it. Many years later, when I was asked to teach United States History at the high school in Concord, Massachusetts, I panicked. I read Samuel Eliot Morison’s Oxford History of the American People to get started and I have been reading history books ever since (thirty years), but I never knew enough history to be as good a history teacher as my students deserved.
Since 1987, (I left teaching in 1988) I have been the editor of The Concord Review, the only journal in the world for the academic papers of secondary students, and we have now published 1,044 history research papers by high school students from 46 states and 38 other countries. This has only increased my understanding that high school students should be not only encouraged to read complete history books (as I never was in school) but assigned them as well. It is now my view that unless students in our high schools get used to reading at least one complete history book each year, they will not be as well prepared for the books on college nonfiction reading lists as they should be.
In addition, as adherents to the ideas of E.D. Hirsch know well, understanding what one reads depends on the prior knowledge of the reader, and by reading history books our high schools students will learn more history and be more competent to read difficult nonfiction material, including more history books, in college.
When I discuss these thoughts, even with my good friends in the education world, I find a strange sort of automatic reversion to the default. When I want to talk about reading nonfiction books, suddenly the conversation is about novels. Any discussion of reading nonfiction in the high schools always, in my experience, defaults to talk of literature. It seems virtually impossible to anyone discussing reading to relax the clutches of the English Departments long enough even to consider that a history book might make good reading material for our students, too. Try it sometime and see what I mean.
I realize that most Social Studies and History Departments have simply given up on having students read a history book, even in those few cases where they may have tried in the past. They are almost universally content, it seems, to leave the assignment of books (and too much of the writing as well) entirely in the hands of their English Department colleagues.
One outcome of this, in my view, is that even when the Common Core people talk about the need for more nonfiction, it is more than they can manage to dare to suggest a list of complete history books for kids to read. So we find them suggesting little nonfiction excerpts and short speeches to assign, along with menus, brochures, and bus schedules for the middle schoolers. Embarrassing.
Nevertheless, if asked, what history books would I suggest? Everyone is afraid to mention possible history books if they are not about current events, or civics, or some underserved population, for fear of a backlash against the whole idea of history books.
But I will offer these: Mornings on Horseback by David McCullough for Freshmen, Washington’s Crossing by David Hackett Fischer for Sophomores, Battle Cry of Freedom by James McPherson for Juniors, and The Path Between the Seas by David McCullough for Seniors in high school.
Obviously there are thousands of other good history books, and students should be free to read any of these as they work on their Extended History Essays or the very new Capstone Essays the College Board is beginning to start thinking about. And of course I do realize that some history took place before 1620 and even in countries other than our own, but these books are good ones, and if students read them they will actually learn some history, but perhaps more important, they will learn that reading a real live nonfiction history book is not beyond their reach. I dearly wish I had learned that when I was in high school.
———————————
“Teach by Example”
Will Fitzhugh [founder]
The Concord Review [1987]
Ralph Waldo Emerson Prizes [1995]
National Writing Board [1998]
TCR Institute [2002]
730 Boston Post Road, Suite 24
Sudbury, Massachusetts 01776-3371 USA
978-443-0022; 800-331-5007
http://www.tcr.org; fitzhugh@tcr.org
Varsity Academics®
http://www.tcr.org/blog
Even before standardized testing we’ve had a view of eduction that largely precluded reading good history books–and instead “reading” textbooks. It goes way back and even to fairly good private independent schools. Textbooks may once have been better written (and more openly biased) but they were often well-written. Textbooks are another matter.
Deborah
As a high school history teacher for the past 16 years, I couldn’t agree more. I still get a little shocked and disappointed when I discover a book that I feel I should have read long before now. This just happened again recently with The Collapse of the Third Republic, by William L. Shirer. I’ve known about The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, of course, but I had no idea this companion volume even existed until I saw it on a shelf at a used book store.
I’ve also been more reluctant in recent years to assign whole books, partly because high school students no longer seem prepared for that kind of an assignment, but also because spending time doing anything but preparing for “high-stakes” multiple-choice tests is frowned upon (not that reading a book wouldn’t do that, but it’s not always seen that way). Nevertheless, I’m working up a new list of choices for students in my AP World History and AP Government classes (and I’m happy to work with an instructional specialist who is supportive of the idea). I figure I’ll start there first.
Why start in high school? There are plenty of biographies and histories of famous people/leaders for middle grade readers and even young children. As just one example, I recently read Steve Sheinkin’s THE NOTORIOUS BENEDICT ARNOLD, and if that doesn’t have enough action and adventure to make a history buff of even the most reluctant learners, I don’t know what would. I’ve already started reading non-fiction kids’ books on American history, particularly black history, with my four- and six-year-old daughters. The earlier that kids understand that hiSTORY is made up of real life stories, the more likely they are to connect with it and get hooked on it.
Thanks, Dienne. I agree completely. History, I always tell my now 8 year old son, is all about the most exciting and interesting people and the conflicts and struggles of their times.
Any other suggestions for good history books for 8 to 11 year olds? I’d appreciate anything you or other readers might recommend. Thanks!
Something of a strawman argument here, isn’t there? No English Department is questioning the wisdom of teaching non-fiction in a history class! Fitzhugh’s anecdote about how “conversations turn to novels” is quite weak.
His is a great idea, and history departments that implement it should be supported in an interdisciplinary manner by English (and other) departments.
But insisting that each individual English teacher assign a 50/50% split of fiction and nonfiction makes no more sense than insisting a science teacher assign 50% science fiction.
Mr. Fitzhugh’s piece seems to be making an implied argument about what should be happening in English classrooms.
It is a weakly made argument: “History teachers should teach whole books, therefore English teachers’ concerns about Common Core are invalid.”
1988 was a long time ago, and many strides in pedagogy have been made since then, further weakening the point apparently being made in defense of the Common Core’s ambiguous and arbitrary percentages.
Interdisciplinary learning can also happen — perhaps best– when the crossover occurs within the mind of the learner. Witness here how what I learned about writing proofs in 10th grade geometry helped me to understand and explain the fallacy in today’s posting.
🙂
My students read large chunks of Jared Diamond’s collapse. Diamond is a geographer whose books work well in history class — and provide interesting theories as to why some civilizations thrive and others fall apart. Since he wasn’t focused on just the Inca, or the Spaniards, it was a book that could apply to a few periods in history.
Another issue is how to emphasize depth. Linda Darling Hammond talked about the enormous amount of reteaching that goes on. If my students already learned about ancient civilizations and world religions in middle school, why reteach it?
Why not focus on other themes in high school, so there is more time to read interesting books like King Leopold’s Ghost (on Belgium’s colonization of the Congo) and for students to perform more research?
Teaching high quality historical writing is such a struggle, but an important one at that. I find that when students get to their first research paper in English class during their Freshman year, they are “ahead of the curve” thanks to prior assignments in their history classes.
On the same subject, teaching students to be good historians is as critical a task as ever. As a colleague of mine noted, “21st century skills sure do look a lot like 20th century skills”. The higher-order thinking and problem solving nature of historical inquiry is valuable in every endeavor. I love pushing my students with the National History Day program. My freshman learn to own and love their work through a rigorous long-term project (think science fair for history). While few students choose to write papers for their project, the same thinking is transferred through the other approved mediums.
Back to reading, I would kill for the time needed to read entire books. I do my best to use relevant excerpts, and every lesson with history books includes a look at methods. To ‘Bridgeport Advocate’s point, I don’t think Mr. Fitzhugh is advocating a coup d’etat of English curriculum. However, I agree with your mention of interdisciplinary learning. Some of my best reading lessons in history classes include analysis of classic literature such as ‘Les Miserables’, ‘All Quiet on the Western Front’, and ‘Uncle Tom’s Cabin’. An humanities approach where fiction and non-fiction are intertwined within the English and history classrooms make for deeper conceptual learning.
Thanks, Diane, and Mr. Fitzhugh, for this relevant and important discussion. It is nice to see the humanities get the validation they so deserve in the STEM era.
Would have “Liked” the replies, below, as well (esp. Bridgeport Advocate), but that function seems to be missing.
There is a bill sponsored by two republican senators being introduced in Indiana to pull out of Common Core. Let’s hope it goes through and becomes law.
http://heraldbulletin.com/breakingnews/x1303506457/Indiana-lawmakers-seek-decentralized-school-choices
“I realize that most Social Studies and History Departments have simply given up on having students read a history book, even in those few cases where they may have tried in the past. They are almost universally content, it seems, to leave the assignment of books (and too much of the writing as well) entirely in the hands of their English Department colleagues.”
I’ve taught English for thirteen years. I’ve been blessed to have a few colleagues in social studies departments who have incorporated full-length books and extensive writing into their courses. They’ve been in the minority, though. In general, the onus for reading and writing has fallen squarely on English departments.
That’s interesting — our history department assigns more papers than the English department does. I wouldn’t assume most history departments don’t assign a lot of research/writing. Also, be aware that history is a very challenging subject to teach, given the tremendous amount of content we are expected to cover. Obviously, that should change, but this is the reality.
Getting books is difficult, since it’s understood that English teachers assign novels, and are often provided with anthologies and short story collections as well. But principals and assistant principals are less likely, in my experience any way, to spend extra book money for history teachers; so we assign primary and secondary source readings, but going beyond that is very difficult.
History teachers are often burdened with a ridiculous amount of content to cover, making it extremely difficult to assign full-length books. Call it the “Plato to NATO” curricula — which has to be covered in two years (!)
A couple of historical-fiction titles of differing levels that might work as well :
Johnny Tremain
The Pillars of the Earth
Number the Stars
Fall of Giants
A Tale of Two Cities
The Scarlet Letter
Rob Powers–
I can see why you don’t agree on my point you mention above, because Fitzhugh does not explicitly make it. He rather makes an argument that is worded so as to support theattack on fiction being advocated –and implemented in the form of Common Core– elsewhere.
Diane has posed elsewhere on which conservative groups are advocating for this radical change to education.
Fiction IS a way of understanding history and the human condition, and has always been; in western cultures, this tradition can easily be traced from the Greek plays onward.
It is a marker of civilization itself to engage in theater and fiction. To diminish its teaching is to diminish the capacity of a population to understand and examine itself.
I see that as nothing less than a step towards intellectual enslavement. It’s certainly a blow against the cultivation of the independent intellect of the child and by extension of a society itself.
English has nothing to do with Fitzhugh’s claim, so why bring it up if not to promulgate this gravest of pedagogical mistakes in the Common Core?
It is a very big deal; an important line to draw in the sand.
And Rob, I applaud your inclusion of fiction. I include non-fiction enrichment as well.
Now imagine that you were legislated to reduce to 50% the amount of “non-fiction” you teach.
It is absurd.
Has any legislature required Rob to reduce the amount of non-fiction he teaches by 50%?
I was surprised to see that Dr. Ravitch endorsed a call for teachers to listen to someone else about what to teach. Dr. Ravitch has said “And no, I do not agree with you that the teachers of the USA need a ratio to tell them what to teach. That is not professional.” Apparently they do need advice on what is to be to taught within whatever ratio they decide to teach.
Reread the article. Fitzhugh is a teacher! Professionals always share ideas and challenge each other.
There is no group of professionals — if they want to be considered truly professionals — that does not compare research and best practices. You are either not reading carefully or looking twisting the evidence.
Inverness,
Perhaps I was misled by Dr. Ravitch’s introduction to the article where she says “He has long waged a struggle to persuade teachers and schools to assign histories by leading scholars, not just cut-and-paste, pedestrian textbooks”.
The fact that “he has long waged a struggle” suggests that there has been reluctance to adopt these best practices. You interpret this another way?
Everything he said is absolutely true. I consider myself lucky to have been exposed to many good books from an early age. I love history through all ages and civilizations. All seem to crash for the same reason, arrogance creeps in and with no correction factor, over the cliff.
I also agree that that Will Fitzhugh is. Or react. I regret that he has had such a hard time persuading teachers.
I’m not sure most teachers even know who he is.
I am sure that it is a more complex issue than simply “one person has an idea, and that is the right idea, and everybody should be convinced of it.”
As a social studies teacher, I encourage more rigorous debate than that.
You state, “Any discussion of reading nonfiction in the high schools always, in my experience, defaults to talk of literature.” Unfortunately, Will, there are too many teachers who want to teach fiction, all day, every day. I’m not saying there are not many great works of fiction that should be covered in school, but some degree of balance between fiction and non-fiction would be nice.
I’ve always inhaled anything by David McCullough or Stephen Ambrose. Currently reading John Meachem’s book, Thomas Jefferson and the Art of Power, which is slow in parts but packed with little ditties of the day; from the relationship Jefferson had with Sally Hemmings and the six children they had together, to anything and everything to do with the American Revolution. I would recommend it without reservation to anyone interested in US history.
If high school students are asked to read history books on their own, that would cut into the 53 hours a week they spend with electronic entertainment media (Kaiser) but it wouldn’t take much teacher time. Writing history research papers requires more student time than teacher time as well, by a large margin.
On interdisciplinary teaching:
I didn’t know that Will Fitzhugh had majored in English literature and not in history, but I would guess that his professors made frequent references to the historical events that influenced the works of each period, which include details of geography and technology. Since works of literature are written in a place and time, geography and history establish context, meaning and significance. How long it took to go from one place to another, whether by horse, sail, carriage or foot, depends on geographical location and distance and historical era. By the same token, literature contains endless references to contemporary technology, whether weaving techniques or weaponry.
In other words, the study of literature is one of the best forms of “interdisciplinary” teaching, because it’s not contrived or stilted, usually another way of trying to make a subject more “relevant.” In fact, what is called “interdisciplinary” is really “inter-thematic” and usually somewhat “inter” and almost never “disciplinary,” i.e. discipline-based. An academic discipline isn’t just a body of knowledge; rather, it is a body of knowledge and specific analytical procedures by which revisions. Students should be exposed to various disciplines, because each one offers a different way of understanding the world. Literature introduces themes that offer at least a peek at many other academic disciplines
The matter of “interdisciplinary” teaching is addressed in considerable depth in a 1994 article by Harvard University educational psychologists Howard Gardner and Veronica Boix-Mansilla:
“Current debates around the organization of pre-collegiate curriculum have directed considerable criticism at the dominant role assumed by subject matter or disciplines. Criticisms have ranged from a call for interdisciplinary or theme-based curricula to an emphasis on ‘ways of knowing,’ or ‘learning styles’ as organizing units that replace disciplinary knowledge.
“In this article, while acknowledging the merit of some of the critique, we propose a positive view of disciplinary knowledge. We claim that, over the years, knowledgeable human beings working in specific domains have developed concepts, methods, and perspectives as means of better understanding the physical, biological, and social worlds around us. We find students’ access to these disciplinary tools to be an indispensable ingredient of quality education. Shorn of disciplines we become intellectual barbarians.'” (Gardner & Boix-Mansilla, 198).
The authors then comment on classroom experiences that are advertised as interdisciplinary or multi-disciplinary:
“[I]t is crucial to note that interdisciplinary work can be carried out legitimately only after the individual has become at least somewhat conversant in the relevant disciplines. Much of what is termed interdisciplinary or multi-disciplinary work in the early grades is actually pre-disciplinary work – drawing chiefly on common sense.” (Gardner & Boix-Mansilla, 208) (Gardner, Howard & Boix-Mansilla, Veronica, “Teaching for Understanding in the Disciplines – and Beyond” in Teachers College Record 96.2, Winter 1994, 199-218).