Jack Schneider is a historian of education and a professor at the University of Massachusetts in Lowell.
He wrote this essay at my request.
Why study history? It’s a legitimate question during times like these, when the future seems so uncertain. The past, one might argue, is the past; it’s what comes next that really matters. And whatever we don’t know, we can probably find on Wikipedia anyway.
The question isn’t merely theoretical. History as a school subject was crippled by No Child Left Behind’s testing requirements, which incentivized narrow instruction in English and math. But when the global pandemic pushed schools online, dramatically limiting student contact hours in the process, the slow decline of history was dramatically accelerated.
Yet the past remains as important as ever. Consider, for instance, the recent uprising over racial inequality, and the various ways Americans have interpreted the subsequent destruction of property. Donald Trump, who is broadly ignorant, but who is particularly illiterate historically, has framed such destruction as unreasoning and unprincipled. Others, by contrast, have seen in the present rebellion a clear civic message—one rooted in centuries of injustice. Such an understanding is not merely the product of racial sympathy. It is also the result of basic historical understanding. The past matters because it tells the story of how we arrived at the present. Without it, we might know where we are, but we cannot hope to understand why we’re there.
Understanding the legacy of pressing contemporary issues is clearly valuable. But the past is also instructive even when it seems hopelessly distant from the present. One reason is that history can be viewed as a series of experiments. What, we might wonder, will the political consequences of prolonged economic inequality be? Well, we can run that experiment: in Mesopotamia, ancient Rome, the Aztec empire, or among indigenous communities of the Mississippi River Valley. And though history doesn’t repeat itself, it does rhyme. So although we may never acquire the certainty of a randomized control trial, we can hope to see patterns emerge. The greatest challenges of the present—ethnic conflict, environmental crisis, political demagoguery—are all old stories.
Finally, studying history matters because of what it does for our thinking. Facts matter. Over the past four years, that has become painfully clear in a way that many of us never anticipated. But studying history isn’t about the acquisition of factual knowledge alone. Historians don’t sit down in front of textbooks and expand their memories. Instead, they work with fragmentary evidence to assemble coherent narratives rooted in context. The habits required for such work—careful reading, obsessive verification, an orientation toward complexity—are hallmarks not just of good historians, but of good citizens. Historical thinking is the enemy of sloganeering and simple solutions; it is a remedy for fake news and false choices.
History today is the stepchild of the curriculum for a variety of reasons. Textbooks are authorless collections of facts, completely out of step with the actual work that historians do. State standards documents are political battlegrounds, regularly bordering on propaganda. Instructional time has been eaten away by the demand for higher scores in tested subjects. And our track record of miseducating young people in the history classroom—through a narrative of perpetual progress and American exceptionalism—has engendered suspicion among many who rightly see themselves written-out of the past or misrepresented in its telling.
These outrages are alarming. But inasmuch as that is the case, they might be their own undoing. If they were less shocking, such offenses might be easy to dismiss or ignore; history as a school subject might fade quietly into oblivion. Remembering its importance, we might finally hear the warning siren.
Repetition is boring
History ignoring
Produces repetition
Which makes it very boring
So here is my position:
Teach about the past
So history won’t repeat
And future won’t be cast
In every past defeat
Unfortunately, it’s much easier to ignore history’s true messages when you have benefitted from your own version of history. I used to shudder every time someone sent me an email chainletter talking about how bad today’s culture is and how the “good old days,” i.e. the 50s, were the best days of all. Yes, if you were not a person of color or if you didn’t live in poverty.
Yes, I have the same reaction. The alleged, non-existent “good ‘ole days”….were maybe for some people.
“and future won’t be cast” — nice line
A history professor wrote that we can find what we want to know on WIKIPEDIA? Really?
Is he aware that ANYONE can go on Wikipedia & change things there at will?
I used to know a girl who would go onto Wikipedia & change things just for the fun of it. Change dates, names, make outrageous claims. Wikipedia is not a good source of information AT ALL.
When I was finishing my BA in English at the State University of NY at Buffalo (2011), we were not allowed to use Wikipedia as a source whatsoever. “Automatic F” if you cited Wikipedia in any of your papers.
ULowell is basically a technology school … it’s not known for its liberal arts department. You want to study English or History, you go to UMass/Amherst or one of the many other fine schools in MA.
Wow, reading that blew my mind.
I think the sarcasm flew right over your head. (Actually, I don’t think it.) You are correct in your argument, I agree with it wholeheartedly, but Schneider was obviously–at least to most of us–mocking.
At several points in my textbook career, I found myself part of editorial teams working on history or science textbooks, and if I was far enough along in my career that I ran the group working on such a text, I typically employed fact checkers to go over the manuscripts. Oh my! THAT was a revelation! I was astonished at how many well-known “facts” turned out to be dubious or downright false. Don DeLillo’s novel White Noise is full of conversations in which the characters mention facts in passing that are false but are not corrected–a sort of game that DeLillo was playing with the introduction of noise. LOL.
“Don’t trust anything you read on the Internet.” –Abraham Lincoln
From my textbook career, I have a long list of “facts” I’ve seen in textbooks that were wildly wrong. Blood returning to the heart is blue. Sputnik was a nuclear device. And so on.
Here’s one way you can do fact checking pretty easily. If Donald Trump asserted it, it’s false.
When I want to learn about history, I go straight to primary sources like this:
When people post nonsense on Wikipedia, it is usually almost immediately corrected. That’s one of the beauties of crowd sourcing. Several studies have shown Wikipedia to be no more error prone or only slightly more error prone that some prominent print encyclopedias are. Moral: reference works are compiled by humans, and to err is, well, . . .
In general, Wikipedia articles include links to references for further checking of the facts. And, Wikipedia includes fact-checking communities that do adjudication. As the world’s largest encyclopedia, it’s an invaluable source. I often start with Wikipedia and then do further exploration.
And, of course, one should try to use a number of sources.
BTW, Encyclopedists and dictionary makers often include fake entries in order to catch others for plagiarism. There’s an excellent Wikipedia article on this called “Fictitious Entry.” I highly recommend it.
And then there are the outright errors in authoritative works. My favorite of these is from the 1631 “Wicked Bible,” which contained the line “Thou shalt commit adultery.”
From ancient times people have dreamed of a universal encyclopedia of knowledge. Wikipedia is the closest we have yet come to the creation of such a thing. In my book, it is one of the greatest creations of the [collective] human mind.
However, I have seen kids change Wikipedia articles before I was briefly Paul Revere.
Yes, but these are usually very quickly corrected. And, again, one should never use a single source.
Back in the early days of Wikipedia, I used to post about literary terms, which were often defined on the site, in those days, very badly. The post on the term “motif” had the definition completely wrong, so I wrote an extended correction. The next day, the original writer of the incorrect post had taken my stuff down and put his or her material back up. We went through several iterations of this, alas. Today, there is a built-in vehicle for adjudication of these disputes on Wikipedia.
The fake entry thing is fascinating, Bob. I have to check that out more.
“Agloe” is a sort of fake place not too far from here. It’s linked from that Wikipedia article you mention.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agloe,_New_York
My son and I were hiking up there years ago looking for, of all things, poisonous giant hog weed. Yeah, a dangerous, invasive plant near a made up world.
You know, come to think of that, you could apply that description to Trump’s hairdo.
Gotta go.
Have a great one.
One of the things that happens with K-12 history textbooks is that the writers or editors typically have a line or two in which to cover something complex, and so they overgeneralize or leave out significant details. I call this the “Lincoln the Emancipator Problem” because of the extraordinarily complex body of facts about what, exactly, Lincoln thought about slavery and wanted to do about it. But here’s the beauty of this: If one digs more deeply, the actual history (as best we can piece it together) turns out to be a lot more interesting and a lot more revealing than is the mythology. Consider, for example, what’s going on today with the fact checking of Trump’s racist Mt. Rushmore speech (or, rather, the speech written by/vetted by the group of speech writers overseen by Stephen “Goebbels” Miller). https://www.huffpost.com/entry/white-house-tweets-donald-trump-quote_n_5f096495c5b6480493d0545c
Consider these two quotations.
“On the question of liberty, as a principle, we are not what we have been. When we were the political slaves of King George, and wanted to be free, we called the maxim that ‘all men are created equal’ a self evident truth; but now when we have grown fat, and have lost all dread of being slaves ourselves, we have become so greedy to be masters that we call the same maxim ‘a self evident lie.’”
“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races—that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.”
The former might appear in any K-12 textbook, today, as a callout. The latter is deeply offensive and would never so appear. But the quotations are from the same person: Abraham Lincoln. The former is from a letter Lincoln wrote to George Robinson in 1855; the latter from the Lincoln/Douglas Debates of 1858.
We won’t expiate the Original Sin of racism in this country until a) we confront the truth of our history and b) make economic changes in reparation. My take.
The second of those quotations is deeply offensive AND includes demonstrably false material. But there it is, an example of the ugly truth. Racism has been a great evil throughout this country for its entire history. We must confront this fact. We must. And we must end it through reparations, desegregation, and education that confronts the ugly history and points to a better, saner future.
The Black Lives Matter movement is, to my mind, the single most important political event in my lifetime. I am greatly heartened by this. Finally, finally, we are confronting the truth of our history.
Sarcasm or not, Wikipedia is quickly and assertively corrected when errors are introduced.
It is now more comprehensive and reliable than Britannica was 100 years ago.
Don’t disregard the wisdom of the world over a few well-paid experts.
I know it’s an old battle, but I’d argue that turning history into social studies is also a problem.
Yes, but please don’t forget how important geography, civics, economics, and other social sciences are, too.
Agree. In some states, history gets lost in social studies. And some social studies teachers know a lot about social science but not history.
We study history so we know how we got to the present. We learn, for instance that the Current Occupant is not some alien aberration dropped on us from Russia but rather a purely American, completely predictable, result of 40 years of austerity/neoliberalism/neoconservative imperialism.
No, he is what can happen to children in a dysfunctional family headed by a sociopath.
The two thoughts are not mutually exclusive. In the tRump’s case it is both, however I suspect a stronger correlation to Dienne’s rationale than yours as that dysfuntional family is part of the wider society.
And I think the opposite. “…austerity/neoliberalism/neoconservative imperialism.” do not produce the psychologically damaged person T is but give him a path to exercise his pathology.
It’s always hard to follow the poet laureate of the blog.
But, let me add…some of you might be stunned to see how little basic, factual historical, civic and geographical content knowledge students are now coming into my classroom knowing.
I am certainly NOT going to blame the elementary teachers, not for one moment.
Of course, the common core, race to the top, blah, blah, blah, yeah, blame them.
There are lots of reasons.
But I am longtime history teacher and I am reporting a fact.
And, it is a fact that I believe Trump and his enablers have thoroughly exploited, God help us all.
Thanks for the defense, Jack.
P.S. Some though certainly all the students. They’re great kids who have not been served well by the alleged school “reformers”.
I see the same thing in my students, John.
I thought we won The Civil War, but here we are fighting the same racism. History helps us to learn from our past. Trump is a perfect example of someone that knows little of history, government or even basic geography. His mind is a tabula rasa except for what he garners from Fox News and other distorted right wing sources of information. His lack of understanding would not be a global problem if he were not the president. He continually takes us into a dark abyss due to his bias and ignorance.
Depends on who “we” are. Obviously the so-called confederacy won the long game! Sort of sarcasm dripping with contempt–of subject, not RT–for those of you who might miss it. Sort of.
As much as I want to blame the confederacy, racism was hardly the exclusive purview of the South. The North pretty quickly lost any moral high ground.
Let’s face it. Racism was and is deeply ingrained among whites. I’m all for taking down statues and monuments to people who were Confederate leaders because they betrayed their country and fought to preserve the rights of states to protect slavery.
But if we raise the bar and take down statues of every white person who was a racist, there will be very few left standing.
We must fight racism in the here and now and acknowledge that most of our dead leaders were racists.
I have a feeling we could wipe out most of history if demonstration of bigotry is our standard. We definitely don’t want to forget, but we certainly do not need to celebrate our brutality with monuments to it rubbed in the faces of those who have suffered from it.
Your last few words resonate—for how much I try to ignore the fact that this man is unfortunately making decisions that affect our lives, it is important to keep in mind that he affects the rest of the world, also.
Also thank you for including “tabla rasa.” I had to look that one up and I learned something new today!
More on “tabula rasa”…
The Civil War was fought to preserve the union. Neither the North nor the South, nor any of the Europeans who carved up Africa in the 1880s gave a rip about Africans or any of the African-related populations that had been exploited for labor way back in the colonial period. Germany killed so many people in East Africa that the Animals came back (see Meji Meji rebellion).
That said, within the support for the prosecution of the War by the Union were abolitionists idealists whose ideas began during the war to grow. Pushed down though they were, these ideas were used by a desperate Union to justify the prosecution of the war, and songs were sung about the terrible swift sword of the righteous liberators of the slaves. This provided the seed for modern concepts that have arisen all over the globe, the chief one being that the people in parts of the world besides Europe are indeed people.
This modern concept has its roots in the writings of people as far back as Elihu Root, who published the Mannumission Intellengencer in 1818 in Jonesborough, Tennessee. The massive economic expansion of the later 1800s made the electorate put the treatment of the African-American in the same bin with the treatment of the Native American. You could ignore these people. The ignoring of the small people allowed the losers in the Civil War to write the history. Most of these historians came from an assumption that was generally shared by all of society that there were some people who were successful because they had good genes, mostly European genes. But deep within the American thought process was the idealism that suggested that we are all human beings. As active White Supremacists tried to assert European superiority, others pushed back.
Against the backdrop of two world wars and the Cold War, the world began to question the postulate that European domination of the world came from a natural superiority. We live in the midst of the world processing what this means to us. It is no surprise that George Floyd’s death found reaction globally. No one could have ever guessed in 1865 that we would be where we are today. It is not over. We must strive.
I read that Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 was less about social justice and more about getting freed slaves to join the Union Army.
The Civil War may have been fought to preserve the Union, but the Union was dissolved because of slavery. There is no unlinking the two and pretending that the Civil War was just about the abstract principle of state sovereignty. See this: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp
The war was fought by treasonous racists to preserve ownership of people they considered inferior. And all Confederate monuments and symbols have THAT as their history.
All people are created equal with certain natural rights. Locke was correct. All people are born tabula rasa, not born natural brutes in need of a monarch to keep order, but born able to learn to give one another liberty, fraternity, and equal rights. We study history, philosophy, religion, geometry, science, and literature in order to help ourselves understand our part of the social contract in a democracy. Trump was born tabula rasa but did not learn history, and so his thinking remains selfish and hostile to this day. “I don’t read books,” proclaims he. Take away history education to focus on test scores and everyone becomes like Trump, an ignorant, self-centered brute. Thomas Hobbes predicted that uneducated state of being among the people would lead to bellum omnium contra omnus, war of all against all. We learn history or we don’t last.
Thank you!! History education is more important than ever, but it’s practically subversive in this climate.
Beautifully said, Threatened!
The first book I bought as a teacher was “Teaching as a Subversive Activity,” by Neil Postman and Charles Weingartner. Thirty-five years later, I’m still subversive. It may take the coronavirus to stop me.
“But studying history isn’t about the acquisition of factual knowledge alone. Historians don’t sit down in front of textbooks and expand their memories. Instead, they work with fragmentary evidence to assemble coherent narratives rooted in context. The habits required for such work—careful reading, obsessive verification, an orientation toward complexity—are hallmarks not just of good historians, but of good citizens. Historical thinking is the enemy of sloganeering and simple solutions; it is a remedy for fake news and false choices.”
Alas, another ritual denigration of fact learning and memorization.
Can you be a historian without tons of historical facts in your memory? I would love for Schneider to show me one example. Like many education professors, he seems unaware of the central role these memorized facts play in the historian’s competence. Yes, historians often look things up, because no one can know everything, but they’re only able to interpret what they look up because of the myriad facts already implanted in their long-term memories. And as they research, more facts get added to their memories. So, yes, they DO sit down in front of books and expand their memories. This, in turn, makes them better at their craft.
His call for citizens who have the habits of “careful reading, obsessive verification an orientation toward complexity” is boilerplate educator puffery. Wonderful. But how do we get kids there?
You can’t have careful readers if they can’t comprehend what they read. And you can’t comprehend what you read unless you know 95% of the words on the page. So we must teach knowledge –facts. Practicing close reading on random texts, the Common Core approach, is a dismally inefficient way to build this empowering knowledge. It doesn’t live up to its billing and it just makes kids hate school.
“Obsessive verification” is not something any real person I know does. This is pure puffery.
“Orientation toward complexity”. I assume he means “a high threshold for” complexity. Again, it seems to me, this is a byproduct of knowledge. Think of moving to a new city and listening to the AM radio traffic report. At first it’s Greek to you, because you don’t know the freeways, the exits, the geography… But once you learn all that, the complexity of the report becomes intelligible. American citizens tune out policy debates because it seems too complicated to them. Is the cure giving them Common Core-esque exercises in tolerating complex situations, or is it giving them the foundational knowledge about civics (e.g. a primer on federal agencies) and the issues (e.g. how the greenhouse model works)? It is the latter. But the lamentable orthodoxy in the education schools is that there’s some all-purpose “tolerating complexity” skill that can be imparted through mental exercises. The ed schools, still living in the shadow of John Dewey, are loathe to acknowledge an important role for memorized knowledge despite the findings of cognitive science that establish its centrality.
Thanks, Diane, for soliciting these thought-provoking essays. I hope they engender some deep and fruitful dialogue. Jack Schneider, I apologize for my sharp elbows, but I suspect you can easily hold you own.
People like facts. I mean, not all of them. But, yeah, facts.
Look at how well NYS Gov. Cuomo did updating the public on COVID-19 when he tried to focus on facts. As opposed to the bizarre, fantasy-based rants of Trump’s press briefings back in April.
Trump’s pressers were like the ravings from a bunker in 1945-era Berlin ..fake armies fighting fictional enemies.
All the briefings—state and national—should have been conducted by medical professionals, not elected officials.
Good morning Ponderosa,
I love your defense of memorization and the importance of knowing factual information. I don’t think we would ever suggest that doctors not memorize factual information about the body or lawyers not memorize factual information about the law. You have to know facts before you can make any argument. I’m not sure what “careful reading” is. Is it the ability to analyze and question a text? Is it the ability to interpret a text? Is it the ability to comprehend the subtleties of the language? Is it all these things? Understanding complexity and the ability to see the “big picture” comes from having a wide range of knowledge and experience. Asking students to have this to the degree of an adult is not appropriate.
I did not read Schneider’s essay as a put down of factual knowledge. He writes that “facts alone” are not enough.
“But studying history isn’t about the acquisition of factual knowledge alone. Historians don’t sit down in front of textbooks and expand their memories. Instead, they work with fragmentary evidence to assemble coherent narratives rooted in context. The habits required for such work—careful reading, obsessive verification, an orientation toward complexity—are hallmarks not just of good historians, but of good citizens. Historical thinking is the enemy of sloganeering and simple solutions; it is a remedy for fake news and false choices.”
“Alone” is the key word here.
Hello and good morning Diane,
No, I didn’t read it either as a put down of factual knowledge. But there is a general idea in education now that students should learn skills instead of facts. I was responding more to that idea. Thank you.
Well stated, Diane! Lack of understanding history is but one of Trump’s many flaws that include stating in a speech that the Continental Army took over the airports. He also has a tendency to embrace conspiracies. Any distasteful task or fact is “fake news” or a “hoax.”
You’re right, Diane, though I thought I detected a familiar attitude that teaching facts is an unpleasant but unavoidable pit stop on the road to the main attraction, critical thinking. Facts ARE the main attraction!
Ponderosa:
It is good to hear your defense of factual information. I have often enjoyed your analysis of why knowledge is the goal of a good education. That said, an experience I have had personally makes some argument with your point, and maybe this is also the point of the author. Let me explain.
Raised in Tennessee, I experienced meeting people who know every important fact there is to know about the American Civil War. The Western phase of the war was fought here, and the list of major preserved battle sites three hours from my home would induce understanding. Thus military historians find inspiration in the myriad of stories still extant in Tennessee families about “the war.” Many of these people can tell you every movement of the union and confederate troops at Shiloh or at Stones River (the battle of Murfreesborough to southerners). They know so many facts that they can be exhausting to talk to. Often, however, these same people need to know something about Jim Crow, for their focus on the war has robbed them of understanding of why their military genius heroes are now under fire (of rather their busts).
So I agree with you. Fact learning lies at the base of all learning. It initiates the process by which we make connections between facts and make generalizations based of these connections. But some people will get stuck on the facts. They will never make the connections unless somebody calls them to their attention.
“history can be viewed as a series of experiments”
Here’s a good example of that:
Take a deeply insecure and generally ignorant person. Give him or her enormous power. See what happens.
Well, inevitably that person surrounds himself or herself with sycophants, with toadies, who will praise the leader and crush dissent or opposition, and by this means, he or she gains even more power, and this person becomes increasingly isolated from the truth and more and more dangerous until the fantasy world that he or she has built comes crashing down. See, for example, Stalin and Ceaușescu.
Not learning from these historical experiments results in disaster. Case in point: Donald Trump.
Hello and good morning everyone,
It’s often said that we learn history so as not to repeat the mistakes of the past. Yet, so often we do repeat those mistakes. Why is that? 🙂
What does “learn history “ mean? Doesn’t it mean memorize essential history facts? But the education establishment scorns memorization. Does that mean it scorns learning history then? Yes, I’m afraid it does. They substitute learning “historical thinking” whatever that means. They get indignant at Trumpsters’ ignorance yet fail to see how their favored pedagogies insure ignorance. How is knowledge supposed to get in kids’ heads except through deliberate inculcation?
One cannot be both against ignorance and against teaching knowledge.
Yet that is the current orthodoxy. This is the contradiction at the heart of the modern educational orthodoxy. (I know you don’t hold these views Mamie. Your post just triggered this line of thinking in me).
I don’t know anyone who opposes teaching knowledge.
Consider the current uprising against racial injustice. Many with a full supply of facts and knowledge are opposed to any change in the status quo. Others with the same facts and knowledge demand a rejection of the status quo and a commitment to social justice. How could people who know the same “facts” reach such different conclusions.
Virtually every person saw the video of four police officers pinning George Floyd to the ground with one pressing his knee on Floyd’s neck until he died. Some who saw this were outraged. Some were not. Why?
More and more Americans lack empathy than ever before.
https://www.mcall.com/opinion/mc-opi-refuse-masks-social-distance-america-20200711-bhm3z3qpgfdkxg2qiztp7wozqe-story.html
“Learning history” is not just learning facts. There is always a context rooted in one’s own foundational knowledge where the person interprets what facts they learn and analyzes causes and effects. At least, that is what I would hope happens.
We don’t consume facts in a vacuum—that is how ideologies take over critical thinking. Every “fact” we take in has meaning because of our previous knowledge whether based in reality or not.
Ponderosa,
I don’t disagree about the importance of knowing who, what, where, when. But history gets interesting when you start to answer the question “Why?” It’s important for students to see that historians disagree, debate, and discuss. Sometimes they reach consensus but often not.
Sorry —can’t give a proper response now. Leaving internet range.
Knowledge matters. It matters a lot. I wish that we would worry a lot more about preparing English teachers who are deeply knowledgeable in their subject. In the past, when I interviewed people for jobs as editors of ELA textbooks, I used to ask them questions like this: Name a favorite poem by William Butler Yeats. Tell me about it. Who was Virgil, and what is an eclogue? What is a motif index? How is an Elizabethan sonnet structured? What’s the inciting incident of Pride and Prejudice? Tell me about some works by two of your favorite living poets. Name two characteristics that gerunds and infinitives have in common. What is generative grammar? Tell me something that Samuel Johnson is known for. When W.E.B. DuBois wrote of the “sorrow songs,” what was he referring to? When marking a manuscript, how do you indicate uppercase and lowercase? What’s the difference between a bibliography and a Works Cited page? What were the guiding principles of the New Criticism? In what ways are parables and fables similar and different? And so on. Why? Because establishing that the candidate was not ignorant of the subject was job 1. Knowledge is the sine qua non. I had no interest whatsoever in hearing them babble about “activating prior knowledge” or “building critical thinking skills.” But I was interested in whether they could tell me the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning or what a counterfactual conditional and a reductio ad absurdum are or what types of numbers are used to express probabilities, for the answers to those questions would tell me whether they actually knew anything about thinking.
I find this whole line of reasoning specious at best. It’s not either or. “Deliberate inculcation” is not education. It borders on indoctrination. Education is mix of facts and context, hopefully bound by anything from poetry to literature to nonfiction and independent thinking. And it’s ensure, not insure. At least that’s what the subtleties of my education have taught me. It seems to me this post is designed to be disagreeable for the sake of being disagreeable.
Greg—what is context but more facts? Teaching doctrine is indoctrination. Teaching facts is teaching.
I believe ensure and insure are synonymous.
Teaching is more than facts. Facts are basic but without context and understanding, facts are inert.
Context is fitting facts together, having the ability to understand nuances, seeing connections that others don’t and being able to explain them. I had a lot of teachers like you and thankfully I don’t really remember any of them. The ones whose memory I value understood that there was not one way, not one set of facts, not any kind of indoctrination (“Teaching is indoctrination.” Really? Do you really believe that?). They were educators. You seem to be an assembly line overseer where only one kind of widget is produced, over and over again. Thank goodness I didn’t have you as a “teacher” (the quotes are intentional).
Wow, Greg. There is a danger in judging a person entirely by one statement or stance. There is also room for discussion without insult. This strikes me as a bit ironic since it appears you agree there is context behind fact, yet you are willing to attack Ponderosa for being “a terrible teacher” based on a single argument with no regard for the context of the person’s knowledge, skill, experience, and professionalism.
I have been a commenter on this blog for the better part of a decade and have had disagreements with the best of them (my favorites are the charter goons who have warped views of public education), but would I question the integrity of another teacher so blatantly and with such insult instead of discuss and debate the tenet? No. There is little value in making broad assumptions based on a piece of information. Headline reactions are often steeped in our own prejudices toward a topic.
I always felt this was a safe space for teachers to discuss points of view without the tired “teachers like you are bad” rhetoric we endure constantly from the public.
I appreciate the defense, LG! I’m pretty good at ignoring personal attacks here. But I’m happy to have my ideas attacked –as long as they’re supported with good reasoning.
Hello Bob,
I’ve always thought that teachers should have a sound Liberal Arts education and a Master’s degree in their field – NOT in education. I think methodology should be secondary.
By the way, Greg, I did not say “teaching is indoctrination”. Go back and reread.
Not judging on one statement. Ponderosa makes the same arguments about education being an assembly line process over and over and over again. This was the first time I’ve responded because it’s getting ridiculous.
Yes I did mistype, it’s “Teaching doctrine is indoctrination.” Big difference. I stand by what I wrote earlier. If indoctrination is teaching, then no wonder Stalinism and Naziism are in ascendance. Widespread implementation will ensure more acquiescent robot-like drones for the future. The Age of Adminimals!
So you disagree with two statements, but does that change everything? There is no room for personal judgements or attacks in this debate. I have seen you do it before, so I’m just pointing out that it’s dirty pool.
That said, some teaching does resemble the assembly-line depending on where you go. Modern public schools have been encouraged to promote student interaction (one of the few things I feel was a positive outcome in using the Danielson model for informing best practices in an evaluative setting), but many charters employ scripting and canned responses to teacher authority: Student mind is empty, teacher places knowledge in student mind, student is tested to death, repeat if results are not achieved, ad nauseum.
I think what Ponderosa rails against is the universal manager model that says if you are taught a bunch of techniques of management, you can successfully manage any enterprise, whether you have any knowledge of the particular business or not. In education, it is the emphasis on teaching skills that are supposed to allow you to easily access any academic content. I think Ponderosa is making an extremely important point. We have seen the dehumanizing effects of hedge fund takeovers that seem to focus only on boilerplate techniques to raise profitability by stripping off all lucrative assets and leaving a skeleton whose only option is to dissolve. The recent imbalance between how to learn (skills) over what to learn (content/context) mimics that situation in business.
To be honest, I had not actually read Ponderosa’s comments on this. I was just giving an example of how I agree with the statement. Yours is an even more detailed and well-thought-out interpretation of the model. And I would still never insult Ponderosa by saying “you’re a terrible teacher” which is actually the whole point of my last few comments. We need to get rid of that response as it does nothing for our profession.
“To be honest, I had not actually read Ponderosa’s comments on this.”
LMFAO
The measure of any good teacher (or any educated person for that matter) is knowing just how ignorant they are. That’s why we read about things we think we know a lot about. We’re always learning. I would say that any teacher who “knows” what “facts” are “important” and tries to “indoctrinate” students is, by definition, not a teacher but an ideological apparatchik. I learned as much or more from students I taught as they might have from me.
Nor did I write “you’re a terrible teacher” (you should know that the first mission of quoting someone else is accuracy, yes, yes, I did accidentally leave out the word “doctrine” when I quoted Ponderosa, but it did not change the intent and thrust of “indoctrination”). What I did write was “Thank goodness I didn’t have you as a ‘teacher’”. But admittedly, I had many so-called teachers like that. It seems you did not even read my comments, which I invite you to do now starting with the first one that argued the comments that the comment that sparked this discussion was “designed to be disagreeable for the sake of being disagreeable” of the topic of this post, a thoroughly reasonable and cogent argument about “Why Study History?” Did you actually read that?
That probably doesn’t fit into “the Danielson model for informing best practices in an evaluative setting”, I would guess. At least that’s my judgment (not sic). Adminimals, indoctrination, not actually read[ing]. No wonder we have such a hard time defending and building public education in this nation.
You paraphrased a previous comment by Ponderosa saying that schools are assembly lines as further proof of why you feel Ponderosa is not an effective teacher (like so many your children had that you are happy to forget), and I offered you an argument in support of the assembly line statement as you presented it.
If you had offered the backstory as your evidence, the discussion would have continued on those lines but thankfully someone else filled in the blanks by doing your work for you. And I agree with Ponderosa even more now.
The rest of your condescending micro-aggressions have been summarily ignored and will be in the future. Too bad, too, because you sometimes make interesting points. However your audience does not need to be talked down to. Your credibility dwindles in that case. Seriously, buddy, who hurt you?
“If you had offered the backstory as your evidence…” If you had read what you cherry-picked to criticize that point would be moot.
Is “condescending mircoaggressions”, a term you must have learned in adminimal training. They’re not micro-anything. They’re out loud and directed squarely at you. I’m certainly not your buddy. And that’s not just my judgment (not sic). You would have made a great apparatchik. Just born at the wrong time and place.
My goodness, what a debate. Here’s my two cents: Teach facts with context. Read about the facts with more context. Discuss the facts. Have students write about the readings and discussions. Give feedback and corrections on the essays. Do NOT teach: fact finding skills, reading skills, discussion skills, or writing skills. In other words, teach like the standards were never written.
I think you basically have it although I would rather JUST put the emphasis on content and context and only teach skills as they relate to the completion of a product and the needs of the student(s). Collecting facts to support a position? That’s where how to collect factual resources comes in. Writing skills? How to apply appropriate style manual protocols. As a special ed teacher, I had to teach my students different ways to chunk a reading, so they didn’t get bogged down in just trying to get through it and have no idea what they read when they finished. However the bottom line is always CONTENT AND ITS CONTEXT.
Oh, and the more you know, the more you know you don’t know.
Well said. The beginning of wisdom is to know what you don’t know.
Ain’t it the truth!
Also, the more you know, the more you know Pearson and College Board don’t know what you know.
LCT, stated much more succinctly, diplomatically and factually than I am capable of doing, given that I am fed up with equivocation and rationalization. Thank you.
No prob.
You brought me to tears of joy. Seriously. Or at least what can qualify as a semblance of joy these days.
In 1996, during my first few days trying out teaching as an elementary substitute teacher on a 30-day temp credential, I was at the copy machine and I overheard two experienced primary grade teachers talking. I remember one said, “Teachers ask questions most of the time.” I suppose that by high school we ask fewer questions while the students spend more time answering them, but the statement still rings. I always think about it.
YouTube is such a wonderful thing. I am a big fan of The Great British Baking Show and especially Paul Hollywood, I’ve recently discovered his series City Bakes on YouTube, where he travels around the world and experiences different ways of baking. And he’s an expert! Everywhere he goes, he experiences different types of baking that are completely new to him. He never stops learning. Tonight I watched the episode he did in Bergen, Norway, one of my favorite places I have visited in the world (it’s here as a college student that I learned the joys of raw salmon). The beauty of dried cod (if this resonates at all, please read Mark Kurlansky’s biography of cod) is something few can conceive of unless they’ve experienced it. This is history lesson I’d love to teach and could not possibly be standardized, tested, or subjected to some ridiculous rubrik. It’s history and it matters to and teaches me.
Yes.
Isn’t it interesting that the best critical thinkers almost alway seem to know a lot? And how the most credulous almost always seem not to know a lot? Coincidence? No. Knowledge, not exercising thinking “muscles”, is the foundation of critical thinking. Is there such a thing as a critical thinker who knows little? Yet schools give short shrift to the long, difficult and important work of teaching knowledge and privilege mental workouts that leave little learning behind.
One can’t think critically about anything without factual knowledge, for sure. But facts can be put in many different contexts. Judgment must be based on facts. But two people who have the same facts can reach very different conclusions, based on their biases and interpretations.
My best friend in the world is not formally educated. He went through nine grades in German schools (the “lowest” way to graduate and go through to vocational education). He does not read much, but he pays attention to the news (a very German “thing”) and can reason things through better than anyone I know. Years ago I explained to him how one could not be Republican candidate unless one denied basic scientific knowledge and used the theory of evolution as an example. There were actually politicians in positions of power who believed the earth was 5-6,000 years old! He looked at me and said, “But, but…that’s a settled question! What do you mean they are still arguing about this?” He couldn’t cite a lot of facts, but he is still one the of the brightest, thoughtful people I have ever met. He was taught well and incorporated it into his life. Would that all our citizens could be as educated.
Diane,
Isn’t the factual learning one does in history class precisely a way of installing context (literally, the stuff that goes WITH the ‘text’ –i.e. the connections) in a learner’s brain? For example, high school fact learning about the Civil War, Reconstruction and Jim Crow imparts to long-term memory a context that activates when we see instances of racial injustice today. Without that prior fact learning, BLM could seem like a senseless riot. Isn’t history class all about context building? And isn’t context just a web of related facts? Am I missing something?
I suspect part of the hostility to these claims comes from the fact that “fact” connotes disconnected dates and names. But when I say “fact” I mean datum –any bit of knowledge, connected or disconnected. That Southerners erected Confederate statutes during Jim Crow is a fact. A unit on Jim Crow creates a context that is a web of such facts.
Diane,
In all due respect, I am not sure you are fully cognizant of the current environment that teachers encounter in the age of Gates/Danielson. I teach High School science. We have a running joke in our department: don’t get caught teaching. Students are to be working together to “figure things out”. Content is seriously frowned upon. I am not sure you grasp what Ponderosa is saying here. It is shocking in the trenches.
History as a process makes the attempt to come up with a narrative that supports the culture. The stories are vital for the psychological health of the community. Historians try to make sure in our modern society that the stories are based in actuality, but mankind is a creature of myth. Our modern heroes are almost as unrealistic as the old Greek heroes who sailed about the Mediterranean Sea holding off the lure of the Sirens.
We are in a period when the heroes of past years are being called into question because of their beliefs. This is because we want our stories to be true to ideals we promote. But our own stories will never be perfect either. As Bob shows above in his quotes from the Abraham Lincoln, history facts can be complex. Our history heroes are not so complex. They make brilliant moves in a battle that everybody wants to study. They seem to sacrifice self when all is lost.
Erwin Rommel, Hitler’s brilliant general, came to Tennessee to study (before Hitler) another brilliant general, Nathan Bedford Forrest. It is obvious why. Forrest was an exceptional military thinker. Today, he is controversial for being in the group that founded the KKK. Of course we have no proof of that, for the KKK was a secret organization. We do not even have proof that he attempted to disband the KKK as it became violent, although Hooded Americanism, a book from 40 or so years ago, gives that impression. Forrest was brilliant as a militarist. As a political leader, not so much. I bet Rommel did not know that.
My hero is Marc Bloch. He was a brilliant French historian who was gunned down as a member of the French resistance during the Nazi occupation by sneering Nazis. He reinvented history along with Fernand Braudel and other contributors to the Annales, his literary journal.
(Unrelated time the discussion: The fictional Forrest Gump was named for him.)
Brazilian education has also been destroyed (even before Bolsonaro). With the new BNCC (Basic National Common Curricular) of 2018, many contents in the Humanities have become optional in High School (“High School”). Any school has a legal guarantee not to offer arts; Philosophy; Sociology and other knowledge that can develop awareness of criticality.
Since yesterday (July 10) everything has gotten worse, with the choice of a new Minister of Education linked to the Fundamentalist churches.
Where will we go with this false education, when even the President’s diagnosis for COVID-19 is suspect ???
What Dienne, speduktr & Duane said earlier. I have been reading Howard Zinn lately–my daughter’s copy from high school, especially helpful as her notes are copious, & she has an outstanding teacher, so all the addenda is brilliant. If I’m not mistaken, I believe that Zinn’s books were on a banned list not too long ago. Well, of course.
Also, a few years ago I saw a play based on Hamlet, w/the story haven been written through another POV. How history can be changed, & no kidding about the veracity of Wikipedia!
“Let’s be careful out there!” (from Stephen Bochco’s {o.b.m.} Hill Street Blues)
Oh, & there is a really interesting vintage film (from the 50s or 60s–?) that’s often on the Smithsonian cable channel about the Texas Textbook Committee (not the exact name, but know you know it, Diane), & how the people on that committee were absolutely in charge of textbooks for the state: their word was the last.
HELP !!!!
Brazilian Minister of Education defends physical punishment of children …
See more at https://noticias.uol.com.br/colunas/chico-alves/2020/07/11/ministro-da-educacao-apaga-video -with-defense-from-physical-punishment-to-children.htm? utm_source = chrome & utm_medium = webalert & utm_campaign = news & cmpid = copiaecola
Brazil is under the toxic spell of Trump.
Exactly!
Trump’s toxic tentacles are being very well received by Brazil’s administrative policy.
His “boot-licking dog” denied being sick in March and, due to judicial force, had tests (containing a false name).
This time, he claimed to be positive for covid-19. However, no one in their relationship is ill, not even a wife and daughter (the one who was conceived “by carelessness” in his words).
Many are saying that he is lying!
Did I hear that some states still allow physical punishment? Hard to defend.
Corporal punishment in schools is still legal in 19 states. Expect to see a lot more of this after the Espinoza decision–more Trumpty state voucher programs for extremist fundamentalist schools run by people who are just fine with beating children.
History is a story. It is someone’s version of what happened. We need a history version of The Language Police. There is an interesting book – Myth and the American Experience ed. Cords and Gerster. One piece of history I wish people knew more about is why the north abandoned reconstruction and what happened as a result.
“ The measure of any good teacher (or any educated person for that matter) is knowing just how ignorant they are.“
I’m SURE that wasn’t a passive-aggressive micro-aggression aimed at me. Your slip is showing. 🙄
“ “Thank goodness I didn’t have you as a ‘teacher’” Really, now…is that called for? Still didn’t see an apology despite the fact that Ponderosa seems to not require one.
…Skills lessons are not lessons unto themselves, but are embedded… floating comment… in the ways teachers guide students through reading or practicing, and in the feedback and correction given on the work done…
Ponderosa, this is your best piece yet on fact learning and memorization [7/11 10:43am]– learning content vs “acquiring learning skills.” These are difficult discussions to have online, even among teachers. One feels the need for little video clips from the classroom– ” this is what I mean.* “. Kudos to you for kicking it off and sharpening your pencil.
And to speduktr [7/12 1:06pm], who puts the academic discussion into the larger context. One way or another, the entire society has been struggling under the yoke of bean-counters since tech pushed us from analog to digital.
As one who spent a decade behind a corporate desk [plus regular updates from hubby still behind one], it is perfect to have the educational debate bracketed by the econ-influenced managerial paradigm that’s dogged school halls for 30 yrs. And corporate halls for even longer. Since the advent of “working from home,” I’m privy to the push-pull of mgrl “accountability” vs technical know-how via regular conference calls. Just as in our world, some of it [eco-mgt side] is warranted, but most of it isn’t. In the engrg world, e.g., “accountability” is baked into the reqt that bldgs stand & not fall– & an excess of caution was always [before the proliferation of admin] limited by client budget.
The ed-reform “skills-based” approach comes straight from the same place. It’s all part of constructing assessments from the “computer’s” POV. Too many facts/ too much content to corral? Re-imagine learning! Pretend it’s the acquisition of a corral-able number of posited “learning skills”, & insist these imaginary entities are assessable. From that ILLEGITIMATE PROCESS flows warped standards, warped curriculum content & pedagogy– the very definition of “top-down.”
Applying the computer-based, eco-mgrl-inspired “skills-based” paradigm to learning is so boneheaded that one finds oneself trying to articulate things that seem self-evident– but aren’t, in an upside-down world. As Timothy illustrates “from the trenches” [7/13 4:39pm].
I appreciate the kind words, Bethree5.
You’re right about how these discussions are difficult (perhaps too difficult?) to have online.
I think speduktr/s and your connecting the education and business worlds is interesting and important. Business’s prestige let it infiltrate education, but as you show business orthodoxy often doesn’t work even in the business world.
You’re right too about the Reformers’ overly narrow concept of accountability. I work hard in large part because I want to keep up my reputation with students and parents. That’s meaningful accountability. Why are there bad teachers then? I’d posit bad ideas as one big culprit –something that is invisible to all those who know management but not education theory and cognitive science. How many education leaders have read and comprehended E.D. Hirsch’s profound critique of the ed school orthodoxy? None that I know of.
Finally you’re right to point out the warping going on. NCLB, Common Core, and the flawed model of education at their root have almost wrecked public education. It’s sad that most people don’t see this. To grasp this requires a deep dive into education theory and models of learning. Few are equipped to do this. I fear we’ll have to have some sort of catastrophic national humiliation for the “skills” orthodoxy to finally be questioned and overthrown.
It is such a co-incident that I shared somewhat similar thoughts about history just today. While Mr. Jack combined global happenings to put up his points, which I agree to, I tried understanding relevance of history with respect to India where COVID plateau seemed to be a blip instead. Great insights though.