Uncomfortable conversations with my fellow history teachers.
Thematic vs. Chronological History My history department colleagues struggle to make sense of me and my practice, something apparent in the way they roll their eyes every time I respond to the question, "So... where are you?" The translation for those of you non-historical teachers: What year or era are you talking about in your class? Though many have voiced a lack of understanding about my thematic approach to student learning, none have shown any interest or asked meaningful questions. I believe "condescending distaste" would be a more appropriate representation of my peers' reactions. Most of the history teachers at my school teach from textbooks, which cover history chronologically: They start their courses at a certain year and plod forward, getting through as many years as possible by the end of the academic year. Students take notes. Students take exams. Students may write paragraphs/papers that summarize historical events. Sometimes students do a contained activity about the concept they're learning. A thematic approach allows students to draw comparisons between historical and contemporary events. For example last year sophomores chose between the American, French, and Haitian Revolutions and analyzed the idea of terrorism with modern examples, such as New York van attack, the Boston Marathon bombing, 9/11, or the shooting of Congressman Steve Scalise. They could have also come up with their own examples, as long as they went through a Topic of Interest Protocol and cleared the idea with me. They wrote long Historical Fiction Narratives, created Art Installations, and were required to have conversations with people outside of our high school campus about terrorism. One student went to a local fire department and spoke with the fire fighters about 9/11 and how it impacted their decisions for careers. A knowledge of history is only important in how it connects to events taking place in our lives today. My class is messy, and I don't mean untidy or dirty (I vacuum the floor and clean the desks). I mean student discussions are often loud and sprawling across topics. My juniors have been contacting politicians, political organizations, as well as our staff, concerning the Propositions on the California 2018 midterm ballot. They send out scores of emails and have had phone conversations with a local Assemblywoman and the mayor during class. To anyone walking in, accustomed to the more frequent approach of stand-and-deliver teaching, my class certainly appears disorganized - perhaps even uncivilized. Oh, and I don't give exams. But something that I've heard repeatedly that I will never say: "Last year my class only got to the '90s." Or "the Cold War." Or whenever. I believe that our knowledge of history is only important in how it connects to events taking place in our lives today. As educators we must engage our audience. A poster on the Flappers of the 1920s or a "simulation" of economics with Skittles is not engaging. It's not a project. It's not meaningful.
Lessons from The Edge Teaching from the periphery (where traditional history teachers spend NO time) involves circumventing national myths and narratives. Textbooks automatically take on the state-centric view, which tends to marginalize dissenting perspectives and eliminate diversity. Admit it fellow history teachers: there's no real discussion allowed in your class. Students get to choose an argument (you or the textbook provide) and fill in the argument with a historical summary (you or the textbook provide). Be Social Science educators! You should not allow standardized exam and textbook companies dictate what your students learn. Unless you value the fascist model of government, break out of teaching the history of nations, and allow your students to learn the history of people. I make these assertions confidently thanks to historians like Howard Zinn, who in 1980 warned us:
“Nations are not communities and never have been. The history of any country, presented as the history of a family, conceals the fierce conflicts of interest (sometimes exploding, often repressed) between conquerors and conquered, masters and slaves, capitalists and workers, dominators and dominated in race and sex. And in such a world of conflict, a world of victims and executioners, it is the job of thinking people, as Albert Camus suggested, not to be on the side of the executioners.”
Please stop marching our young people through their education into an apathetic sense of citizenship. Our country is great because it (supposedly) encourages criticism and improvement of its policies. Let students consider what centralized governments really do and have done. Young people need to look around and make sense of the world of today, before yesterday means anything to them.
Commentaires