The role of history lessons in schools

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Agathon
In general, humanities education in schools is terrible. One problem is that students aren't really told why they are doing it. I remember doing English and students asking why we were reading these books, and we could never get a straight answer. I had to go to university before it became obvious why. I hated high school, and spent most of my time smoking weed, listening to records and having sex. Yet I ended up going much further in education than anyone in my year.

For the most part, you get what you put in to it. That means you get graduates who can do calculus and write after a fashion, but who are devoid of critical thinking skills. No-one seems to know what high school education is for, other than "preparing students to enter the workforce". As if most of the things we do have anything to do with the jobs we end up in.

Society would be much better served by working the students hard on English grammar and informal logic (what gets called critical reasoning). Along with that, a history program that is focused and attempts to explain why things are the way they are would be nice. The best teacher I ever had was my high school history teacher. But even he struggled with the ****ty curriculum we had. He was an oddity as well. Most of the good teachers were retiring and the government wasn't paying new teachers enough to encourage anyone but monkeys to take it up.

University isn't that much better either. The admissions scheme tends to cut out people who would actually bring some life to colleges and replaces them with shallow resumé stuffers.

This is insightful...to a degree.

While certainly more could be done in the areas you detail, it comes to mind what the opportunity cost of doing so would be. If we increase the English and history curriculum at the cost of mathmatics(for example) then we would be putting ourselves further behind in critical fields in post secondary education.
The so called "college preparatory" path in high schools should be centered on a basic broad overview of all disciplines possible. Once at a university, then critical reasoning and historical context/implication can be concentrated on in the early segments and specialization in a field in the later segments. This is, in my mind, what we attempt to do now. It is also noteworthy that the post secondary educational system here seems to produce some of the top people in all fields.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by PLATO


This is insightful...to a degree.

While certainly more could be done in the areas you detail, it comes to mind what the opportunity cost of doing so would be. If we increase the English and history curriculum at the cost of mathmatics(for example) then we would be putting ourselves further behind in critical fields in post secondary education.
The so called "college preparatory" path in high schools should be centered on a basic broad overview of all disciplines possible. Once at a university, then critical reasoning and historical context/implication can be concentrated on in the early segments and specialization in a field in the later segments. This is, in my mind, what we attempt to do now. It is also noteworthy that the post secondary educational system here seems to produce some of the top people in all fields.

I guess it comes down to what you think secondary education is for. I think that it should not be about vocational training, for the simple reason that (other than readin', writin' and addin') most vocational training is too specialized to warrant inclusion.

The hard sciences and advanced mathematics should be there as options, but the core curriculum should be aimed at producing informed and rational democratic citizens.

When the average person doesn't understand why we pay tax, education has failed.

[Patroklos]

When the average person doesn't understand why we pay tax, education has failed.

Bah, everyone here seems to know what it is for.

To punish rich people.

[Imran Siddiqui]

In my high school (IIRC), the history MANDATORY classes were:

1) World History
2) -Nothing-
3) American History I
4) American History II

People who liked history, however, took 20th Century History in the 2nd year.

World History, IMO, was fairly good for a high school class because of the teacher, who seemed to demand more than, say, and English 1 teacher in the school (and for that some people disliked him).

American history 1 and 2 were somewhat of jokes. I was in the advanced placement versions of those classes, but its kind of silly how little we learned there vis-a-vis the comparable college level courses. Though I was surprised that we did learn about the Haymaker riots and whatnot.

Personally, I think that 20th Century History should have been mandatory (though I think the reason it was a good class is because most people there were actually interested in history, giving the teacher a bit more leeway in teaching more in depth stuff... like actually talking about Asian and ME history).

[b etor]

my high school [[mandatory classes]]:
freshmen. World Cultures
sophomores. American Government & Economics
juniors. Americas History
seniors. World History
we have other term classes like Civil War, Anthropology, Holocaust, Elections, and World War II and stuff.

in my grade school we learned about:
4th grade -our state and general US history
5th grade -canada in
6th grade -egypt/greece/rome/spain/allthatstuff
7th & 8th -basically all american history.

[PLATO]

The "core" "College preparatory" requirements at my son's high school are:

4 years English
2 years Foriegn language
2 years mathmatics (algebra I or above)
1 year history
2 years science (physical science, biolog, chemistry, physics)

I think the problem lies in the vocational path to a high school degree and not the college preparatory path. Most vocational path students that I have seen would just drop out and go to work if they were forced to take more "useless" (in their eyes) classes. At least this way, many are learning the basics of a skilled trade in high school...otherwise they would hit the market as purely unskilled labor.

[b etor]

only ONE year of history!?

my school:

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Re: Re: The role of history lessons in schools

Originally posted by Agathon


To understand the history (Gr. historia) of the Greeks and Romans is to understand the broadest features (L. factura)of why the world is the way it is. The fact (L. factum) that our language (L. lingua) is littered (L. orig lectus with their words, and that we basically (Gr. basis) have to use Latin or Greek words or derivations (L . derivatio) when we want to talk about anything important (L. from importare) is evidence (L. evidentia) of that.

These people limned (L. luminare) the way we think and express ourselves when we move into theorizing (Gr. theoria) about the way the world works. The way of thinking introduced by them is the characteristic (Gr. character) feature of our civilization.

It doesn't tell kids why Muslims are putting bombs in cars. And I think I got that point across without dropping out of good old Anglo-Saxon at any point.

[Apocalypse]

I agree with molly bloom that things like "vigorous beneficial interaction between the worlds of Islam, Christianity and Judaism in the Middle Ages, or concern about deforestation in Mediaeval England, or debates on faith and politics in Ancient Greece" should be covered. I don't always seeing those taught well until college. Before then, teachers focus on them incorrectly (like looking at food and art).

[Agathon]

Re: Re: Re: The role of history lessons in schools

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp

It doesn't tell kids why Muslims are putting bombs in cars. And I think I got that point across without dropping out of good old Anglo-Saxon at any point.

No it doesn't.

But I would think that the development of abstract thought and science mattered a whole lot more than that.

People forget the most important lesson of history: the way we now think is not the way that human beings have always thought. What for us is normal and common sense literally could not be conceptualized by our ancestors. That's why we should ruthlessly interrogate our own assumptions.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But if you think that the British government will allow state paid teachers to tell the students the real cause of Muslims putting bombs in cars, I think you have another thing coming.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Re: Re: Re: Re: The role of history lessons in schools

Originally posted by Agathon
But I would think that the development of abstract thought and science mattered a whole lot more than that.

Schoolkids don't get taught that, however. Philosophy students might, but not your average Comprehensive school kid taking three years of cursory History tuition. They'll learn that we got conquered by Romans, who had central heating. And that Greeks had democracy at some point.

They won't learn about how the oldest representative Parliament in the world owes nothing to the Greeks, or why England, Scotland and Wales actually came to exist at all. To say nothing of the Troubles or our latest issues.

[lord of the mark]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The role of history lessons in schools

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp



Schoolkids don't get taught that, however. Philosophy students might, but not your average Comprehensive school kid taking three years of cursory History tuition. They'll learn that we got conquered by Romans, who had central heating. And that Greeks had democracy at some point.

They won't learn about how the oldest representative Parliament in the world owes nothing to the Greeks, or why England, Scotland and Wales actually came to exist at all. To say nothing of the Troubles or our latest issues.

The existence of parliament may not owe anything to the Greeks (whether its an evolution from anglo-saxon precedents, or is closer to continental medieval assemblies of nobles to approve taxes is a matter one could debate I suppose) but given that for most of its historical career, parliament wasnt particularly democratic, is that meaningful? When democratic political theories were developed in the late 18 c and into the 19th, there was definitely an awareness of Athenian democracy.

[Dauphin]

This topic is currently under discussion by British politicians- the argument is that our traditional history lessons spend far too much time focussing on the Greeks, Romans and Medieval cultures, with the result that kids have very little understanding of why the modern world is the way it is.

Do you feel there should be a much greater emphasis on the past 100 years or so in schools, with the more distant past largely omitted?

From memory at school I was taught the following.

Age 12-13: Neanderthals and some other weird stuff involving coracles, druids and Piltdown man.

Age 14: World War One and the build up to. 1905-1914. We went on a field trip to Ypres. American immigration in the interwar period. German hyperinflation. Rise of Fascism and Nazism. Invasion of Poland. Something about Guernica.

Age 15-16: British economic and social history. Agricultural revolution, industrialisation, second industrial revoluton, transport (MacAdamised roads, canals, railways), poor houses, poverty (Rowntree), Lords reform in the early 1900s, introduction of pensions, Jarrow march, Welfare state (Bevan and Beveridge), Thatcher. Went on a field trip Sheffield and the iron/steel industry, went down a coal mine. Visited Arkwright's mills.

As I say, that's what I remember being taught. I was probably taught other stuff that I don't recall being taught* or learnt through computer games anyhow.

All in all, it's already what you are suggesting as the alternative to Romans and Tudors. Unless my school was atypical.


* eg Battle of Hastings was probably in there, but I have been to Hastings and Battle quite a few times and can't remember what I was taught and what I just soaked up.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

I can barely remember my own, but then I gave it up at 14.

[Dauphin]

I actually enjoyed history at school. It was the only subject at GSCE that I remember a lot about because it was taught well rather than because I had an interest in it.

So Laz, what did you do after 14? I seem to recall you saying "I gave it up at 14" on quite a few subjects; is that because you were given a choice not to do them in favour of another subject or because you 'did them' but paid not attention to them because you had better things to do?