What Is True/Slant?
275+ knowledgeable contributors.
Reporting and insight on news of the moment.
Follow them and join the news conversation.

Mar. 26 2010 - 3:04 am | 1,860 views | 4 recommendations | 4 comments

Is it possible to teach non-partisan, non-ideological history?

Recent articles in the New York Times, Dallas Morning News, and Education Week have covered the controversial changes to K-12 Texas history standards recently made by the Texas State Board of Education. While current interest is focused on whether a conservative ideology is being foisted upon a captive audience of public school students, the bigger and more important issue is how history can and should be taught.

I submit that it is impossible to teach a history class that is non-partisan, non-ideological, and objective. But this isn’t necessarily a bad thing, because history is, by its very nature, messy. Not only do people have very different perspectives about how or why events they experienced actually happened, or what their impact was, but new evidence and perspectives emerge over time that influence how people think about events that they never lived through.

For example, my grandmother–who I would classify politically as a right-leaning moderate–believes that Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt has been the best U.S. President in her lifetime. This is in large part due to him putting together programs that helped people, her own family included, during the Depression. Yet a strong argument has been made by the 2004 book FDR’s Folly that it was Roosevelt’s “New Deal itself, with its shortsighted programs, that deepened the Great Depression, swelled the federal government, and prevented the country from turning around quickly.” This argument has been used recently by conservatives to discourage government intervention in the economic crisis, while liberals have rejected it. I don’t know how FDR and the New Deal could be taught in a history class without acknowledging different partisan and ideological viewpoints, as well as viewpoints that vary due to one’s age and experience.

So if we accept the idea that views of history often change over time, and that there may be many ways of viewing (and teaching) important events, what’s the solution for our schools? Here’s one possibility:

First, in grades K-4, any teaching of history should be kept very basic and non-controversial. The primary goal during this period should be for students to become somewhat familiar with facts, people, places, and events they will encounter later in their educational careers. The “mile wide, inch deep” approach used in most grades and subjects actually works here.

Once fifth grade starts, however, the “mile wide, inch deep” approach should be dropped in favor of in-depth learning about critical events throughout U.S. and world history. This might mean, for example, spending a semester on the Revolutionary War or the Civil Rights Movement, rather than a few weeks. Extended time would allow for the inclusion of more people and groups who played a role in those events, debates about whether people made the right choices at the time and if those choices still look correct today, and the acknowledgement of different perspectives–all of which are central issues in the Texas debate. The critical thinking promoted by this model would far surpass anything that’s going on in most schools right now.

When thinking of this model, I reflected back on my experience as a college student and as a high school teacher. From my undergraduate course on the Vietnam War at the University of Michigan, I have exactly two memories. The first is from a class period when we had a guest lecturer. He had been in the Air Force during the war, and he stated that the United States was beaten fair and square in Vietnam, and that although the military did make many mistakes, no country on earth could have won that war given the type of resistance they faced. He also talked about the “fact” that the military fought all-out and not with one arm tied behind its back. My second memory is from the following week, when we had another guest lecturer. This gentleman had been a POW in Vietnam for seven years, and he spent quite a bit of time talking about the “fact” that the U.S. military lost the war because it was fighting with one arm tied behind its back (i.e., limited in what it was allowed to do with regard to fighting). As a 19-year-old, I was intrigued that two people who both fought in the same war could have such different views, and be so certain that their view was correct. And since both men were well-spoken and provided logical arguments, I was pushed to think long and hard about who had the better argument (I’m still working on that).

When teaching U.S. government at a high school on the south side of Chicago last year, I tried to do what my college professor had done. When I heard my students making mostly critical comments about George W. Bush, for example, I drew a table on the board and listed various areas where President Bush had taken action. I then showed them a column filled with actions in these areas that I knew the students would disagree with. Then, I unveiled the second column, which had actions in each area that I knew the students would like. We then talked about the fact that depending on who one lived with and talked to, and what one watched and read, a person could have very different ideas of what occurred and not necessarily have the whole story. Similarly, a few weeks after Barack Obama’s inauguration, I asked my students, all of whom were African American, if they knew who had just been chosen to lead the Republicans against Obama and the Democrats. Most guessed John McCain, or George W. Bush, so when I put up a picture of Michael Steele, the newly-selected chair of the Republican National Committee (RNC), they were flummoxed. “But he’s black,” commented a few students simultaneously. This led to a discussion of the history of political parties and why certain groups tend to vote for them. Along the way we discussed the Republican party’s history (from Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, to their support for Lyndon Johnson’s Civil Rights legislation in the 1960s, to Richard Nixon’s “southern strategy” as a way to capture white voters who had abandoned the Democratic party in the mid-1960s), which again caused some cognitive dissonance for the students given their prior notions about Republicans.

The “problem” with teaching history like this is that it takes time to explore an issue in depth, and to explain and discuss different points of view. And that means creating state standards that do not attempt to cover everything. But history is more interesting to students, and more accurately taught by teachers, if fewer topics/events are taught in greater depth. (This is why so many people enjoy reading 400-page biographies of historical figures, and why HBO’s 10-hour miniseries about John Adams was so successful.)  If done correctly, less can be more when it comes to teaching history in a way that acknowledges its multi-partisan, multi-ideological, subjective nature.


2 T/S Member Comments Called Out, 4 Total Comments
Post your comment »
  1. collapse expand

    Where one things ceases often, another starts. But when do systems turn into beliefs, made to seem natural and too widespread to change? We have one such phenominia that continues to mock us and push us around.A spent piece of chariot trash from 1800BC the ego oriented, antiquated economic system As history clearly warns us, communism, democracy, fascism, capitalism, dictatorships, or monarchies; this old boy has no loyalty to any; it pushes all who participate over the cliff of indebtedness.

    A theory can be revisited and revised… wherever evidence leads. A belief just carries too high a profile; is it wise to want carry would want such a load?

    It would better to have more theories and less beliefs. Instead of proving people wrong about their flawed misconceptions, focus on stressing the added convenience of changing their minds; then we all have the advantage of learning something.

    A theory can be non-partisan, non-ideological – its how you design your presentation, your story.

  2. collapse expand

    We revere John Brown’s rebellion in our history books. However, if you look back at it through the eyes of others of the time, you may also see a terrorist. His cause was noble by today’s standards. However, his means were questionable and possibly even counterproductive.

    I agree that teaching history without ideology is dishonest. Instead, teach the history with a significant degree of thought both of beliefs of the era and beliefs today. One might start with reading first hand accounts of the events at the time.

    This is how we recognize the ugly as well as the truly stellar people in history. For example, the vision of Thomas Jefferson is incredible; the leadership, faith, and honest piety of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.; the horrible choices that faced President Harry Truman when he ordered the use of the first atomic weapons; and how an effective, capable president could blunder so badly with the Watergate burglary; and so on and so forth.

    We need to study history with open eyes to the issues of the age as well as today.

  3. collapse expand

    I am SOOOO impressed with your manner of teaching your kids. It’s refreshing and truly gives me hope for my son! =)

  4. collapse expand

    From a reader who e-mailed me:

    “With two notable exceptions, I agree wholeheartedly with your article. It is as possible to teach objective history as it is to have objective journalism. It can be done with some issues, but it is very hard to have objectivity constantly and consistently and it becomes harder to do the closer one gets to the present. (Whether Augustus Caesar was a good Emperor isn’t that controversial. Whether Ronald Reagan was a good President often is.) The only major issues I have with the article are with your proposal for the curriculum. First, you’re assuming that lower elementary kids actually learn “facts” about history. In fact, most states as far as I know teach things like what a community is, what laws are. These are much more conceptual in nature. ‘Factual’ teaching does not begin for most students within social studies until upper elementary.

    “My second issue is your position in the depth vs. breadth issue. This is because I have seen first had the effects of emphasizing depth over breadth. I have taught 9th and 10th grade for the majority of my career, and in my first few years I taught mainly civics and US History. In my US history classes, the curriculum mandated that we begin with a brief overview of the civil war and reconstruction and proceed until the present. The problem was that my students had no idea what happened during the Civil War. They had heard of Lincoln, they had heard of the Civil war, but had NO clue how it progressed. At first, I thought it was an anomaly. However, after a couple of years of beginning this year I began to get suspicious and began talking to the 8th grade teacher who taught US from colonization through reconstruction. It turns out she was a massive believer in depth over breadth. In fact, she spent 3 months on the slave trade. As a result, these 8th graders never learned about the Civil War.

    “I submit that your approach is inappropriate from a curriculum structure viewpoint. I think it is fine to spend some extra time on certain areas. However, spending a semester on one topic totally leaves out other equally important events. In social studies we only have a finite time to teach stuff and are often hamstrung by the fact that we are the red-headed step child of the four core areas. It is very common for us to be pushed aside to provide more room for reading and math, especially at the elementary level.

    “If you had been in a high school class like the one you suggest, there is a strong possibility that you would have never learned about the Vietnam War. Think about it. The major events taught in a US history course (regular ed) are: Industrialism, Imperialism, Progressive Era, World War I, the 20’s, Great Depression, World War 2, Cold War, Civil Rights, Vietnam War, 70’s, 80’s, 90’s, and the Turn of the Century with various social movements thrown in at appropriate points. (And those last four will get streamlined and stratified as we go forward. Probably into the Nixon and Reagan Eras.) If you pick any two of those, you lose much. My guess is most teachers would pick 2 (one per semester as you propose) from Great Depression, World War 2 and Cold War. Maybe Civil Rights in urban schools. As a result, you will have (more) high schoolers who will get to college who have no idea what the Vietnam War was. My guess is that you chose to take the Vietnam War class BECAUSE you liked the content. Under your plan, they would only have the knowledge to do so if they had seen Platoon.”

Log in for notification options
Comments RSS

Post Your Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment

Log in with your True/Slant account.

Previously logged in with Facebook?

Create an account to join True/Slant now.

Facebook users:
Create T/S account with Facebook

My T/S Activity Feed


    About Me

    I'm a Teach For America alum and spent three years as a high school teacher on the west and south sides of Chicago. I've conducted research on turnaround schools with a team from the University of Virginia, consulted for school districts across the country, and done work with New Leaders for New Schools, the Consortium on Chicago School Research, and DonorsChoose.org. Currently I'm finishing my PhD from UVa's Curry School of Education.

    My work has been published in Education Week, the Phi Delta Kappan, and a number of academic journals, and I'm a co-author of the book Teachers' Guide to School Turnarounds. I also contribute monthly to GOOD, the website "for people who give a damn": www.good.is/community/MichaelSalmonowicz

    Learn more about my writing: http://sites.google.com/site/salmonowiczpubs

    E-mail: michael.salmonowicz@gmail.com

    See my profile »
    Followers: 51
    Contributor Since: September 2009
    Location:Chicago, IL

    What I'm Up To

    My June column for…



    I am a contributor for GOOD, the website “for people who give a damn.” You can read my June column here. Past columns can be found here.