ADVERTISEMENT

How should history be taught in high school?

No, you didn't. You made suppositions you couldn't back, and that's why you backed away from this post.

You're not even honest enough to stand by your false claims.


Quick, cherry pick a charter in NYC that mentioned CRT and use it to describe your view of public education in Indiana. LOL
It was multiple states. Public. Your memory is as poor as your comprehension
 
It was multiple states. Public. Your memory is as poor as your comprehension
LOL

Accusations aren't proof. Just like the morons trying to pass Carmel HS off as pushing CRT. Their group has had to rebrand four times, and they have even distanced themselves from Moms 4 Liberty.
 
LOL

Accusations aren't proof. Just like the morons trying to pass Carmel HS off as pushing CRT. Their group has had to rebrand four times, and they have even distanced themselves from Moms 4 Liberty.
It was from the state boards. I already did this clunkhead. I’m not doing it again.
 
LOL

Accusations aren't proof. Just like the morons trying to pass Carmel HS off as pushing CRT. Their group has had to rebrand four times, and they have even distanced themselves from Moms 4 Liberty.
i could do this page after page after page. you are again where arrogance meets ignorance. you poke those who are better educated, have more relevant experience, and then when you are proven wrong still deny same. indiana isn't representative of the country

From the Az Dept of Ed
Critical Race Theory (CRT) is being taught in many public schools. It’s not a myth, and it’s not just a college-level curriculum. It’s an ideology that can wear many different labels.




California has adopted many aspects of CRT at all levels of education. In March 2021, the state Board of Education passed an ethnic studies curriculum based in large part on CRT that applies to all public schools

WASHINGTON (TND) — A Detroit Public Schools superintendent said the district would be “embedding critical race theory” into the curriculum because “students need to understand the truth of history.”


Dr. Nikolai Vitti, the superintendent of Detroit Public Schools Community District, said during a school board meeting last month that the district’s curriculum "is deeply using critical race theory."
 
i could do this page after page after page. you are again where arrogance meets ignorance. you poke those who are better educated, have more relevant experience, and then when you are proven wrong still deny same. indiana isn't representative of the country

From the Az Dept of Ed
Critical Race Theory (CRT) is being taught in many public schools. It’s not a myth, and it’s not just a college-level curriculum. It’s an ideology that can wear many different labels.




California has adopted many aspects of CRT at all levels of education. In March 2021, the state Board of Education passed an ethnic studies curriculum based in large part on CRT that applies to all public schools

WASHINGTON (TND) — A Detroit Public Schools superintendent said the district would be “embedding critical race theory” into the curriculum because “students need to understand the truth of history.”


Dr. Nikolai Vitti, the superintendent of Detroit Public Schools Community District, said during a school board meeting last month that the district’s curriculum "is deeply using critical race theory."
Brad teaches CRT in book club.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: BradStevens
Brad teaches CRT in book club.
No no no Mark!!! Mark that’s enough. We’re moving on to Marv. Marv? Marv!!! Wake up!! Yes you can pass. Again. Lars. Lars?!!! It says he’s joined. Does anyone see Lars on their computer? LARS?!!!!!

Photo-99-no-pants.jpg
 
  • Haha
Reactions: BradStevens
My son is starting his freshman year at the local, progressive public school. His required history course is World History.

I post this to get general discussion about whether this is the right concept of history to be taught to freshman (14-year-olds), and specific discussion about this course, and if it seems geared towards reaching a particular political viewpoint (not Dem v. Rep, but progressive v. anything else).

For me, I think the course description is designed to reach a progressive view of the world (and maybe an illiberal one, at that) and that this is too much historiography and too little actual history for 14-year-olds. Contra the course description, I actually do want my freshman to learn as much about the history of the world as you can pack into 176 days--he and his classmates haven't learned that yet, so they have nothing to "unlearn." I'm already looking for supplementation (if anyone has any they could recommend, that would be great).


Here's the description of the course from the syllabus (all emphasis in the original):

COURSE DESCRIPTION

The focus on this course is not to learn as much as we can about as much of the history of the world as we can fit into 176 school days. Rather, this course offers a narrower focus, on that synthesizes select historical periods, themes, and ideas throughout human history in an attempt to craft an argument. Because that's what history is: an argument about the past. And to engage in an earnest study of World History requires us to ask historical questions -- questions to which there are no "answers," only evidence-based arguments.

In World History A, we will explore a number of essential questions that will guide our units of study, both in what we ask you to consume as budding historians (readings, film, art, music, and other modes of expression) and in how we assess you throughout the year. These questions may include:

1. Why and for whom does history matter?
2. How do we know what we know about the world and can we trust it?
3. What are the origins of inequality?
4. To what extend did religions and empires improve human life?
5. How did religion, trade, and empire unify the Old World System?
6. How should the early American empires be remembered? What story should be told about their historical significance?
7. How important was the European Age of Exploration? How much changed as a result?
8. How "enlightening" was the Enlightenment? To what extent did the Haitian Revolution challenge the global order?
9. Is progress inherently good? What were the global impacts of industrialization, imperialism, and nationalism?
10. How and why did liberal democracy decline in Germany after World War I? How and why did the Holocaust happen? Why did war (World War II) break out in the Pacific?
11. How and why did anti-colonial movements succeed in the post-war era?

In answering these questions--and these are just the ones we've come up with; you'll be creating questions of your own!--we will challenge some of our own preconceived notions about the history of the world --to unlearn some of what we have learned in hopes of broadening our perspective, deepening our fund of knowledge, and enhancing our critical thinking skills.

COURSE OUTLINE

Semester 1

Unit 1: Introduction to World History/Perspectives in World History
Unit 2: Agricultural Revolution
Unit 3: Collective Myths: Empire in the Ancient World
Unit 4: Empires in the Old World
Unit 5: Empire in the Americas

Semester 2

Unit 6: Global System and the Rise of the West
Unit 7: Egalite for all? Enlightenment and Revolution in the Atlantic World
Untie 8: The Paradox of Progress: The Industrial Revolution, Imperialism, and World War I
Unit 9: World War II and the Holocaust
Unit 10: Decolonization Movements

I'll reopen this a bit. The idea that history is an argument about the past is stupid. There may be unknown answers to many pertinent questions, events or decisions, but why not start with the facts? While memorization is agreeably not always the best indicator of understanding, how can you draw conclusions or learnings if you don't even know historical events, periods, etc.?

I'm guessing this teacher is going to rant against concepts like Manifest Destiny, but complicated constructs such as that deserve multi-faceted arguments. There are pros and cons, as is the case with most historical concepts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC
A month + in, and I've had the opportunity through my son's history class to discuss the varying confidence of inferential arguments, the grand narratives that people want to use "history" for in order to advance their own political agendas, and ancient human origins. In this sense, it's been satisfying having these discussions with my son and he hasn't balked at me providing him with a little extra reading on the subject (yet).

Case in point: in his history class, they are teaching that the origins of inequality in human societies stem from agriculture. According to his teacher, inequality did not exist in pre-agricultural societies, those people lived longer than their farming descendents, and the hunter-gatherers did less work, were happier, egalitarian, and peaceful. Conclusion: human nature is to live in non-hierarchical societies where everything is shared and we are peaceful. His teacher actually said he would have preferred living in such a society and that we would have been better off if the Agricultural Revolution never happened.

And while I was surprised, it is apparent that such a narrative is consistent with mainstream anthropology and archeology. Engels and Rousseau have not been completely debunked yet, I guess.



Unfortunately, what they are not teaching is (1) there is counter-evidence to this narrative (despite the articles linked below) and (2) very little confidence should be had in these conclusions given the variables involved, the time elapsed, and the dearth of actual evidence regarding the conclusions.

Difference of opinion is not sanctioned, either. When my son received the open-ended essay prompt

"Did inequality exist prior to the Agricultural Revolution? If your answer is yes, cite your evidence and provide your reasoning. If your answer is no, cite your evidence and provide your reasoning."

he answered "yes" and cited and argued from articles and was told by his teacher he had to rewrite it and that the answer was "no." (His grade did not suffer from rewriting it).

Parent-teacher conferences are going to be fun.

https://aeon.co/essays/not-all-early-human-societies-were-small-scale-egalitarian-bands

 
A month + in, and I've had the opportunity through my son's history class to discuss the varying confidence of inferential arguments, the grand narratives that people want to use "history" for in order to advance their own political agendas, and ancient human origins. In this sense, it's been satisfying having these discussions with my son and he hasn't balked at me providing him with a little extra reading on the subject (yet).

Case in point: in his history class, they are teaching that the origins of inequality in human societies stem from agriculture. According to his teacher, inequality did not exist in pre-agricultural societies, those people lived longer than their farming descendents, and the hunter-gatherers did less work, were happier, egalitarian, and peaceful. Conclusion: human nature is to live in non-hierarchical societies where everything is shared and we are peaceful. His teacher actually said he would have preferred living in such a society and that we would have been better off if the Agricultural Revolution never happened.

And while I was surprised, it is apparent that such a narrative is consistent with mainstream anthropology and archeology. Engels and Rousseau have not been completely debunked yet, I guess.



Unfortunately, what they are not teaching is (1) there is counter-evidence to this narrative (despite the articles linked below) and (2) very little confidence should be had in these conclusions given the variables involved, the time elapsed, and the dearth of actual evidence regarding the conclusions.

Difference of opinion is not sanctioned, either. When my son received the open-ended essay prompt

"Did inequality exist prior to the Agricultural Revolution? If your answer is yes, cite your evidence and provide your reasoning. If your answer is no, cite your evidence and provide your reasoning."

he answered "yes" and cited and argued from articles and was told by his teacher he had to rewrite it and that the answer was "no." (His grade did not suffer from rewriting it).

Parent-teacher conferences are going to be fun.

https://aeon.co/essays/not-all-early-human-societies-were-small-scale-egalitarian-bands

Your son's teacher in his spare time

85184694.jpg
 
A month + in, and I've had the opportunity through my son's history class to discuss the varying confidence of inferential arguments, the grand narratives that people want to use "history" for in order to advance their own political agendas, and ancient human origins. In this sense, it's been satisfying having these discussions with my son and he hasn't balked at me providing him with a little extra reading on the subject (yet).

Case in point: in his history class, they are teaching that the origins of inequality in human societies stem from agriculture. According to his teacher, inequality did not exist in pre-agricultural societies, those people lived longer than their farming descendents, and the hunter-gatherers did less work, were happier, egalitarian, and peaceful. Conclusion: human nature is to live in non-hierarchical societies where everything is shared and we are peaceful. His teacher actually said he would have preferred living in such a society and that we would have been better off if the Agricultural Revolution never happened.

And while I was surprised, it is apparent that such a narrative is consistent with mainstream anthropology and archeology. Engels and Rousseau have not been completely debunked yet, I guess.



Unfortunately, what they are not teaching is (1) there is counter-evidence to this narrative (despite the articles linked below) and (2) very little confidence should be had in these conclusions given the variables involved, the time elapsed, and the dearth of actual evidence regarding the conclusions.

Difference of opinion is not sanctioned, either. When my son received the open-ended essay prompt

"Did inequality exist prior to the Agricultural Revolution? If your answer is yes, cite your evidence and provide your reasoning. If your answer is no, cite your evidence and provide your reasoning."

he answered "yes" and cited and argued from articles and was told by his teacher he had to rewrite it and that the answer was "no." (His grade did not suffer from rewriting it).

Parent-teacher conferences are going to be fun.

https://aeon.co/essays/not-all-early-human-societies-were-small-scale-egalitarian-bands

Drove through Oak Park on Friday. More Harris/ Walz signs than I’ve seen anywhere else in Chicago. You are in a desperate situation and I feel for you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BradStevens
Your son's teacher in his spare time

85184694.jpg
His teacher is in his mid- to late-20's, and clearly very progressive. Classroom is decorated with Latino worker's movement and black power posters from the mid-20th century.

He's passionate about teaching, I think, but is young enough and not educated/experienced enough to understand the limitations of the discipline/ideology that he believes in.

At least he believes in grading, though. The English teacher is a proponent of "ungrading" and so just automatically records a 100.00 for every kid on every assignment and test. I have no way to knowing what, if anything, my kid needs help with or is mastering. But at least it's progressive/feminist/critical/radical/decolonizing:


"Grades reinforce teacher/student hierarchies (and institution/teacher hierarchies) while exacerbating other problematic power relationships. Women, POC, disabled people, neurodiverse people are all ill-served by a destructive culture of grading and assessment."

It's not in schools, though . . .
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT