ADVERTISEMENT

How should history be taught in high school?

You are going to lose ~95% of the class if the teacher makes you memorize dates, places, people.
Then those kids won’t pass. Somehow we were able to emphasize those things as the basis for history education until yesterday and people learned their history.

Maybe the whole class needs a Ritalin script?

Classroom instruction isn’t dependent on what the kids would prefer to learn.
 
World history hasn't been just the study of facts since at least the late 80's. That's not how it was taught when I went to high school, and I can only assume there have been varied, if not better perspectives utilized in teaching it today. Without question multiple points of view are covered, including those in real time, but in that we live in the now, there is nothing wrong with understanding how time impacts perspective.




Talk about an over simplification of how the topic would be covered, let alone in 2024. A good teacher would talk about all those reasons for why the Roman Empire fell. The problem would be if they all were covered, would you object to any of them out of hand just because it didn't match what you believed?

I don't know of any teacher who tries to demonize Christianity in an effort to discuss the fall of the Roman Empire. LOL That the spread of Christianity concurrently happen with the slow fall of Rome isn't a coincidence. Would it be considered "woke" to label Romans as brutal in their spread through Europe, regardless of the culture and structure it brought to the continent?
Well, I'm always skeptical of someone who writes 'LOL' into their own posts, but your substantive response confirmed that a hearty bit of skepticism with you is warranted. I think you've missed the point. You inserted the phrase "demonize christianity" where no such characterization was ever made. Gibbons and many others to this day (Ramsey MacMullen being the most notable) note that Christianity was a cause/factor to the fall of the Roman Empire. Nobody said it was the root cause. My point, and I was pretty clear about it, would be that if you were going to teach it, well, you'd want a ton of perspectives as to all the nuts and bolts into why it the Roman Empire failed. The point being, which again I made clear, if a teach is going to interject perspective, he or she ought to unbiasedly share other perspectives as well. Nothing the matter with that. But there's no chance that happens. The syllabus is set up with a preordained determination with topics such as: (1) how do we know what we know about the world and can we trust it? (2) What are the origins of inequality? (3) Is progress good?
 
Last edited:
History should be elective in HS and College. Schools should concentrate on Math, Science, Technology, English and maybe learning a foreign language and introduce elective starting with HS. Why make a kid learn history if not interested if the kid can excel in some other elective that is of interest. I'm sure there is some Federal Govt. BS that has made the US Education system so bad. Oh yeh, Dept. of Education, there is the BS.
the federal government doesn't identify or mandate curriculum ---the states/localities do.
 
You mispelled "God's Country"
eric cartman robot GIF by South Park
 
  • Haha
Reactions: BradStevens
What happened to teaching kids events of our past, the people in those events, the cause of said events and the aftermath of those events?

This shouldn't be hard to figure out.
There are deeper complexities at play. Don’t know ask me what, it’s just what I’ve been told.
 
What happened to teaching kids events of our past, the people in those events, the cause of said events and the aftermath of those events?

This shouldn't be hard to figure out.
That ain’t WOKE BITCH!!!!! listen this is a luxury to complain about. I went to school at a time where we didn’t care about history we were just ducking dirty priests with no zippers
 
The syllabus isn't really a world history of the study of pure facts. If you changed the syllabus to "critically thinking about the impact of world events", it would fit. So in one aspect, it would be an exercise in interpretation, which i would hope would present from multiple viewpoints (but likely not), and if it did, nothing the matter with that I suppose--except it would not be world history, but rather how people today interpret what happened as if it happened today. On the other side, the teacher with no scruples or who has an agenda, can present history as he or she fits by emphasizing one over the other.

For example, why did the Roman Empire fall? There is never one answer there. Imperial overstretch, no money to pay military, overreliance on conquered foes to serve as frontier guards, senate corruption, lack of central leadership in Rome, massive decline in the trading of goods, christianity (if you believe Gibbons and others), no longer any roman generals commanding armies, and host of others too ennumerable to list. There isn't one right answer, but I could see where someone plays the Victor Davis Hansen card or the historians who blame Christianity card--but those are imcomplete and clearly setting forth an agenda--which I have a problem with.

So my concern would be that this isn't history class per se. That being said, I remember my world history class from high school. The topics are similar, but not presented with pre-disposed answer.
I've not had huge issues with general trends to question and interpret historical eras and events. As long as the teachers/leaders are truly open to individual thought and interpretations from their students. And as long as they're not contending or forcing upon their students these modern interpretations as Gospel.

If the teacher that presented that particular syllabus actually encourages different interpretations, and pushes for well thought out arguments, and gives good grades for well framed, well researched, and well supported arguments...rather than specific stances or outcomes...I don't have a huge problem with it. If they ding a kid because they're not bought in to the modern interpretations...or if they belittle them...or if they pressure them to arrive at the modern outcomes...THEN I have a problem with it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NPT and Mark Milton
That ain’t WOKE BITCH!!!!! listen this is a luxury to complain about. I went to school at a time where we didn’t care about history we were just ducking dirty priests with no zippers

I must be asleep then, because history shouldn't be subjective when we have facts and documentation of events to go on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mcmurtry66
Not sure Hoot. It would be a great topic around the campfire in Auburn. What’s the odds of you making the trip?

Thanks SC.

It is invitations like yours which makes me yearn for my go anywhere and do anything years.

When living near Elkhart, Indiana left home for a loaf of bread. Ran into some Recreational Vehicle clients. Found myself flying in one of their airplanes to South Carolina.

Called the wife to tell her where I was. She wasn't concerned about my well being. Instead reminded me about being out of bread.
 
Well, I'm always skeptical of someone who writes 'LOL' into their own posts,
The LOL is just to how prejudicial you seem to be and how ironic that is. You think HS teachers are just plucking books out of their own library to teach from? They would not teach from such books. Books as such might be optional reading toward work of a project or research paper.

but your substantive response confirmed that a hearty bit of skepticism with you is warranted. I think you've missed the point. You inserted the phrase "demonize christianity" where no such characterization was ever made. Gibbons and many others to this day (Ramsey MacMullen being the most notable) note that Christianity was a cause/factor to the fall of the Roman Empire. Nobody said it was the root cause. My point, and I was pretty clear about it, would be that if you were going to teach it, well, you'd want a ton of perspectives as to all the nuts and bolts into why it the Roman Empire failed.
Good and prepared teachers would teach that.

The point being, which again I made clear, if a teach is going to interject perspective, he or she ought to unbiasedly share other perspectives as well.
They likely do, but I'm sure a cherry picked example could be found.

Nothing the matter with that. But there's no chance that happens.
You have zero knowledge of that other than your own cynicism.

The syllabus is set up with a preordained determination with topics such as: (1) how do we know what we know about the world and can we trust it? (2) What are the origins of inequality? (3) Is progress good?
It's barely an outline of what is being taught, but your assumption that asking the question suggests one sidedness likely says more about you than the curriculum.

For the record, it's been shown that progress is not inherently good. If it was, we'd have successful utopian societies scattered across the world because I have no doubt that progress is mostly derived from well intended thoughts. We have constant examples how progress goes from thought to execution. It is not inherently good, and in some cases we know the thoughts were purely evil.
 
Thanks SC.

It is invitations like yours which makes me yearn for my go anywhere and do anything years.

When living near Elkhart, Indiana left home for a loaf of bread. Ran into some Recreational Vehicle clients. Found myself flying in one of their airplanes to South Carolina.

Called the wife to tell her where I was. She wasn't concerned about my well being. Instead reminded me about being out of bread.
Where did you live near Elkhart? That’s where I grew up.
 
Thanks SC.

It is invitations like yours which makes me yearn for my go anywhere and do anything years.

When living near Elkhart, Indiana left home for a loaf of bread. Ran into some Recreational Vehicle clients. Found myself flying in one of their airplanes to South Carolina.

Called the wife to tell her where I was. She wasn't concerned about my well being. Instead reminded me about being out of bread.
I love it. @Joe_Hoopsier has a plane. He can swing by and get you. I was home one summer from IU and went to Canada on a whim. I got back several days later and my mom was a little upset. She asked me kindly to at least tell her if I’m leaving the country while I’m home for the summer.
 
I love it. @Joe_Hoopsier has a plane. He can swing by and get you. I was home one summer from IU and went to Canada on a whim. I got back several days later and my mom was a little upset. She asked me kindly to at least tell her if I’m leaving the country while I’m home for the summer.

I mean, who hasn't driven to Windsor on a whim?
 
At the end of the day man has oppressed man since the dawn of the time of man. We are capable of both unimaginable feats and unthinkable atrocities. It's both nature and nurture. Just present the facts (not just the data alone, but in context of the conventional wisdom of the times for those on all sides) and leave the judgement to the individual consuming it all.
I think any history class should make space for interpretations but not a singular interpretation which tints the lens through which the class is taught.
 
The syllabus isn't really a world history of the study of pure facts. If you changed the syllabus to "critically thinking about the impact of world events", it would fit. So in one aspect, it would be an exercise in interpretation, which i would hope would present from multiple viewpoints (but likely not), and if it did, nothing the matter with that I suppose--except it would not be world history, but rather how people today interpret what happened as if it happened today. On the other side, the teacher with no scruples or who has an agenda, can present history as he or she fits by emphasizing one over the other.

For example, why did the Roman Empire fall? There is never one answer there. Imperial overstretch, no money to pay military, overreliance on conquered foes to serve as frontier guards, senate corruption, lack of central leadership in Rome, massive decline in the trading of goods, christianity (if you believe Gibbons and others), no longer any roman generals commanding armies, and host of others too ennumerable to list. There isn't one right answer, but I could see where someone plays the Victor Davis Hansen card or the historians who blame Christianity card--but those are imcomplete and clearly setting forth an agenda--which I have a problem with.

So my concern would be that this isn't history class per se. That being said, I remember my world history class from high school. The topics are similar, but not presented with pre-disposed answer.
This is long, but I figured I'd post if for anyone interested. It appears Tim Walz made such an impression on some of his former students that a group of alumni are actively volunteering to campaign for him on their own.

 
  • Haha
Reactions: ulrey
It makes no difference what men think of war, said the judge. War endures. As well ask men what they think of stone. War was always here. Before man was, war waited for him. The ultimate trade awaiting its ultimate practitioner. That is the way it was and will be. That way and not some other way.
That little gal never ceases to amaze, especially from that environment.

33571154.jpg
 
The LOL is just to how prejudicial you seem to be and how ironic that is. You think HS teachers are just plucking books out of their own library to teach from? They would not teach from such books. Books as such might be optional reading toward work of a project or research paper.


Good and prepared teachers would teach that.


They likely do, but I'm sure a cherry picked example could be found.


You have zero knowledge of that other than your own cynicism.


It's barely an outline of what is being taught, but your assumption that asking the question suggests one sidedness likely says more about you than the curriculum.

For the record, it's been shown that progress is not inherently good. If it was, we'd have successful utopian societies scattered across the world because I have no doubt that progress is mostly derived from well intended thoughts. We have constant examples how progress goes from thought to execution. It is not inherently good, and in some cases we know the thoughts were purely evil.
“Is progress good?” is a silly, stupid, vague question. Instead of pondering such nonsense students would be better served studying The Magna Carta.
 
“Is progress good?” is a silly, stupid, vague question. Instead of pondering such nonsense students would be better served studying The Magna Carta.
I’m all for pondering philosophical questions. But to do so, within a history context, you need some intellectual capital, something I know the kids don’t have enough of and I doubt the teachers do.

Like Goat said, it looks like a graduate seminar. But it’s for 14 year olds who don’t even know anything about the French Revolution, the Russian one, the history of communism, etc.
 
All I know is I’m glad my kids are both DONE with school before indoctrination set in in my village. We had a phenomenal US history teacher who coincidentally happened to be a woman with a significant amount of melanin in her skin. I’m relatively certain she was fairly liberal in her beliefs but in class she taught the facts of the Civil War and why the south decided to secede and why Lincoln felt it was worth fighting for the preservation of the union without injection woke ideology into the discussion. Did I mention I’m glad my kids are done ??
 
The LOL is just to how prejudicial you seem to be and how ironic that is. You think HS teachers are just plucking books out of their own library to teach from? They would not teach from such books. Books as such might be optional reading toward work of a project or research paper.


Good and prepared teachers would teach that.


They likely do, but I'm sure a cherry picked example could be found.


You have zero knowledge of that other than your own cynicism.


It's barely an outline of what is being taught, but your assumption that asking the question suggests one sidedness likely says more about you than the curriculum.

For the record, it's been shown that progress is not inherently good. If it was, we'd have successful utopian societies scattered across the world because I have no doubt that progress is mostly derived from well intended thoughts. We have constant examples how progress goes from thought to execution. It is not inherently good, and in some cases we know the thoughts were purely evil.
I mean I did have two kids go through high school and met with teachers and reviewed all the syllabuses for 8 years between two kids. I know what kids are told in class. I have friends that are high school teachers.

You've taken a simple concept-- literally one that everyone seemed pretty good with, twisted it into some kind of bastardized weirdo deal and say "bbbbbuuttt buuttttt look at this".

As for progress, well you can make a pretty good argument that AAU basketball coaches are the antithesis of progress.
 
Last edited:
I would hope they had bigger cannons-- the Roman Empire was pretty much dead by 500 AD- at least from centralized Europe, and the Ottoman empire came about 900 years later
The Roman Empire didn't fall until the fall of Constantinople in 1453. The Byzantines weren't a different empire, they were a continuation of the same empire and the people and emperors considered themselves Roman. You may have a west-centric PoV.
 
Last edited:
The Roman Empire didn't fall until the fall of Constantinople in 1453. The Byzantines weren't a different empire, they were a continuation of the same empire and the people and emperors considered themselves Roman. You have a west-centric PoV.
I mentioned centralized Europe as the traditional seat of Roman power. The Byzantium empire (the continuation of the roman empire following the sack of rome), which consisted of Constantinople, was just a regional power for a period of time, getting overrun by the muslims, persians. Justinian was the only emporer who did much--he briefly recaptured Italy, but other than that--a very regional powerhouse.
 
the federal government doesn't identify or mandate curriculum ---the states/localities do.
I get that and I went on a tangent. We pay federal taxes to the govt. to fund the Department of Education. What is it's use? Seems it keeps money from taxpayers that could use it to fund schools locally to make them better.

I'd probably prefer to keep the philosophical viewpoint BS out of a history class if it was required. Doesn't mean the class cant be offered as an elective. I can't imagine many 14 tear olds from when my kids were that age approximately 10 or so years ago that would be interested in all that BS. They would of preferred memorize the dates and events and to check off the requirement. Music, sports and computers, technology sparked their interests.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mark Milton
I mentioned centralized Europe as the traditional seat of Roman power. The Byzantium empire (the continuation of the roman empire following the sack of rome), which consisted of Constantinople, was just a regional power for a period of time, getting overrun by the muslims, persians. Justinian was the only emporer who did much--he briefly recaptured Italy, but other than that--a very regional powerhouse.
Correct, generally the Balkans and Anatolia... and later only small holdings and the city itself. Still the Roman Empire, ruled by a Roman Emperor and peopled by Romans.

The term Byzantine was created much later by a historian only to separate classical Roman from later Roman. There was no such thing as the Byzantine Empire at least according to the people who ruled it, fought it, and lived in it.

Mehmed even claimed the Ottomans were the new Romans. Which is why they took the crescent and star as their symbol. Which was the symbol of the city of Constantinople and became the crescent and star now used by Muslims.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Mark Milton
I mentioned centralized Europe as the traditional seat of Roman power. The Byzantium empire (the continuation of the roman empire following the sack of rome), which consisted of Constantinople, was just a regional power for a period of time, getting overrun by the muslims, persians. Justinian was the only emporer who did much--he briefly recaptured Italy, but other than that--a very regional powerhouse.
What does that have to do with how we should feel guilty for being born with white skin?? 😂😴
 
  • Like
Reactions: ulrey
I need you and @Marvin the Martian @Mark Milton @hoosboot @TommyCracker @UncleMark @TheOriginalHappyGoat @larsIU to tell me this is a great course and that you really hope your kids can or could take one like this.

@El Drado and @Marvin the Martian have responded similarly to what I would have.

I'd only add to beware of "contempt prior to investigation." That syllabus was written by educators for educators. As Goat noted, there's enough in there for a 300 level college seminar (at least). High school freshmen will be getting the names, dates, and places thrown at them, with some "viewpoints" or "interpretations" thrown in for good measure. I doubt they'll be turning the little darlings into Junior Squadders.
 
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
It's sad that you have to ask this question.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stollcpa
@El Drado and @Marvin the Martian have responded similarly to what I would have.

I'd only add to beware of "contempt prior to investigation." That syllabus was written by educators for educators. As Goat noted, there's enough in there for a 300 level college seminar (at least). High school freshmen will be getting the names, dates, and places thrown at them, with some "viewpoints" or "interpretations" thrown in for good measure. I doubt they'll be turning the little darlings into Junior Squadders.
The journey of a thousand miles begins with the first steps. . . (or something like that) LOL
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT