In your opinion, why is the history taught at K-12 level so diluted?

Question

I always hated history in grade school, in middle school and in high school. It was always about some brave white man doing something for the world, the continent or the country. When I got to college I finally read about real history in books such as Howard Zinn "A People's History of the United States" Why is the curriculum in K-12 so focused on the "wrong" history. I think it is institutionalized racism, facism and other words I can't even bring myself to believe about the people in charge of the curriculum.

Answer 1

Some of the previous answers have been excellent. I just want to add that history education in grade/middle/high school is intended to give students the basics through a broad background (names, dates, rich white men, etc.) and that's necessarily quite dry. The point isn't really to teach the "wrong" history as much as it is to give a larger picture.

I'm a PhD student in history and I teach history in university and teaching history at the post-secondary level always involves reteaching students. Students have difficulty understanding that what they've been taught previously is not necessarily "the truth" about what really happened. Part of reteaching them means teaching them how to think critically so they understand that history is based on perspectives and is biased. No historical account is going to be objective and unbiased, despite what others may say, because the historians writing the history are themselves biased (some way more than others). The point is to try to be as objective as possible by acknowledging biases. It takes awhile before students really understand the difference between the past and history: the past is what really happened, history is what historians say happened based on the evidence they have. And new evidence requires historians to revise the story accordingly.

There are arguments between historians all the time and one of the most bitter is whether it's possible to have a national history anymore. Political and military historians argue a national history (one account of what happened in the past, focused almost exclusively on great leaders and battles) is essential for people to develop a sense of their country's history. Social historians argue that a single national history can't exist because it excludes almost everyone. They're far more interested in studying ordinary people than great leaders and battles.

One historian published a book a few years ago arguing that social historians were distorting history by studying anything other than politics and war. That book drew attention to the incredible fragmentation in historical study. Social historians use a variety of methods and theories that allow them to get to know ordinary people and understand what their lives were like. Their efforts to explore class, gender, race, sexuality, etc. has shown us that the historical experience is not homogeneous.

Social history offers insight into the everyday experience that political/military history can't and has opened the door to the fields we currently have, like working-class and labor history, women's history, African American/black history, Latino history, family history, immigrant history, medical history, the history of sexuality, environmental history, cultural history, childhood history, etc. We just wouldn't have details about the lives of workers, women, blacks and Latinos (among many others), the family, immigrants, non-heterosexuals, children, etc. without social historians.

Political/military historians and social historians often disagree about what constitutes "real" history - is it monarchies, presidents, prime ministers and war or is it everybody else? If it's great leaders, then it's possible to have a national history because it will include only the most important points. If it's everybody else (or a combination of great leaders and everybody else) then it's incredibly difficult to construct a single narrative because generalities can't be made so the story gets too crowded.

The history you learn in grade/middle/high school is flawed, definitely, but it gives you basic knowledge to work with - the names, dates, battles, great leaders, etc. You can't weigh in on historical debates and contribute to historical revisions if you don't know those things. Once you know those things you can fill in the rest and revise what you learned previously accordingly. You need to read - a lot - to do this, preferably in a variety of fields, different disciplines, and from different perspectives and theoretical and methodological frameworks.

Answer 2

I was always interested in History. I read a lot of books on my own at home. By the time I was in high school, I knew more about the Second World War than most of my classmates. I had no problem then, and I have no problem now with "brave white men", since they DID fight in many of the wars, and they DID do something for the world, i.e. - they helped liberate those Nazi death camps. I have not read all of Zinn's 'A People's History..' yet, but what I can tell you is - it is diluted since it is not possible to include massive amounts of World History in a given school year.

One only has to travel outside of the United States (to China, or Japan, for example) and once you read some translated versions of THEIR grade school history books, you will see "some brave yellow man doing something for the world, the continent, or the country." One may even say it is "institutionalized racism, fascism and other words", perhaps then you will bring yourself to believe that the United States holds no monopoly on "diluting" their grade school textbooks.

Answer 3

How do you know if Mr. Zinn's book is "real history", and that it is right? Everybody has a slant. I grew up hating this country and embraced everything that criticized the U.S. Then I traveled around a bit and came to see (with all its faults) that this is the most wonderful place to be. A parable..In a horse race, The american horse was the winner and the russian horse came in dead last. The russians said that they came in right behind the winner..(there were only 2 horses in the race). Who is telling the truth? When I left home and attended college (looking back now) I did not understand that there was a subtle indoctrination going on to turn me against every value and moral my parents had taught me. I was told by a teacher that there was no such thing as right or wrong, ie; what is right for you is not necessarily right for me, moral relativism.all shades of grey.. I now know I should have asked him, "Is that true?". If you can come to the conclusion that there is such a thing as right or wrong, truth and lies, you can answer your own question. Read the stories of the U.S. firebombing of Japan (killed more people that the atom bomb) during WW-2 and then read the stories about the millions of people murdered during the purges in Russia. Find out what the 10 planks of the communist manifesto are. One of them is to destroy the country's heros (Thomas Jefferson had sex with his slaves), the other is to infiltrate the schools and brainwash the youth (Hitler did it), every generation goes through the same thing. That is why history is so important, because if you forget it (or twist it around) you are doomed to make the same mistakes again.

Answer 4

I think one of the major problems is that history is not taught chronologically. My cousins studied Ancient Egypt, then Ancient Rome. They completely bypassed the Greeks! No wonder they found it disjointed and irrelevent. Start from the beginning (wherever you choose to start) and continue through until the present day. I also think it would be better to teach the discipline of history, once the kids are old enough to need more from the subject than "just" stories. Finally, more interesting topics could be chosen. Kids ought to be given the freedom to venture off the beaten path into something that takes their fancy. I have often wondered if we would have less racism and anti-Islamism if everyone studied some of their history at school. Iran, for example, has had just about everything that can happen to a state happen to them. When it comes to history, it doesn't really matter what they learn, as long as they learn something and widen their world view. I studied African history at uni, and the history of cities. Not a specific city, but cities as entities. That was a different way of looking at things for me, as was a subject I did on the history of food and music in Latin America. If kids were taught history through the music they, their parents, and grandparents listened to, I'm sure they'd find it more relevent. A lot of music is political! If you have to deal with text books, they should be treated like Wikipedia. A nice place to start, so you have a vague idea what was going on. Then you move onto biographies of the main people, who the historians are and why they are writing, what the place was like, what they ate and wore, and why. If you are talking about the Norse, teach them to tabletweave. Etc.

Answer 5

tell me something new..

unfortunately thats not the dilemma of your society only, it's an international problem.. this has been going on since time immemorial.. the rulers always want history to be written their way, presented in a way that induces acceptance and influenced so much that it overrides the reality for good.

take the example of pakistan for example.. we are actually seeing history being modified right as i write this. we have recently witnessed a new 'curriculum'.. one that has everything to satisfy the west, cool down the feeling of resentment commonly found in pakistanis over the kashmir dispute and present the moto of our president - 'enlightened moderation'!

i would recommend you go for other various books, search the web for more neutral sites and learn more from people across the globe on chat rooms and forums! trust me it really presents a whole new side of the picture... the other day i met a girl from canada on ares chat who actually thought pakistan was full of dunes and had camels for primary transportation means! although not really concerned to ur question this thing, such myths need to be shattered...

i guess the above examples present a better view to you.. students are taught what the government thinks is 'POLITICALLY CORRECT' and not what's 'ACTUALLY CORRECT' and students of our age groups are the targets with the maximum potential.. we are the growing youths and the leaders of tomorrow and the authorities think that by distorting our historical informations they can achieve their aims of a world molded according to their needs and political requirements.

Answer 6

I actually loved history growing up.

First of all you have to understand the level in which history is taught. You also have to remember that its called Social Studies until you get into middle school.

Social speaking, you want to teach your young children they postive points of being American. You want them to have national pride. Therefore you teach them about Washington being a brave man who helped form this country, that Linclon was a great president that tried to help the slaves become free, that Jefferson was a great thinker and wrote the declaration of indepence to form this country, ect ect ect.

When you get to middle school and high school, you teach the children about world studies. You teach them, again about the Roman Empire, Russia, the United Kingdom. You teach them about Asia, Africa and South America. You try to teach them the basic knowedge of these countries, their contributions to today's society. There is soo much world history, that its near impossible to teach them all the facts, good and bad.

I am a mother, and I do try to teach my children as much "real" history as they can understand on their level. They are not just taught about the brave white man. Feburary is a whole month that is just about Black history. They have women's history month as well. ( I forgot what month that is) When Colombus day comes around, they know that he didn't discover America as we know it, he discoverd the carribean. When Thanksgiving comes around, they know not to call ppl Indians and use the term Native Americans.

One last thing you have to remember, its called HISTORY. His story. That means that whom ever wrote the discription of the events, its from their prosepective. Look at 9-11. Its been almost 6 years and we were all there. However, there are ppl that feel that it was the current president that was behind it. Even in this day and age, where there is real time photos and video of the event, we can't agree. What makes you think that any one person's perspective on historical facts would be fully right or fully wrong.

One last thing, you forget that until current history, the whole population wasn't educated at the same standards as they are now. Many "regular" ppl couldn't read or write. That was left up to the middle to upper class. Before that only the very wealthy (royality) and the celergy could write. Your history was writen by them. They of course tried to make those in their "station" look better than they probally really were.

Answer 7

History is highly subject to the writers world view. You sound as though you are in college and the profs there are giving you some of their world view and you feel deceived somehow that you did not get this point of view before.

I would recommend that you read all history with a critical mind. Looking for the authors world view. Expand beyond this one that you just read and seek some balance opinion. The truth is in there somewhere but probably not from any one authors perspective.

Answer 8

When I saw the "K-12" part of your question, I thought right away of the job we have to do for our youngest citizens. Our ability to manipulate abstract concepts (truth, beauty, the American way) develops even later than we used to think, sometimes not till college, so the curriculum has to go where kids are. Kids understand emotional attachments first, so that's why we talk about The First Thanksgiving, the California Missions, etc. And first-graders are still in a very tactile stage, so that's why crayons are fatter, but used often, and why we (used to) glue yarn to paper in the shape of our initials, make paper crafts to illustrate concepts. I give a lot of credit to our teachers -- somehow the wide majority of us grow up learning how to accept what we learn and then stretch beyond it. Learning to question, go out and get new info, compare it, and grow -- that's not their job. It's ours.

Answer 9

Excellent point.
We're being faced with the same type of news cleansing right now. Many of the news stories we hear and read are one sided or slanted toward a particular agenda instead of being non-bias and factual. Its sad really.

Answer 10

I think excessive-condensation is the main culpret. Theres simply too much to learn, in a short period of time. Thats why I support year-round school............giving teachers more time to present material, plus students a better chance to focus. Summer break was necessary when we needed kids to work, to support the family. Thats not only no longer true, its illegal.